Talk:Metrojet Flight 9268/Archive 3

Why does this still say cause uncertain?
The US from many sources says it was a bomb, ISIL says they bombed he flight and took responsibility, the Russian government and the Russian company that operated the flight says it was a bomb and now the Egyptian government has arrested 3 individuals for placing the bomb on he plane. If seems everyone except Wikipedia knows it was bombed, what exactly are people waiting for? The are numerous very reliable resources that say this was a bombing. Lipsquid (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's usual to wait to the official investigation report, or at least an initial summary, to be published. Until that's done it is officially still "under investigation", even if the evidence seems overwhelming, and/or many key parties have made public statements. But there is wide variation and this doesn't always happen. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Martinevans123, until the official investigation report published the cause of accident is "under investigation" regardless the leaks and public statements. Bluewavedragon (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Then make it likely bombing under investigation. Too ignore the preponderance of [WP:RS] on the matter makes WP look silly to readers and as Martinevans123 noted Daallo Airlines Flight 159 already says bombing.  It seems possible that some have an agenda due to the interaction with other recent events.  Lipsquid (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The British and Irish think bomb too. The only people in the world disputing it is a bomb are some wikipedia editors as far as I can tell. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a case of "disputing" anything. It's a required legal process that an investigation report is published, sooner or later. Or have they maybe sent you an advance copy? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the official report, or even about the final report (though that can be mentioned later). We need to reflect what the RS say - which in this case means showing what the involved governments and the perpetrators say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
 * I don't see any problem with reporting what RS's say that governments, or companies, or terrorist groups have said. Some or all of these bodies will have vested interests, of course. But legally, in terms of liability and compensation, for example, the final report is all that matters. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Many, many, many reliable sources say it was a bombing, WP should say it was a bombing until WP has many, many reliable sources that say it was not a bombing. We don't need to wait on anything.  We don't pass any judgement or draw conclusions ourselves, we only need to cite what reliable sources say.  Lipsquid (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason why we wait until the official investigators publish their conclusions, or at the very least make an update on their findings, is because they are the only ones that actually have access to all the necessary objects needed to investigate and determine the cause of the accident. These are the actual debris of the aircraft, air traffic control data and recordings, the flight data recorders (=the black boxes), etc... And the only thing those investigators have told us so far is that they could not find any evidence of an act of terror. That is pretty strong statement debunking al those other theories from utterly uninvolved countries. Tvx1 23:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Legacypac. Sorry to revert you, but I wonder could you expand further on your edit summary that "Everyone is saying bomb. even the locals have made arrests." Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you not read? Lipsquid (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can read quite well, thanks. What would you like me to re-read? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do you and the editor that reverted me have multiple RS that offset the multiple RS detailed in the article for your position? Lipsquid makes the point very well just above. And please don't go reverting me just to get more info from me before checking the talk page. This is a 1RR article under Discretionary Sanctions so now I can't put it back to the way it was for a long time based on consensus here.Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that "arrest" claim in the article as well. The article that is used as a source however contradicts itself in three places, stating each time that the parties involved deny that any arrest has taken place. It insists however that they have according to a source "that-shall-not-be-named". That for me is the prime example of an unreliable source. Interestingly however it does reiterate that no evidence of an act of terror has been found. Tvx1 23:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps User:Lipsquid can help explain about "Everyone is saying bomb. even the locals have made arrests." Where are the multiple WP:RS reports for this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Enjoy!       Lipsquid (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, those are just five links to different publications of the exact same Reuters press release which, as I already explained, contradicts itself by quoting multiple involved parties denying any arrest have taken place and which also reiterates that the official investigators have stated that no evidence of an act of terror has been found. Tvx1 23:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * So, only that Reuters source is currently included in the article? And it says "A senior security official at the airline denied that any of its employees had been arrested or were under suspicion, and an Interior Ministry official also said there had been no arrests"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Only a a source "who-shall-not-be-named" actually claims the arrest took place. Tvx1 23:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Russians (operator, victims), Irish (plane registered there, so they have jurisdiction) and UK (brought in by Irish under long standing agreements) are hardly utterly involved. The US is involved in most aircraft disaster cases regardless because of their FAA expertise and intel gathering capability. Egypt is only involved because the plane went down over their territory and last visited their airport. An hour further in flight and Greece or Bulgaria would be investigating. Legacypac (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You used the word "everyone". And you mentioned some arrests? I hardly think "Greece or Bulgaria" are in any way relevant here. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , your claims are utterly incorrect. The article's infobox wasn't stating that it was a bombing at all per consensus for nearly two months until Lipsquid changed it earlier today. It's your version which is against consensus and official sources and this discussion is not showing any consensus forming for it at all. Tvx1 23:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And as explained in the article only Egypt, France, Ireland and Germany have physically taken part in the investigation and thus only their opinions have relevance. Tvx1 23:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You broke 1RR, you know you can get a topic ban for that? Lipsquid (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a topic ban is very unlikely for such an infringement. I guess some editors care more about the integrity of article content than possible sanctions. But none of us can now edit this again for 24 hours, can we? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * First, discuss calmly and don't mock my comments T as you breached 1RR on this article already and could be blocked for edit warring. Second, I mention Greece and Bulgaria as examples of countries the plane could have crashed over instead. Egypt just happened to be the crash site and that gives them a role. Egypt has lots of reasons to avoid calling this a terror attack or bombing, so they are not the most reliable source of information in this case, and in the face of ISIL claiming to have done it, Russia reiterating it was a bomb, the Irish and UK investigators saying they believe bomb and the US also saying they believe bomb statements by an Egyptian official that don't even contradict the other findings should not decide what Wikipedia reports. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone, except Egypt, is saying it was a bombing, of course if it was a bombing Egypt could have some legally liability which makes them about the least reliable source around. The article is full of sources claiming that the incident was a bombing and a terrorist group even claimed responsibility for the act. Not much to talk about anymore today since I won't be breaking 1RR and the damage is done.  Lipsquid (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why was my revert a "drive by edit" exactly? And "countries the plane could have crashed over"? - could we just still to the facts here? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your comments make it very clear that both of you have little idea how aircraft accidents are genuinely treated. The fact that it crashed in Egypt makes their air traffic accident authority the most important party in the investigation. All aircraft accidents will be primarily investigated by the air traffic accident authority the country where it crashed. That authority will then typically invite air traffic accident authorities from other involved parties. In this case those other parties were France (country where the plane was designed), Germany (country were the plane was built), Ireland (country were the plane was registered) and Russia (country of the airline operator). Russia did not actively take part in the official investigation for some reasons, while Germany did despite not being directly involved. Air crash investigators are no politicians with ulterior motives. They are university-trained investigators, all with an area of expertise (e.g. chemical substances, metallurgy, human resources, electronics, aeronautics,...) who have only one goal: find the cause of the accident and recommend actions to be taken to reduce the likelihood of it happening ever again as much as possible. They typically communicate their conclusions directly to the press and don't send their report to their government before that to seek approval. The lead investigator of the Egyptian air traffic accident authority is therefore a very reliable source. Tvx1 00:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your description of how government works is fairly accurate for democracies but shows a lack of understanding of geopolitics and how governments work in effective dictatorships. .  For example this very RS, talking specifically about Egypt and Terrorism just last Sept, says "especially as transparency is not a government priority, state institutions cannot be counted on to provide reliable and timely information, and different ministries occasionally provide contradicting information. It also does not address how Egypt’s expansive state media apparatus, which often uses anonymous sources to disseminate information well before official communications, should be regarded by the foreign press or journalists working for private media inside Egypt. Breaking news in Egypt, especially when dealing with terrorist attacks, is characterized by hazy information and contradicting reports. " Legacypac (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Egypt is not dealing with this investigation all by themselves. There are French, German, Irish and Russian investigators involved as well. And only the Russians have refuted the lead investigator's comment. And they didn't through an actual investigator who has been involved in the investigation, but through some spokesperson. You claim that the Egyptian government have some ulterior motive for having a certain cause not being determined, but the exact same could be said for the Russians. If the lead investigator's, who is not "some anonymous source" but an actual named person,  comments were so unfounded, then why have neither the French, neither the Irish, nor the German refuted him? Tvx1 16:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that in this edit an anon ip editor, registered to AT&T Services in Stone Mountain, Georgia, USA, has reverted the last edit to the Summary on the info box. There seems little point in having discretionary sanctions applied here if anonymous ip's can just come along and revert in an apparently "drive by" edit. So I think page protection should also be applied. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123 the 1RR applies to reverting logged in editors only. IPs can be reverted more, though I'd be careful about edit warring still. Legacypac (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence describes the Summary parameter as "Brief factual summary of the occurrence." What we have at the moment looks more like a list of statements about the occurrence by various involved nations. And I’m not sure it’s usual to provide sources for a summary, directly in the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A summary would usually be the finding of the majority of reliable sources, in this case some editors don't like the majority of reliable sources, so we all try to work out some middle ground. I think it looks silly, but "unknown and under investigation" looks even sillier when everyone who doesn't live under a rock knows most English speaking news sources already call it a bombing. This article is not the norm, as for instance Daallo Airlines Flight 159 already says bombing and you have been an editor on the topic, but have not changed the Summary there to "pending investigation". Lipsquid (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added a qualification to the summary at Daallo Airlines Flight 159, although the circumstances of that occurrence were very different to this one. I still think that what is currently in the info box here is not a "Brief factual summary of the occurrence" and thus does not follow the brief advice given for the parameter in the template instructions. I think there may be a case for trying to reach a compromise here, whereby we have a brief summary of the facts (i.e. not individual nation's statements), followed by the same qualification of "Official investigation ongoing." I'd be interested to hear what Tvx1 has to say on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing it to remove the cited statements, then requesting full protection, is not cool. We have lots of RS quoting all the other involved players saying bomb. "No evidence" found by one team does not mean much when everyone else has evidence. While I hate to say ISIL is credible, they have never claimed responsibility for an attack they did not do, so a "confession" is enough here. See The AP nailed it "The vaguely worded Egyptian statement reflected the deep reluctance among government authorities to point to the possibility of a bomb, and the implication of lax security at the Sharm el-Sheikh airport, where the Metrojet plane took off." Legacypac (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Changing disputed content despite a discussion being ongoing isn't cool either. The new summary was not acceptable under any circumstance. All the sources supporting mentioning the different countries' theories predated the official investigator's statement that no evidence of an act of terror has been found considerably. The different countries' theories are clearly detailed in the body of the article and that's giving them their merited due weight. The US opinion was not accurately represented as they have stated that they believe an explosion took place, either from fuel or a bomb, thus not simply that the plane was bombed. Moreover neither the US' nor the UK's opinions have much relevance since they aren't involved in any capacity in the accident and neither of them have actually investigated the physical evidence of the airplane. US based their theory based on satellite evidence, while the UK based theirs only on some recordings from conversations between ISIL rebels. Additionally the (as well as ISIL) have vetted interests in declaring this a bond due to being in conflict with one another and ISIL. The only statement we have from someone who has actually investigated the aircraft's remains is from the lead investigator, who said no evidence of an act of terror has been found. The updated summary also misrepresented the official investigation as being Egypt only, while the body of the article clearly states that it comprises investigators from five countries. I have taken up the advice of and requested protection so that we can have the discussion run its course before making further edits, if they are even necessary. We are not a news site and there is no rush to publish conclusions an article on such an incident. Lastly, there is no comparison with Daallo Airlines Flight 159 whatsoever. In that case, the plane and all but one of the people on board survived and as a result official investigators have confirmed having found clear evidence as well as their being numerous witness testimonies of a bomb having detonated. In the Metrojet no such evidence has been found. Tvx1 20:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are only on top of this content dispute, for which you willfully ignore the overwealming evidence, because you wilfully breached 1RR yesterday. You need to put this back now to our new version with sources. Legacypac (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with T, We are not a news site. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I would advice both of you to read WP:BOLD. It should have been more than clear now that your version was disputed and would not be going to stick .That would mean it was better to focus your efforts on discussing. As pointed out in my previous post, all your sources predate the statement from the official investigation which therefore disputes and discredits them. Furthermore I have already given a detailed explanation why each of the opinions you have brought forward has problem of credibility. Their theories are mentioned in this article in an appropriate manner, so your claim that "evidence is being ignored" is out of place. Their theories have no place in the infobox summary though. And  of yours seems to be very pointy.Tvx1 21:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

My sources were from the time statements were made. This has been well discussed - and the AP article nicely describes why the Egyptians are being vague. We should not ignore all the RS here to advance the Egyptian agenda. Legacypac (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't you understand the point User:Tvx1 is making about the relative chronology?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand perfectly that his point is perfectly wrong because the other countries never said "opps, we were wrong". However, applying his logic, we should put bombing in because the vague and self serving Egypt statement was quickly contradicted by the Russians after it was released and afaik that has not been refuted. Then we have this from the AP "But two officials involved in the investigations said Egyptian police had run their own tests of wreckage that had come up positive for traces of explosives, and that the results were received even before Ismail made his comments." So Egypt is not even consistent between departments.

Are you interested in getting this right or in winning your point - cause it appears regardless of the sources offered you want to debate and revert. Legacypac (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to unequivocally point out that Martinevans123 is the holder of clue in this dispute, for the reasons he has stated, that all these points have been made multiple times before, and that I have no intention of engaging further in this renewed debate unless or until new information becomes available. --John (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I think T has more clue than me. Martinevans123 (talk)


 * It is nice that you shared your opinion and I am sure some agree and some others disagree. We were actually moving forward with a reasonable solution, but thanks for reverting first and then stopping by to discuss.  The overwhelming majority of sources say it was a bombing regardless of what the Egyptian government says and due to liability concerns they have a vested interest in refusing to call it a bombing so they aren't exactly neutral.  Lipsquid (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Where does this article mention the "Egyptian government's liability concerns"? Do you have a good source for that to be added? What we have at the moment in the Summary field is 100% fact. This will be resolved, one way or another, when an official report is published. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Using that logic you might claim that almost every party involved involved have licitly concerns. The Russians operator maintained and operated it, the Germans apparently built it, the French designed and it was registered with the Irish. All of them can be claimed to have an interest in declaring this a bombing in order to have to avoid to end up paying compensations. I'm sorry, but I really can't see how your reasoning only supports your side of the argument. Your comments once again demonstrate that you have little knowledge about air crash investigations, since these are actually never handled by neutral parties. Tvx1 23:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand and all my edits said "suspected" or "possible" bombing, I tried to find something reasonable and I also pointed to the Daallo Airlines Flight 159 article which is only an event from 9 days ago and the summary says "bombing" even though the investigation is not finished and Martinevans123 was an editor on the article and as of the last time i looked the Summary still said some kind of bombing, so his arguments are a bit disingenuous. Lipsquid (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * T has explained very clearly why these two incidents are very different. I wholly agree with those points. And I'm not sure why it matters that I "was editor on the article". Wikipedia relies on all editors editing collaboratively, on all articles. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already explained well enough why the analogy with Daallo Airlines Flight 159 doesn't hold up. In that case the official investigators have actually confirmed the bombing. We don't have that here. In fact the only information we have got from the official investigation, that is from the actual investigators who actually physically investigated the airplane's remains (and no some unrelated countries who had a look at some satellite data or listened to some taped voices), is that no evidence for a bomb could be found and they have not released any new information since more than two months. Nothing new was released two days ago which would have justified your edit back then. We don't actually need a final complete report, but at the very least an update from the investigators that they have been able to determine the cause. There is no rush to update the infobox summary, we can easily wait until more information is published by the investigators. That's why this is an encyclopedia. The different theories are already well explained in the body of the article and it is inappropriate to list assumptions in that place in the infobox.Tvx1 23:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while we're here.... where is the independent confirmation of the explosive residue claimed to have been found by the Russian government? You think they are wholly "without any agenda"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The cause is undetermined until there is an official report. We may put "Under investigation, (suspected cause) suspected", but that suspected cause needs to be backed up by a very reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Egyptians found explosive residue too There are plenty of RS for bombing, and only one vaguely worded statement by an Egyptian source still under investigation. Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "The Egyptians"? You mean the Egyptian police. That article says: "The results of the tests have not been made public. Police spokesman Abu Bakr Abdel-Karim said he had no information on the test. Asked about the test, el-Dahshan referred the AP to another prosecutor, who did not answer calls for comment. The Civil Aviation Ministry could not be reached for comment, but a member of its investigation said his team had not been informed of any wreckage test results." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not be jumping ahead of the official investigation here. We are not a newspaper and we are not trying to sell a product based on sensationalism. I would go no further than Cause: Under investigation, suspected bombing. - Ahunt (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's already too far given the fact that the official investigation denied evidence of an act of terror could be found. In-flight break up, under investigation is far enough. Tvx1 22:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Pretty clear Tvx1 can't or does not want to read the sources or accept any wording that reflects the conclusions of various involved country investigations (including the Egyption police) or the claim of responsibilty by ISIL. How about marshaling your sources that say 'inflight breakup - undrr investigation' here for review. Multiple sources saying terrorist bombing are provided above. Legacypac (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing against the Egyptian police personally (although they are not, in fact, a country). But how well prepared were they, would you say, to investigate the catastrophic loss of an international airliner? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And what on earth is this edit trying to accomplish? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

A RS is needed to support the status statement - my 3 sources were deleted, at least you can provide a couple to support your wording. Can you provide some RS that the police in Egypt are incapable of testing and confirming the presence of explosives? That would be astonishing if true. Legacypac (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It exploded because some of the cheese the moon is made of slipped into earth's atmosphere diverting a troop of hungry flying monkeys that the Wicked Witch of the West had sent on a hunt for unicorns over the Sinai. Lipsquid (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC).
 * No, the article has to say in flight breakup (with no source) because we can't call a bomb a bomb. Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No infobox content needs to be independently sourced if it is already present in the body of the article. Tvx1 02:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weird that it wan't caused by flying monkeys and was actually a bombing.... or maybe we still need to wait for the "official" Egyptian Accident report (if one ever comes) even though the Egyptian government says it was a bombing? Lipsquid (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If a reference can speak of the cause than it should be added   Dono  talk   21:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Until an official report is published, the summary should continue to state "investigation ongoing". The current summary does not necessarily reflect the definitive official outcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which official report? There are multiple investigations by the Russians, UK/Ireland, US allnconcludingbit was a bomb. Even ISIL said they bombed the plane. We follow the RS here. Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting there will be no official aviation accident report after the loss of 224 lives? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Where did you get that from? You are doing the same thing with RS - not reading them properly. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless you can provide a WP:RS source which says there won't be an official report, I think we can assume there will be one. It's very unlikely to apportion blame to any one particular person or party. But it should establish what was the technical cause of the crash. The way the infobox appears at present makes it appear that this is the final outcome of the official report, which it is not. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Speculating if there will be a report from a govt that does not want to admit they had a terrorist bombing for political reasons? Speculation about what this report will cover? How's that Crystal ball working today? Reportingbwhat the RS say is corrct. Refusing report based on your own OR about a potential report contents is not ok  Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting that Egypt did not ratify the Montreal Convention? Or that they don't comply with the Chicago Convention? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC) p.s. I don't see any consensus here for removing "Under investigation". Only an insistence by two or three editors that "bombing" has to be added at all costs.
 * I actually prefer something like "Bombing, still under investigation". I made an edit that sounds very similar 3 weeks ago, but was reverted.  Lipsquid (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm quite ok with "Bombing, still under investigation" too. I'm well enough informed to know that African and Arab governments often act in ways that differ from the expectations of governments in the West. Legacypac (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I just changed it to "bombing, still under investigation". We will see if it sticks. Lipsquid (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps User:Wykx will explain his edit of 24 February before we all get back into a game of WP:1RR ping-pong. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, the edit was done because new information coming from Egyptian officials was added. Before that, we had conflicting theories about the cause of the crash. Since, we have official Egyptian information. It happens frequently that in the course of an investigation, a press conference in given in order to communicate the first findings of the investigation. The final report will give more details but the bombings is now shared even by State-in-charge as the cause. Wykx  (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. I'm glad to see that you too are also expecting "a final report" into the investigation. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So we are all agreed that the article continues to state "unknown" (per every other aviation disaster article) until a final verdict is reached? It'd be good to put this to bed as I have other things to do. --John (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no. For example Germanwings Flight 9525 has already a cause indicated without final report because official authorities have already communicated on it. It's the same in this case of Metrojet Flight. Wykx  (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But in that example, there is a preliminary cause released in a preliminary report by the investigating authority, in this case the French BEA. So that is right and proper. Have the authorities released a preliminary cause in this case? I think they have not. Do you see the difference? --John (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually they have but at that time Egyptians were not recognizing the terrorist cause. At the time there were "no indication of unlawful event". And there are some now from three different states. If you decline to take into account new information, that's misleading to the readers seeking information delivered by the state in charge of the inquiry. You will object that Egyptian head of state is not part the investigation committee but he receives information from the investigation team.  Wykx  (talk) 20:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No John - we are not agreed that a bombing is not a bombing until a speculated final report that may or may never be issued is released. Russia, US, UK, Ireland, and some officials in Egypt all say bomb plus ISIL says they bombed it and we have the pieces spread over miles of desert as further prove. Next someone will say there is no confirmation the plane blow apart or that anyone died until the official report is issued. Legacypac (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Gosh. Well, maybe we will have to agree to disagree if you truly do not understand how aviation articles are written. But we do look for a final report from an investigation authority, and as Wykx has pointed out, the last report did not mention terrorism. --John (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bombing, still under investigation was by consensus above. Please stop changing infobox.  Lipsquid (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think a clear consensus has been reached. You yourself suggested that the cause was "flying monkeys"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You asked for "under investigation" to be added above, I said I had no problem, legactypac had no problem, Wykx did not comment and I said I would add it and you did not respond negatively. Lipsquid (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there are two separate questions: 1) the fact that it's still "under investigation" and 2) what cause, if any, needs to be given. We seem to have reached agreement on point 1, although other formats might be possible, e.g. "awaiting final report, "preliminary report issued" etc. User:Tvx1, who has previously commented here, has not commented on the latest content. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good summary, Martinevans123. I'm afraid User:Lipsquid seems to have no faint clue what we are talking about and no idea what consensus means. The "flying monkeys" comment destroyed any credibility he may have had. At this point he has lost the argument and is just being disruptive. --John (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel "In-flight break-up, investigation ongoing" (just like it was for months" is still the maximum we can give at the moment. Tvx1 17:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

John that is pretty lame, defending an editor that repeatedly demonstrates a refusal to read or understand comments and sources to the point of disruption. I realize you are a long time Admin but in this this case you are quite wrong. The flying monkey sarcasm illustrates the stupidity of denying the cause was a bomb. Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And who is this "editor that repeatedly demonstrates a refusal to read or understand comments and sources to the point of disruption"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely "ln flight" is better. Tvx1 00:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123 See examples below - proving you are incorrect about the meaning of mid-flight. Legacypac (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion over - it was a terrorist attack
The President of Egypt has finally come clean and admitted it was a terrorist attack. The nonsense that this is still under investigation until the Egyptians issue a report that may or may not ever happen comes to an end here. Any further changes to the cause will be treated as vandalism. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * . I suggest that you read Vandalism. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If not vandalism, disruptive editing at least. This silliness has gone on long enough with editors that can't read or interpret. Legacypac (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A discussion to find a new consensus on an issue where we had a previous consensus is not started with threats, see WP:AGF. - Ahunt (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't need a new consensus since there is new information that confirms the pile of older info. Also, if you look at the history of the article there are far more editors that have changed the page to say bombing or similar then editors that have stuck to the fiction that the cause is not known. Throwing around nonsense about word meanings and very opaque statement of one Egyptian investigator does not establish anything useful. Ahunt has already reverted    4 different editors with the same "under investigation" text, breaching 1RR with the last revert. Looks to me that consensus is against "under investigation". Going back further finds many more editors that are not camped on the talk page also fixing the infobox. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * We are talking here about what goes in the summary box - nothing else. Please keep this in mind.  Under investigation is the most correct description of the current situation.  Otherwise we have people changing it from bombing to terrorism to the latest wild thought on the internet.  There is no hurry here please wait till there is official agreement (or even disagreement) and the summary will change uncontroversially. Anything else looks like wanton POV pushing Andrewgprout (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Andrewgprout that the infobox should continue to indicate "under investigation" until the investigation is complete. The President of Egypt is not an aircraft accident investigator and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, so we don't have to jump on each new statement or guess in the press, there is after all WP:NODEADLINE. So in terms of a new consensus here on this issue we now have one editor for changing it and two opposed. Let's see what other editors think. - Ahunt (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's quite simple. Until a final report is published, the event is "under investigation". Mjroots (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced Edit
Can someone provide a current source that supports this edit? Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Issuance of the Preliminary Report for the Metrojet Russian Airplane accident, March 20, 2016:- "Captain El Mokaddem revealed that, the committee did not receive up till now any information indicating unlawful interference, consequently the committee continues its work regarding the technical investigation." 86.187.175.11 (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That is from December 14, 2015 not March 20. RS report the results of other investigations, and we have Egypt admitting it was a terror attack (with reasons for the delay spelled out)  referral to the AG as a crime   and this "Peter Goelz, a former managing director of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, told USA TODAY that al-Sisi's pronouncement would shift liability away from the Russian airline and toward Egypt's security apparatus. But as the evidence piled up, Egyptian authorities had no choice but to take ownership of disaster, he said." Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The report remains current until superseded by an official update.Why should we give more credence to "Peter Goelz, a former managing director" than to the Official Investigation Committee? 86.187.165.176 (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Legacypac can you explain why you started another thread here when the same discussion on this was already happening in the thread above. It would be much simpler to discuss this all in one place.  Re the unsourced edit - are you telling me that the entry "under investigation" is wrong - because that is simply the case - the investigation is undeniably ongoing and that is in my view the simplest summary for the infobox.   The fact that you can source other potential entries for the summary is not really surprising to this discussion.   Andrewgprout (talk)

03:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

is pretty clear as to why the Egypt report has not been issued yet - some of you are focused on following the Egyptian propaganda position (that the President of Egypt is now backing away from) then just reporting what the RS are all saying. Legacypac (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The retired FAA guy is far more crediable then the current Egyptian investigtors who are beholden to political pressure. The article should discuss the Egyptian's failure to be forthcoming with accurate statements and the reasons for that. Lots of good sources would support a paragraph on this. Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 March 2016
Please change 'Egyptian leader' to 'Egyptian president' for clarity.

62.228.200.32 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 62.228.200.32 (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Different picture needed
The picture of the plane above the infobox is of an older livery that the plane had. There are many HD pictures of the same plane with the newer livery that the plane had when it crashed. I think the picture needs to be changed to one of those pictures. 111.69.108.236 (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Those "HD" images are not likely to be freely licensed. Do you know of one that you can recommend? Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are two large pictures, http://d1udmfvw0p7cd2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/f-metrojet-a-20151104.jpg and http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/shared/npr/201510/453392741.jpg, neither of which appear to have any names faded in the background or along the bottom. I don't know if they are freely licensed. 111.69.108.236 (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Many aviation accident articles use images of the aircraft in a previous livery. This is even perfectly acceptable for WP:In the news entries on the main page. Additionally, as I understand it, the general image use policy is that unless a public domain attribution is explicitly given, it is assumed that the copyright remains with the publisher or creator. You have just provided the raw images here without any context - copyright notices are often given in captions or webpage statements, so I think you'd have to provide links to the pages, on which these images appear, to allow a proper appraisal. Alternatively you might try your luck at loading them at Commons and see how far you get. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * http://wypr.org/post/224-passenger-russian-aircraft-crashes-sinai#stream/0 and http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/11/03/world/u-s-rules-terror-link-metrojet-airbus-crash-egypt-tail-repair-scrutinized/#.Vxfm7zB959M are the websites that the two images appear on. 111.69.108.236 (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The caption for the first image clearly shows "LANDOV", although that agency appears to have now gpne out of business: So not sure of the copyright status. As for the second, there is an attribution to REUTERS, which may cover both caption and image. But the bottom of the web-page clearly shows "THE JAPAN TIMES LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED." So I assume this also covers the image. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Uncontroversial Infobox Edit
(all) must be added after the number of fatalities in the Infobox, as is the style for all Articles involving crashes of aircraft with no survivors. Also, please disable full protection. Ahmer Jamil KhanWho?Chat? 11:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, but good luck as a couple of editors WP:OWN this article and that is why it is always protected. Lipsquid (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Apologies, Ahmer Jamil Khan, but there has been a protracted and rather bitter dispute about content of the infobox summary, which has led to the need for full protection. See the thread headed "Note." above for the latest installment. Hopefully an admin will see your non-controversial request, which to me looks perfectly reasonable, and will action it soon. I'm sorry that you can't edit directly. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You forgot to sign as "Article Owner" Lipsquid (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I own nothing. There is a consensus of editors. There are two editors who disagree with the consensus. Remember? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Two? That is funny.  Thanks for approving someone's change even though you "aren't" the owner...   16:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I "approved" nothing, I gave my opinion. Maybe I should have said "two editors who have been particularly vocal in their disagreement"? At one stage you told us the crash had been caused by "flying monkeys". Remember? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is about as true as the cause still being unknown. Lipsquid (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe this is even an issue. Sometimes I feel like Wiki is Wonderland, where words mean exactly what someone wants them to mean, and reality is turned on its head. This article reminds me of AF447 and its laughable "Impacted Ocean" infobox. Another example of a WP:OWN article with a patently absurd summary. Telcia (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. No comment on the protection status of the article; please contact the protecting admin for further info.  Nakon  03:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit! No offense Martinevans123 and Lipsquid, but a while back I read WP:CIVIL and actually though that it was an elaborate joke. I just realized, while laughing as hard as I could as I read the comments, that it was NOT a joke after all. Can we resolve the dispute with consensus and remove the protection, or maybe just temporarily restrict the warring editors? Again, no intention to offend or fuel the argument. A hmer J amil K han 04:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't edit the infobox regardless of whether it is protected or not. Not here for any edit wars, but I will certainly attack nonsense when I find it in a way that is much less visible to the average user, on the talk page.  I might even make odd comparisons to unicorns, pretty rainbows and the wicked witch of the west. I really don't think this page needs protection, but I also don't really care if it is.  It is a low volume page now and only pops up on people's radar after another terrorist bombing.  Lipsquid (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Note.
Probably not fair that it's protected indefinitely, don't you think? -- Peter  Sam   Fan  16:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Not actually indefinite we are just waiting for users involved in an edit war about the infobox to discuss it here, when it is clear that disruption to the article will not start up again the protection will be removed. Also note we have had only one edit requested since it was protected so not much demand to change the article at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It is an old event and everything is already known including that it was bombed by terrorists, so the last major update will occur if Egypt ever actually issues an investigative finding, until then we have a couple of people denying the majority of reliable sources to insist the Infobox must state "under investigation". That a few dullards can deny the vast majority of reliable sources and get an article locked is why Wikipedia is not a reliable source or an encyclopedia. I still hold out some hope and fight the good fight, but sometimes, like here, it is useless.  Lipsquid (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Locking was silly as it protects the version that a few like against the obvious RS backed changes made by many many editors. At least the infobox should be labeled disputed. Legacypac (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Lipsquid, who are these "few dullards", exactly? If, as you say, "everything is already known" perhaps you could tell us the name(s) of the person(s) responsible and the source of their explosive(s)? And, if a final official report has now been published, from which we can add a final summary in the infobox, please provide a link here. If you think something vital has been missed in the article body you can request to have it added here. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We need a final report, blah, blah, blah total broken record and WP:NOTHERE. Historical review will be based on what the majority of reliable sources believed was the cause of the airplane falling out of the sky.  No one will care about the Egyptian report and they shouldn't care.  The vast, vast majority of reliable sources have already stated it was a terrorist bombing, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis has claimed responsibility and even posted an alleged photo of the bomb.  Besides the preliminary report from Egypt, that has since been discredited by Egypt's own President, can you source a single reliable source that still currently refutes that it was a terrorist bombing and was actually some other kind of accident? If you can't. your position is Original Research and as for dullards who go running for page locks to avoid any discourse on obvious issues with content, you can guess. Lipsquid (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The kind of "dullards" who would say the accident was caused by "flying monkeys", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, those people are funny and keep things light while everyone has to deal with the tragic comedy of the dullards pushing Original Research as reliably sourced information. That Flying Monkeys caused the airplane to fall out of the sky is just as well sourced as your position that it is something other than a bombing.  Got any reliable sources that currently refute it was a bombing and was actually some other kind of accident?  Right... That is what I thought.   Lipsquid (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "rofl". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is how non-dullards treated today's Amtrak derailment even though it has an open NTSB investigation. "Cause	- Under investigation; Obstruction on line".  See how simple that is for most people?  2016_Chester,_Pennsylvania_train_derailment Lipsquid (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally I am thoroughly sick of being called unflattering names by some editors here. I think those who are doing so should really question their motives in contributing and maybe an apology or three are called for. Oh and less of the big conspiracy about Egyptian motives, no one should be expecting a report yet, the authorities have no obligation to say anything yet so chill and wait.  I'm ultimately hoping for a considered sensible report.  If it turns out it is not I am sure sensible refs will cover such controversy. Some here have already made up their minds on this subject in some kind of wildly unsupportable POV. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no controversy - everyone knows it was a bomb according to all the RS. Take 2016 Brussels bombings - there is a BIG investigation ongoing but we don't refuse to put bomb in the info-box or the Title! Legacypac (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks but your reply does not relate to my commentAndrewgprout (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure it does, people keep showing similar situations where the infobox does not wait for a final report like 2016 Brussels bombings, 2016_Chester,_Pennsylvania_train_derailment, Daallo Airlines Flight 159 there is no precedent for the position of those wanting the infobox locked, nor does have any logical reasoning. We quote reliable sources, not post people's original research.  All current reliable sources say it was a bombing.  Lipsquid (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There might be a very good case for being able to lock only parts of an article, if that were technically possible, to prevent edit warring. It's unfortunate that all editors can't simply agree that "Under investigation" should remain in the infobox until the final report is published. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Martinevens you are one of the main edit warring parties here. You list the different editors that have changed the info box to bombing or terrorist attack or similar, compared to the number that have insisted on "under investigation" like the cause is unknown.  Go ahead, list them out - you will be surprised.  Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that all editors can't simply agree that "Under investigation" should remain in the infobox until the final report is published. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Because there is no basis in reliable sources or in Wikipedia articles for your original research that the infobox needs to say "Under Investigation" It is just something you have to deal with on WP, there are lots of people here only to push OR and a biased POV. Lipsquid (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your comment is addressed to Legacypac? Until some kind of compromise can be suggested and agreed, by means of consensus, I can't see much progress being made here. Continually accusing other editors of being "main edit warring parties" or of being "POV pushers" or "dullards" is unlikely to prompt an unlock of the article any time soon. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The end is known, this article will say bombing as the cause. Only a matter of when.  Ignoring reliable sources doesn't make the encyclopedia better.  For the 10th time, you have no sources for your original research and there is no precedent on Wikipedia to wait for a investigation to be completed before updating the infobox and people have given many examples.  You are proud to be WP:NOTHERE so be it..  In the end, bombing will be in the infobox, you can keep your head in the sand forever if you like.  Lipsquid (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your continued accusations and taunts are very tiresome and don't really help your cause. It seems all the other editors who disagree with you and Legacypac here don't feel it worthwhile to even respond. So I guess I'll join them. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * lol, I ask you the same thing over and over, where is your current source that states that ANYONE believes it was something other than a bombing, while we have 100s of reliable sources that say it was a bombing? Not responding in the future is better than talking in circles while you know that what you insist on keeping in the Infobox is WP:OR.  It isn't a taunt, you have no answer because you have no sources.  You make it up as you go and there is no precedent on WP to wait for the conclusion of an investigation before changing the infobox as can be seen on any of these current topic articles: 2016 Brussels bombings, 2016_Chester,_Pennsylvania_train_derailment, Daallo Airlines Flight 159 Lipsquid (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 'A cautionary tale'. Once upon a time a 747 going to Paris blew up mid air - it was just before the Olympics and everyone said it must be a bomb, yes definitely a bomb, had to be a bomb what else could it be - "the terrorists done it".  Ignoring the dubious conspiracy theories it turned out not to be a bomb but the breakup was caused by a spark, a vapour filled fuel tank, engineering and bad luck. Like the Metrojet case no one saw it explode (enough to tell why), no one detected explosive residue in the remains. @Lipsquid  your examples above are all examples that had real human witnesses (survivors) that do not require a forensic investigation to decide on a cause in the same way as what we are presented with with the Metrojet crash.  The things that worry me about your and Legacypac's insistence on your choice of words is the vehemence you see in championing a result that you and the media simply can't know the complete answer to - all touched by an anti Egyptian flavour that I simply just don't understand and can't condone and maybe why people are not taking you as seriously as you may like.  I also have to question any good faith on your part in your characterisation of the "under investigation" entry as original research - the two things are not mutually exclusive, under investigation is undeniably true on all grounds - the question is what is currently appropriate for the summary entry not what you or I can reference.


 * That all being said - I do tend to suspect 9as do much of the media) that this was a bombing and the result of the inquires will result in confirming this in due time. I am, and have never been, particularly anti mentioning bombing in the info box summary. The potential bombing is well considered in the other parts of the article so it is not essential here but would not be absolutely wrong.  My level of comfort on this goes from the current "under investigation" to "Under investigation, suspected bombing" to even "Under investigation, likely bombing".  I do however fall short of being able to support "Under investigation, bombing" or an even worse "Bombing" or similar. Andrewgprout (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Russians found explosive residue. The Israelis and Americans have communication intercepts. The Egyptian President called it a terror attack. ISIL said they did it and showed pictures of the bomb- and ISIL never claims attacks they did not do (they are reliable terrorists). I don't know about your 747 before some Olympics - you did not provide any references. It is way off base to accuse any of us here of being anti Egyptian. We are just pointing to RS that discuss the political situation in Egypt that is complicating release of information. Assuming the Egyptian aviation crash team functions like one in the West shows a naivety about how the world works. Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There were many attempts at placing the infobox as "Under Investigation - Suspected bombing" and "Under Investigation - Suspected terror attack" both were reverted, but i appreciate the positive feedback Andrewgprout, your thinking is reasonable and clear. I would not want the infobox to say "bombing", it is not definitively known yet, but we do have explosive residue, heat signatures on satellite and the claims of the terror group themselves.  I have nothing against Egyptians at all, I have a problem with nonsensical infoboxes.  Lipsquid (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But "Under investigation" isn't nonsense, it's a simple fact. 217.38.164.247 (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is why both of my suggestions start with "Under Investigation"! To be an editor, one needs to be competent in the English language, among other things. WP:COMPETENT Lipsquid (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Could the "747 before some Olympics" be a reference to TWA Flight 800? PhS (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 July 2016
caption -

"Flowers and children toys at the Pulkovo Airport entrance. The sign in the back says "To the victims of A321 plane crash", 7 November 2015"

should read -

"Flowers and children's toys at the Pulkovo Airport entrance. The sign at the back says "To the victims of A321 plane crash", 7th November 2015"

Jim colhern (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The sign doesn't say 7th November 2015 or 7 November 2015, according to the file that was the date the photo was taken. - Ahunt (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The quotation for the caption on the sign ends before the November 7th bit; it's meant to be the date the photo was taken. I question whether the date is necessary at all, though. Why not just shorten the caption to "Flowers and children's toys at the Pulkovo Airport entrance. The sign at the back says "To the victims of A321 plane crash""? ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree the date is not needed and can be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please remove protection
Please remove the protection now. The protection serves no purpose now and is in contrast to Wikipedia's policies and philosophy. A hmer J amil K han 06:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging &mdash;  Music1201  talk  22:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is no response from MilborneOne in a few days, feel free to let me know and I'll take a look with a view to reducing or removing protection. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the protection as the original parties to the edit war didnt bother to discuss it here so I presume good faith on users not to disrupt the article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

france reaction?
Did France have a statement a bout this incident? Thorinapollo (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)