Talk:August 2006 alleged transatlantic aircraft plot/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Title discussions

Title

This may not be the best name - please feel free to rename it as you see fit! Tell me to get back to work! 06:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment this comment was for a very early version (2006 UK plane terror plot), and does not reflect current discussion over naming.
Why not rename it "2006 transatlantic plane terror plot"? — Rickyrab | Talk 08:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not happy with "plane" to be honest... do we have any precedents we could use? Budgiekiller 08:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This has Al Qaeda written all over it. Need I mention the bombs/simultanious mid-air detonations in the Bojinka plot? If this comes out, how's about "2006 Al Qaeda Transatlantic Terror Plot"?--DasGooch 08:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The name of the group is almost never used in article titles. --Golbez 09:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
"2006 Transatlantic terror plot"? Budgiekiller 09:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a newb. Pardon. Though, I am liking "2006 Transatlantic terror plot." --DasGooch 09:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Or should I say "2006 transatlantic terror plot"? Budgiekiller 09:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
But the word "terror" used in this way is so nasty! What ever happened to terrorism or terrorist plots? MyNameIsClare talk 09:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
True enough. "2006 transatlantic terrorist plot"? Budgiekiller 09:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good for me. Tell me to get back to work! 09:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should wait until there is more information, like confirmation of the outbound and destination airports, or airlines, or groups involved. Anything we do now will just have to be changed later, and I'm not sure that this suggestion is any more descriptive or correct. |→ Spaully°τ 09:36, 10 August 2006 (GMT)
Sure. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Budgiekiller 09:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I say "2006 transatlantic flight explosion plot". Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 10:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, seems like someone doesn't like to discuss changes. Page has now been renamed, and badly in my opinion. Budgiekiller 10:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we please reach some sort of consensus before changing the title again? --Zimbabweed 10:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And when we do, can we spell it properly please?! Budgiekiller 10:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "transatlantic" an unnecessary bit of info? It's not as though we have to distiniguish it from any other aircraft bomb plots.  -- Run!  12:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This name is absolutely awful. '2006 UK Aircraft Terror Plot' would be much more appropriate. 'Transatlantic' is simply inaccurate, it is too early to say which flights were targetted for sure. flight cancellations from european airlines show that it may not be just US airlines that were targetted. 84.71.0.89 13:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop fighting over the name. Transatlantic is accurate because they were planning to blow up the planes on the way to the United States. They possibly might have been planning to blow up the planes over america. So the name is accurate. Don't say 2006 Transatlantic Flight Explosion Plot either. That makes it sound like the incident did happen when it didn't. Keep it at the current title.

Mrld 16:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And why is none of it in capitals? --84.71.118.198 18:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why "aircraft" instead of aeroplane/airplane? Were hot balloons and hand gliders involved? --72.135.34.141 19:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, why aren't there capitals? Deltacom1515 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The title needs to be capitalized. --RicKAbbo 02:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Wikipedia article names aren't capitalised. Vashti 06:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The title should definetely have terror or terrorist in the title, at least until it has a more widely accepted name. Beyond descriptive purposes, I could hardly find this page this morning --Jtolman 15:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It looked odd to have "transatlantic" lowercase right after 2006, but I suppose it's right.

Heathrow Terror Plot?

I saw one cable news channel (Fox, maybe?) refer to this as the Heathrow Terror Plot. It has the virtue of being succinct. (Like Clare, I prefer "Terrorism" to just "terror".) --Hyphen5 01:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Name

not "airplane" please. Rich Farmbrough 10:40 10 August 2006 (GMT).

  • Budgiekiller changed it. plane is more sepcific than craft though.. no helicopters involved. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

just wanted to ask if tansatlantic, without R in it is good, when it was moved to it :) --195.56.248.2 10:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • That was my fault! --Irishpunktom\talk 10:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Folks, this is an allegation. The title should reflect as much. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No, the title should reflect the common perception. The article can challenge that.

Rich Farmbrough 10:48 10 August 2006 (GMT).

no, the name should be as neutral as the article! --Irishpunktom\talk 10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The name should be such that people in the future could easily find the article.ComradeWolf 07:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

People, please stop renaming this article continously. We'll figure out the best name later. You are creating a vast amount of double redirects here. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please please stop changing the title every two minutes, I can hardly follow which redirect is redirecting me to the redirect... Budgiekiller 10:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"plane" is fine with or without the apostrophe... Rich Farmbrough 10:51 10 August 2006 (GMT).

The POV title tag is fine for now, at least give it some rest for the coming hours. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The POV-title tag is horrible considering that this is on the Main Page. It's not a POV title, just one that is not consensually agreed yet. violet/riga (t) 10:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC))
POV tag removed is also fine with me, as long as people stop moving the article around. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The title has a pov, as such, the {{POV-title}} is fine. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Only one editor seems to want to have the POV-title tag on (at least, only one seems to be adding it). Several seem to want it off. To me, that's as near to consensus as we can get on a fast-moving story like this. I've taken it off again. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to register my total agreement with Irishpunktom. These are all allegations. Until a jury rules the contrary, there was no plot, only an alleged plot. Even mainstream media understands that. Without mention of the allegation, the title is POV and I favour at least the reintroduction of {{POV-title}}. PizzaMargherita 00:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This name is absolutely awful. '2006 UK Aircraft Terror Plot' would be much more appropriate. 'Transatlantic' is simply inaccurate, it is too early to say which flights were targetted for sure. flight cancellations from european airlines show that it may not be just US airlines that were targetted. 84.71.0.89 13:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Every report so far says transatlantic flights were targeted. European flights are cancelled as much because no-one wants to fly into the UK, which is locked down, as for security reasons. Shimgray | talk | 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Name for this story/event

Everybody, let's think hard for a name for this event. It seems to be in need of this as the current name is so very verbose. Just leave your suggestions in this section...this could be a big deal for Wikipedia/Wikinews as a news source!Thomasmallen 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is quite short for a name of a terrorist attack; see 7 July 2005 London bombings and 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 10 August 2006 Aircraft Bombing Plot alphaChimp laudare 13:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Disagree. That implies that the event was supposed to occur today and that is not necessarily true. However, I do think we need to mention bombing somewhere. The transatlantic aircraft plot could theoretically refer to anything. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "Air" can easily be substituted for "aircraft" I believe. As names for the mode of travel, they are interchangeable i.e. "I'm travelling by air". Thomasmallen 13:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "2006 aircraft attack plot"? Seems simple enough, and it specifies that there was a plot for "attack", unlike the current title. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 13:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Plenty of aircrafts have been attacked in wars throughout the world. Maybe we need to go with something catchier and less uptightly accurate too. 9/11 tells nothing about the nature of the event.
    • "2006 transatlantic aircraft attack plot", cause location should be noted in title. Hello32020 13:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Not clear enough. Aircraft attack could mean anything. How about we just wait a couple of weeks until this becomes a little more clear and then change the title. alphaChimp laudare 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
"2006 transatlantic air sabotage plot"? —Mets501 (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How about "2006 UK–US terrorist attack foiling incident"? Or something the like? We should address the places directly affected as well as that the breaking news is that the event was foiled by the UK authorities. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 13:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna agree with Alphachimp, we don't know enough about this yet to come up with the perfect name...let's just wait awhile and name it when things become clearer. ~ Butros (Talk) 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm with Alphachimp too. We don't invent reality, we document it using reliable sources. Weregerbil 13:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, wait a while. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, wait a while. imi2 13:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • We've already had about four moved pages over renamings for this so far today, so let's wait a long while..! Budgiekiller 14:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Probably the most similar event in history was Oplan Bojinka...so I guess I would say follow the precedent and wait for a common name to be applied. 69.17.67.11 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

article title should include "liquid explosives"

Currently, the title is 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. I think we should include some reference to the liquid explosives. See [1] for all the news stories with this byline. I suggest 2006 liquid explosive aircraft bomb plot. MPS 21:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should hold off on the pagemove; much of this liquid stuff seems speculative at best. Perhaps when it is officially announced, we can move it. I don't think there is a rush to move yet. --HappyCamper 21:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with HappyCamper, we should hold off until we have a better picture Petee 21:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
ok I agree but I wanted to put it out there. MPS 21:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not like there are (likely to be) many 2006 transatlantic aircraft plots. Specifying in the title that liquid explosives were involved feels overly specific. --Kizor 21:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Bored now. I suggest "2006 '8/10' transatlantic alleged liquid bomb aircraft plot disaster averted possibility" or something close. Come on folks, content is SO much more important than the title. Budgiekiller 21:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hold on, I forgot since none of it has been verified, it should be "2006 '8/10' tansatlantic alleged liquid bomb aircraft plot disaster averted possibility (Alleged)" (since typos have suddenly become de rigeur in moving these pages......) - sorry all, tired now! I've seen about five renamings in the past 12 hours, none of them add anything to this discussion. Let's wait and see. Budgiekiller 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Second that, we'll give it a better title (if required) in a few days or so. Let it rest for now. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest we not look to CNN for any official titles for this situation. I love CNN, but earlier today, I saw "EXPLOSIVE COCKTAIL" in large capital letters at the top of their home page. Absolutely not. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a list of suggestions for the title (which, presumably, is going to be changed). Personally, I think the words (and numbers) 2006, airline and plot should all be in the title. However, some other suggestions not including some of these are given too.

These suggestions are based on the assumption that the plot was to blow up airliners over the Atlantic.

    • 2006 transatlantic airline(s) bomb plot. 'Airline' suggests an important feature of the plot - the attack was on American airliners, AFAIK. This also solves the problem of the word 'aircraft' implying objects other then planes, as one user suggested.
    • 2006 transatlantic liquid explosive plot. Another mouthful, but it is to the point (if the use of such devices in the plot are confirmed).
    • Transatlantic airline bomb plot. The 2006 may not be necessary.
    • Transatlantic liquid explosive plot. Ditto.
    • 2006 liquid explosive airline plot. Based on MPS' suggestion; the word 'bomb' is probably unnecessary (as explosive carries the bomb connotation) and 'aircraft' is replaced with 'airline' (reason in first suggestion).

That's all I got for now. Comments appreciated. Thanks. MP (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How about 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot for starters. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll go along with that for an initial suggestion, but would like to see the word 'airline(s)' in there somewhere (assuming, of course, that certain airlines were targeted). MP (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest 2006 London aircraft bomb plot. --Vsion 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I really like that suggestion, but let's just wait a little before we make any drastic changes (and create a triple redirect). alphaChimp laudare 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I like this one also. It doesn't make any assumptions (like where the bombers would have blown the planes up).
One other point - if at some point a move is made to change this to aeroplane, I would point out that the British spelling should probably be used, given where the incident took place. However I'm perfectly happy with aircraft. |→ Spaully°τ 10:13, 11 August 2006 (GMT)

"Plot"?

The word "plot" carries negative connotations. While I am the first to comdemn any attack on our freedoms, it is still not NPOV to put such a label on an article which many people may see as their first Wikipedia article whilst searching for information. I confess that I don't really know what to replace it with, perhaps "2006 attempted translatlantic aircraft attack"? —Daniel (‽) 23:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't think attack carries negative connotations? Regardless, I believe plot was used instead of attack since it looks like this won't be happening. Perhaps plan would be more neutral, but perhaps also more awkward. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
How about scheme? :) Really, plot seems fine. --Elliskev 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, "scheme" seems a little ridiculous (sort of like a detective story or something). I don't really see how we can or should use anything other than "plot". Actually, as mentioned above, I think we should wait a few weeks, and then change the title if need be. alphaChimp laudare 01:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I used "scheme" to point out that plot is really the best option - that others can sound kind of weird. --Elliskev 15:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Transatlantic Bomb Caper? has a nice retro feel to it, old school reporting style Jmackaerospace 22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Article name

I think aeroplane/airplane or commercial airliners is more suited than aircraft, as there is no need to take the broad scope. By all accounts the plot was limited to commercial flights. --72.135.34.141 02:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Aeroplane - these are English flights. -MBlume 06:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Airline seems simplest given the spelling differences. Tell me to get back to work! 02:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

New title

I can't find any discussion regarding the insertion of the word "terrorist" into the title. Should we move it back for now? --HappyCamper 15:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Radical suggestion

How about August 10 2006 airline security alert? That, after all, is all that's happened - a security alert. Anything to do with plots, terrorists, bombs, explosives, etc etc, is still just an 'allegation'. Tevildo 10:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it. :) Strawberry Island 18:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Me too. :-) -G3,03:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Support --0g 16:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll

I feel it should be best to hold a poll for the title. Add titles you would want to appear. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please make sensible suggestions. MP (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep status quo (2006 transatlantic aircraft plot)

Add more below

  • 2006 transatlantic liquid bomb plot. MP (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 2006 transatlantic terrorist alert. See below. Tevildo 20:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 2006 August airline security alert. See below. Tevildo 22:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 2006 Plot to create massive delays. Thomasmallen 16:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 2006 Airline Wet Bomb Plot and we name the conspirators the Wet Bombers Thomasmallen 16:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The foiling of a mission allegedly planned by Britons of Pakistani descent that had the sole goal of destroying airplanes bound for the US from the UK with liquid-based or liquid-combined explosives Thomasmallen 20:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Style and use of language discussions

Editorial style

It might be worth trimming down the editorializing style, in favor of a long term encyclopedic style. Some information should probably be footnoted, left in original sources, or summarised. I'm thinking of things like ages and locations of suspects, and some of the wording styles especially. Its more detail than an encyclopedia article should probably contain, and more detail than other comparable articles seem to have. Overall a good article and well sourced though. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I generally agree with you, I suggest we do a thorough edit of the article like that in a few days. Probably much information will be re-added quickly now if removed. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The things that can be condensed at that time in my opinion are
  • The list of suspect names (although I added them myself :) )
  • The international reactions
  • All the cancelled flights / reactions of airlines
Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I also vote for ditching all the international flags. I mean, the country names are enough, this is an encyclopdia article not something to be doodled over with distracting, unnecessary images! Jenny Wong 11:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Style edits summary:

  1. "Terrorist" in intro is unnecessary and a word best avoided. We don't need to have an opinion on that, see WP:WTA.
  2. The long list of names and dates of birth is excessive. Grouped together in a more helpful style (by location) -- the dates of birth are in the cited source if needed.
  3. Minor style tweaks (believes --> believed, etc)
  4. Group all security responses together (hand baggage restriction details and other country reactions are all about the security response)
  5. Slight tweak to "other responses" to make that section flow better.

No significant content changes - style and "flow" edits only. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words?

The first line is currently 'The 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot is an alleged plan devised by apparently British terrorists that London's Metropolitan Police claims to have foiled.'. I know that we can't prove anythinbg, but that's alleged/apparently/claims in one sentence. -- 193.235.128.1 11:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Credit to all the authors for varying their word choice and not using the same word over and over again. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 11:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it's a bit over the top. Could we take out "apparently" as that section is covered by the earlier "allegedly"? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to claim to foil an apparent/alleged plan. Since you don't want to lead the reader on for too long before letting them know that this isn't all set in stone, I suggest reversing the word order a bit, something like this:
On August 10, 2006, London's Metropolitan Police claimed to have foiled a transatlantic aircraft plot (rename accordingly here), apparently devised by British terrorists.
 freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

--Kaaveh 11:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's hope that they got everybody. I'm a little concerned if they raised the threat level this high. alphaChimp laudare 12:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldent agree more, however i fear that Islamic terrorism is not over yet, espeshally with the current immigration levels. --Jedi18 16:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Please keep posts to discussion of the article content/formatting, not a discussion of the issues involved.

Grammar

Should our words be in American English or British English?User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Sign

Wikipedia allows both, as long as it is consistant within an article. In generic articles, it is usual to follow the spelling of the original poster. This article, as a British event, should use UK spelling. Bluap 15:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks alot. I just got confused because the flights were going to the US.

I recommend British English be used --Ted-m 15:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

British english must be used because most of the early contributions were from UK and this event took place in UK. accordint to wikipedia policy british english must be used in this case.--Greg.loutsenko 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that in this case British spelling should be used, I'm going to disagree with your use of the word "must"—that sort of language makes for a hostile editing environment. —Ryan McDaniel 17:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that we are all in agreement then... --Jedi18 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fizzy

What on Earth are "fizzy drink cans?" - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Metal (usually aluminium) nearly-cylindrical containers which contain around 330 ml of carbonated drink. —Daniel (‽) 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
We call them "soda cans" in America —Mets501 (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Some Americans also choose to call them pop or Coke cans. That being said, I think that the most neutral term would just be "soda cans" alphaChimp laudare 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
i dont, if american want to speak american they can do this on american articles, this is stricktly british article and as such fizzy drinks cans should be used, although the most nuetral would be carbonated drink cans.--Greg.loutsenko 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I linked fizzy drink. It redirects. --Elliskev 17:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

OMG. This is NOT strictly a "British" article. Anyone on EITHER side of the pond can throw an edit in here and there to expedite things and make it as current as it can be. As long as we can cite verifiable references for our submissions, use proper grammar and English (unless we're doing this article in Svensk or some other language), then we'll be good to go. 68.127.232.228 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, they were US bound flight on US carriers... seems like we're both involved.--DasGooch 22:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


I could be wrong but I thought the convention was to follow the spellings and customs of the host nation of an event and this was partly to try and balance out the inherent american bias that Wikipedia had (Bias as in users not in a political sense)?

--Charlesknight 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But, can we do without the berating of US editors who probably don't know all the intricacies of British spelling/grammar? --Elliskev 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Bush is co-opting the success of British Intelligence, so it's to be expected that the spelling here will go along with that. ;) Kafziel 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, Great Britain is no longer the "host nation" of this event. Granted, the initial discovery of the plot occurred in Britain, however the ramifications of the plan are more far-reaching than just being limited to flights originating there. DHS on this side of the pond has had to elevate security levels to their highest as of late, and governors in a few states have sent National Guard elements into the airports to aid in security measures. So I would venture to state that this has become a bi-lateral issue, albeit one that could reach even farther in time. (BTW, yes, I know what "fizzy drink cans" are, being rather well-travelled through my time in the military.) Edit Centric 18:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The terrorists were discovered by UK intel, were tracked by UK authorities, captured on UK soil by UK law enforcement, while attempting to hijack UK planes. Other governments raising threat levels in response to the situation doesn't make the situation itself international or bilateral. Kafziel 19:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you might be right. The origin is definitely UK. However, the situation has definitely become an international one as governments around the world respond to the threat. I do believe that we've hashed that out here, suffice it to say that this plot has ramifications for ALL governments and peoples involved in the war on terrorism. 68.127.232.228 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Slight correction to your statement, they weren't all UK planes. United Airlines, American Airlines, and Continental Airlines are U.S. companies/planes. --Holderca1 20:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How about "softdrink cans"? Softdrink seems a recognizable term in international English and takes care of the fact that not every non-alcoholic beverage in such a can is carbonated. (Softdrink may also be 'less regional' in the U.S. than soda, pop, sodapop, and Coke.) The other terms, including "fizzy drink", all seem very regional, or ambiguous ("soda" can mean more than just carbonated drinks; "pop" could mean all kinds of things), or inaccurate (many would take "Coke" for non–Coca-Cola drinks as just plain off). (Triviality: most such cans in the U.S. have 355, rather than 330, mL.) — President Lethe 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this American Vs British spat has a positive influence on the artical, my solution is that the Americans just accept that since they use our language they may as well use our spelling. --Jedi18 10:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To alphaChimp who said "I think that the most neutral term would just be soda cans", how on earth do you figure that?! In case you don't realise what you're saying, that's like me saying: "I think that the most neutral term would just be fizzy drink cans"!!! :-)
And to President Lethe, when did "soft drink" become one word? It's quite definitely two words, or at most, it has a hyphen in the middle. :-) See here: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=75511&dict=CALD
Ojcookies 00:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Britain certainly is the host nation of this event - just because America has raised its security level, Edit Centric informs us, to its highest, in no way makes any difference. Britain, in the days surrounding the announcement of the plot, was also on its highest threat level. And you can't say they were flights with US planes. No information about which flights where to be targetted have been released (to my knowledge): only that they were transatlantic. You can't say that because an event has international consequences therefore it should be written in American English. Besides, 9/11 had international consequences, but it doesn't mean I think it should be written in British English, Britain quite clearly was not the host nation. Fact of the matter is, it was a plot to compromise the security of British airports within Britain, it was tracked and disrupted by the British Metropolitan Police and British Intelligence, and those arrested in connection with will be tried in British courts, in all likelihood. --Mister Macbeth 12:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Britain is the 'host nation' - what an atrocious way to describe the situation, as though it was some kind of sporting event!

Next, this is an article where both British and American English spellings and terms are permissible. Do Americans use the term 'soft drink' ? If so, then I say we go along with that suggestion of President Lethe's.

Finally, in response to Kafziel's comments about the whole thing being UK-centric, that's false, at least according to various UK news reports which say that Pakistan gave crucial info. to Britain regarding the plot which subsequently led to British arrests. MP (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Purse, but not handbags" - translation

The above statement will probably cause some confusion, since I think what Americans call a purse is what we Brits call a handbag. What do Americans call the thing which Brits call a purse? — Johan the Ghost seance 17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wallet? --Elliskev 17:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Just so we are clear - in britain - a Purse is a female version of a wallet (or billfold) in which a woman would keep her money and creditcards - she would keep this purse in a handbag.

--Charlesknight 17:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Most women I know (I'm in the US) would call that a wallet, same as men. Any smallish thing for putting money or credit cards in can be a wallet; something still smaller, for coins only, would be a change purse. What Brits call a handbag is a purse or pocketbook (although "handbag" is also understood) in the US. Kafziel 18:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So (edit this to correct)...

UK name US name what it is
wallet billfold or wallet men's money/card carrier
handbag purse or pocketbook large ladies' personal bag
purse wallet/change purse ladies' billfold equivalent / small coin carrier

I agree that the article should be UK English (of course... ;-) but I think it would be worth putting in translations for awkward terms in some consistent manner. — Johan the Ghost seance 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of US reports are saying that "pocket-sized purses are permitted", which to me is an accurate description. (To add to the confusion, my small rucksack has been referred to as a "purse" in the US). Bluap 18:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, this American can understand the text just fine as it is. I don't think it's a big deal. --Elliskev 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Comment I never knew a British purse was an American wallet! That statement threw me off, too!----Edtalk c E 18:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I would have thought that when an American woman saw "purses allowed", she would take that as permission to take a handbag on board, with ensuing chaos... hence my concern.— Johan the Ghost seance 18:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe someone added the pocket size qualifier before I saw it. I think that does a lot to clarify... --Elliskev 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, that is clearer! — Johan the Ghost seance 18:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The following could be useful when editing American and non-American English:
WLD 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Prevented vs. Disrupted

The official announcement said that the plan had been disrupted http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778575.stm not prevented, as the opening line says. There is a distinct difference. I would change it myself except for two reasons: 1) I'm not logged in and can't remember my password just now 2) It seems like just the kind of change to piss someone off.

Disrupted sounds like it hasent been stoped only interfeared with. Prevented sounds more accuart, whatever the offical line. --Jedi18 16:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts? 216.16.224.26 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say to keep it as disrupted for now only because we don't know for sure if the events in London were only a part of a larger scheme. --Holderca1 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I say disrupted. That's what most of the news is saying (CNN just said it in the background as well). —Mets501 (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

John Reid.

"As a prefix — abbreviated "Dr." — its primary designation is a person who has obtained a doctorate (that is, a doctoral degree), which, with the exception of higher and academic doctorates, is the highest rank of academic degree awardable. Doctoral degrees may be "research doctorates," awarded on the basis of competency in research, or "taught doctorates" (also called "professional doctorates," because they are invariably awarded in professional subjects), awarded on the basis of coursework and adjunct requirements (if any) successfully completed by the conferee." [2]

Dr. is John Reids title, just like we say "President Bush" or "Prime Minister Tony Blair". It is part of John Reids name. Please, leave it in the article. dposse 03:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

John Reid does have a PhD. The "Dr" is correct (though without the full stop in English usage). Bluap 04:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm gonna add "Dr. John Reid" back into the article. (looks like somone already did it, heh.) dposse 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia policy is to omit academic titles, so in this case it would be simply "John Reid". It is not appropriate to refer to him as "Dr. John Reid" here. Vashti 06:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's stupid. dposse 15:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Wel doubtless he's a privy councillor to so the full title would be "the Right Honorable Dr John Reid MP" at the very least but the idea is that we know he's the home secretary, not his various other accomplishments. Rich Farmbrough 19:38 11 August 2006 (GMT).

Titles for Prime Minister Blair and President Bush

First of all, I want to congratulate everyone, this is an incredible response from the wikipedia community. I've tried to make sure Prime Minister Blair and President Bush are referred to by title throughout the article, as that's standard practice in both nations, same as referring to members of the armed forces by rank, or referring to individuals with Ph.Ds as Doctor. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia policy is here, so I hope someone will cleanup behind me a bit, but in the meantime I thought this ought to be fixed. -MBlume 05:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's standard practice in some American and British news organizations to use "Mr." more often than "Prime Minister" and "President" in front of these men's names. (The New York Times, for example, always puts a title before someone's surname, and usually starts with "President Bush" at the first mention in the article and then continues with "Mr. Bush" in the rest.) But it seems to be Wikipedia practice (as well as the practice of most English-language general encyclopedias) to mention their offices early in the article and then use just their surnames, without titles, in most of the rest of the article. — President Lethe 06:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, a fan of President Bush, and I don't honestly know that much about Prime Minister Blair, but I do feel that respect for the office is important, and should be encouraged. I guess the trouble here is that this article has very much been written in bits and pieces (very fast bits and pieces!) and so every mention is almost a first mention. Think I ought to change the rest of the article to Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair? -MBlume 06:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, please note that while your respect for the offices concerned is laudable, Wikipedia policy is to omit academic and professional titles ("President" and "Prime Minister" are professional titles; compare the use of language at Tony Blair and George W. Bush). Vashti 07:02, 11 August 2006(UTC)
Fair enough -MBlume 07:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, Tony Blair is never referred to as "Prime Minister Blair" in UK press - I've only ever heard him referred to like that in the USA press. (The same is true for UK usage about other politicians - we tend to say "Jacques Chirac", rather than "President Chirac" etc, possibly with the first use mentioning his title.) I would suggest saying "UK Prime Minister Tony Blair" at the first mention, and "Tony Blair" at any later mentions (ie use "UK Prime Minister" as an adjective, rather than a title). Bluap 14:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation - U.S. and UK

I appreciate that the style guide gives this contradictory instruction, but I feel that consistency would give the article a more professional appearance. As U.S. (rather than US) seems to be de rigeur, I would suggest that we change UK to U.K. - for this article, at least. Tevildo 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, actually, "de rigeur" is correctly spelled as de rigueur (excuse my Cajun). BigKahuna 15:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. :) As we don't appear to have a consensus yet, would there be any major problems with "British" and "American" for adjectival uses, and "UK" and "USA" (no punctuation in either) when the countries are referred to? Tevildo 17:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It should be UK and US or U.K. and U.S. 4.250.168.9 14:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
American usage is U.S. and British usage is UK so on an international article it's best to use United States and United Kingdom. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are far too many usages to spell them out in full each time. I agree that it is best to be consistant, since there are many paragraphs with "UK" and "U.S" in close proximity. As consensus is to use British styling for this article, I would suggest "UK" and "US". In fact, I have twice gone through the article making this correction, but each time some well-meaning person has changed it back. Don't forget that we should not alter the abbreviations in reference titles. Bluap 14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
On this point, Wikipedia is specific (in two locations of the Manual of Style):
— ERcheck (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
But the Manual of Style also says "Wikipedia has established a manual of style to make reading easy by following a consistent format, but the prescriptions of Wikipedia's manual of style are not binding. Wikipedia does not require all editors to stick with only one single style or formatting. It is not essential that there be consistency across everywhere in Wikipedia, but consistency should be maintained internally within an article, unless there are good reasons to vary."
also "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country" and "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another."
I think that it's fair to say the Manual of Style is amiguous on this point, so we should go for whatever looks best for this page. Bluap 15:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor point of clarification: while it's popular in the U.K. to omit periods from both (US and UK), practice in many American style guides is to use U.S. and UK—the logic being that US could look like an all-capital form of the pronoun us (e.g., "GIVE US SOME WATER"), which is quite a common word, while UK is unlikely to be mistaken as anything other than a variant of U.K. So, consistency can be a matter not just of using periods everywhere or using periods nowhere, but also of using periods only when there's ambiguity. (My own personal style is periods for both.) Anyway, I'm not taking a stance on usage in this article, but am just pointing out something that hasn't been mentioned here. — President Lethe 19:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Was or is

The plot is. Not the plot was. Disrupted yes. Past tense, no. All these security measures are to continue disrupting a plot that is still ongoing to some unknown degree. 4.250.168.9 14:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The plot is over. The arrests have been made. This story is now a full twenty four hours old. dposse 00:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation and reference discussions

Cite for gridlock

here's the Today programme which reported it. Rich Farmbrough 11:13 10 August 2006 (GMT).

I can't get that link to work. Have you got a text source? WLD 11:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry , no I heard it on the radio. If not sourced try the listen again from Radio 4. Rich Farmbrough 19:42 11 August 2006 (GMT).

Anyone have a better net connection than me?... CNN.com

CNN.com is getting too much traffic right now for my computer to handle it, but I'm watching CNN right now and have some additional info (I need someone to be able to cite it):

  • 6-10 planes targeted
  • Involved individuals were planning to use at least one plane to reach California
  • Plotters were UK citizens with Pakistani heritage

If anyone can find this information confirmed on CNN.com, I think it would be valuable to the article (particularly the first bullet). Srose (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Last updated 1416 UTC, CNN.com doesn't have any of that information. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, ALL of that info is listed in the subsequent CNN articles, T.Y. 68.127.232.228 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, just managed to get on... I wonder why the information isn't available yet. I'll look at other sources; CNN.com does have a way of keeping some of their information on-air only... or just in video form. I did find some information about the economic impact of the threat, though. Srose (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
all i cant find is http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/10/us.security/index.html which states "One government official said the terrorists had hoped to target flights to major airports in New York, Washington and California, all major summer tourist destinations." it is not clear if "government official" is uk or usa...
as of yet there is no information about who the arrested are apart from the us homeland secretary saying that this might be linked to al qaeda. british said nothing on this as of yet but since the americans are kept up to date on these matters i have to prosume that this is what the uk official think as well. however there is no publicly available info on the identity of the individuals involved so all we can do is speculate.--Greg.loutsenko 14:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reid press conference

Removing the citation flag on John Reid's statement as it is a quote from a live press conference covered by several major television channels, including BBC News. Tsaetre 11:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Do we have any of the currently used news stories quoting it? Shimgray | talk | 11:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I've come across Norwegian press quoting the statement [3], will continue for any English speaking reference. Tsaetre 11:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
yes, especially since i am flying to usa from gatwick on sunday. i hope everything will be back to some kind of normal.--Greg.loutsenko 13:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan connection

Oops, my added sentence about the connection to Pakistan, and UK citizens of Pakistani origin, seems to have a reference that didn't work quite right. The URL of the story is here [[4]]. Could someone help clean that up, or, even better, explain what I did wrong. (I'll admit I just copied and pasted a prior reference link and changed what I thought was different). LeoO3 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That link is entirely speculative, and should only be sourced as such. At least one, and the sole one I know of, of those arrested in the raids has no connection to Pakistan. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hence the qualifiers in the ABC article and in the text I added. In any event, my question was about the technical issue of proper syntax to make the reference link work properly.LeoO3 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think I've fixed it. LeoO3 15:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

External links and references

We have a references section with ~40 links to news articles about this incident. Then we have the external links section, which says "Press Coverage" and then just has a few links. Do we really need those few links in "external links"? —Mets501 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend they be removed/moved, but some of them may have been generic references for some of the original article content (i.e. references not linked to particular individual sentences). zoney ♣ talk 15:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The issue was mostly with the fact that people were constantly reporting, but not constantly checking whether their sources were doubled up (like AP reports) with other users. I'd support, sometime in the near future, culling out the identical reports from various news sources. alphaChimp laudare 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

References

I know the references system is not very easy to work with, but I would like to ask everybody to really watch out in moving text with references or deleting references. Sometimes a reference is dependent on an earlier one and it gets damaged after moving text. I've been doing some repairs here and there but please watch out. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations: Proper Source?

Many of the citations here are links to articles orginally written by the Associated Press (AP). However, the articles are cited as the websites where the articles were found (i.e, Detroit Free Press, Yahoo Finance). These articles are clearly identified as Associated Press reports. Please be sure to give proper credit in citations. Also, is there a reason why the title has no capitalization?70.210.96.216 23:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)JB

Citation/Neutrality issue for 'Political Reaction' detail

The RNC sent out a fundraising email, and I thought this detail was pertinent to the section (if anyone has a quibble about it because of neutrality or anything, get rid of it). I want to cite it, but the best thing I could find was an image (and ONLY an image, nothing else) of it on the DCCC's website (http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/rnc_email.html). Is that appropriate? Everything else I could find was liberal blog entries about it. I'm gonna go ahead and cite it using that, but if anyone thinks it's not appropriate, they should get rid of that detail entirely.74.225.65.86 07:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have removed this as it doesn't seem entirely pertinent to the story - the rest of the section was along the lines of "terror alerts were raised and Bush talked about Islamic fascists" ... I'm not sure that "and some people did some fundraising" is of the same level of import or relevance. Sorry. :) Vashti 07:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

According to so-and-so

A number of sentences say "according to ABC news", "BBC reported", "deputy commissioner John Doe has said", etc. Should some of those be removed, at least from widely reported statements? The language would be crisper and easier to read. Some statements are tied to specific sources and need to keep mentioning the source. Weregerbil 15:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation for mixing components of explosive on flight?

The article currently states:

To avoid discovery by explosive detection baggage screening devices, the plotters planned to bring several liquid components on to the planes concealed in soft-drink containers, then combine the components in-flight to make the explosive.

I don't see any reference to this being the plan in any of the articles linked from the section on the explosives. The idea that this was the plan seems popular in various blogs, but I haven't seen it reported anywhere reputable. As I've seen pointed out, doing so would be rather tricky, as manufacturing either of the two suggested explosives is a rather long and involved process. Do we have a reference for it, or should we remove it? JulesH 13:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Security reaction discussions

Terror level?

It said the level was raised from "'severe' to 'critical'", but there are two severes on Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre. So which one is it? WP 09:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Home Office site only has one "severe" MyNameIsClare talk 09:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The threat levels were changed recently. They used to be a 7 point scale (with two severes), there is now only one severe. That could be where the confusion arose; I'm going to update the Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre page with the information from http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/Page479.html The One00 14:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


From what I gather, UK went to the highest. In the US, specific flights are now bumped up to their own "Red" level. --DasGooch 09:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. is at orange for domestic flights and red for U.K. flights.--66.188.202.116 09:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Current UK state of alert at 14:00 10/08/06 is "Critical" http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/current-threat-level/

International Reactions

Can everyone try to find international reactions, I have only been able to find U.S. reactions. Hello32020 11:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's still rather early yet... Everyone is trying to marshall their facts before the go PRing. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 11:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

gatwick

flights out of gatwick are going ahead, i just phoned US airways and they said flights are as normal.

--Greg.loutsenko 11:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the referenced BBC News article was updated - it originally said all flights (as announced on the live BBC News TV stream). zoney ♣ talk 11:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI for BAA websites

This is just an FYI advisory message...

The websites for BAA (Formerly British Airports Authority) airports have been... crippled, intentionally, I think. Pages which once existed (and probably still do) are being reported as 404 Not Found errors and most traffic is being redirected to an "Important Message" page outlining the current restrictions and what not. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 11:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you give the URL Hello32020 11:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.baa.co.uk/ --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 11:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Good page, just added it to the UK Govt Links section. HawkShark 13:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Flights from Paris

These were cancelled, but I don't rmember if it was the Airport on Air France that reported it. ANyone fill the gap? Rich Farmbrough 10:59 10 August 2006 (GMT).

http://challengestempsreel.nouvelobs.com/business/art_57977.html ("L'état du réseau")
(quick translation)
- British Airways: no flights in destination of europe until 2pm GMT.
- Lufthansa et Air Berlin: flights going to great britain cancelled. until 2pm (Lufthansa).
- Bruxelles' airport: flights from and to london cancelled or delayed.
- Air France: flights to london cancelled until 12h GMT. air france will reassess the situation in the afternoon.
- Portugal : flights to london cancelled, in the following airports: Lisbon, Porto, Faro 's international airports, and for the following airlines: TAP Portugal, British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa and Olympic Airlines.
- Alitalia (italian): No planes to london in the morning
- Ryanair (lowcost, italian): all planes to great britain cancelled for today.
- Iberia: flights cancelled untill 12 gmt.
- Qantas : Increased security check for all flights from and to great brittain. Passengers will only be able to take the bare minimum with them inside the plane: passport, waller, plane tickets, preferably in a transparant bag.
- KLM: all planes to London-Heathrow cancelled until further notice.
- aéroport de Nice: 1.500 passengers waiting.
- BAA has asked that all planes going to London-Heathrow that had not yet departed be kept on hold.
FiP Как вы думаете? 11:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hand luggage policy

Maybe this should be in a more general article, but what happens if a passanger is forced to check in e.g. a laptop as hold luggage and it gets stolen or damaged? Who is going to pay for it? --Jcmo 15:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No idea but frankly in the context of the wider story it seems like a trival point. --Charlesknight 15:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not that trivial. The point is that people making decisions on security measures are not held accountable for the consequences of those decisions, which encourages exaggerated policies, to the point of ridicule. The plot in question was stopped by good investigative police work, NOT by forbidding people to take magazines and newspapers on board aircraft. --Jcmo 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While I do think policy makers sometimes get too excessive or silly when it comes to security measures, I wonder if you're missing the point. Although there has been suggestions these measures may have be permanent, at the moment they are only temporary. Given that this plot was uncovered and widely published, we can assume that in the event anyone even remotely associated with it or the people involved, who was planning to carry out an attack (whether part of this plan or not) would either go underground or try to execute it immedietly. Given that the details have been published, they would probably try to modify their plans a bit to prevent detection. As such, it may make sense to temporarily impose harsh measures to ensure that this does not happen. Also, there are already well established procedures for lost baggage. Did you really think baggage other then laptops doesn't normally get stolen? The Montreal convention provides 1000 SDRs which is admitedly not very much. You would need travel insurance for greater coverage. 01:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If it is possible to hide bomb parts in hand luggage now, it will be always possible. By that line of reasoning, these restrictions should be made permanent (there is already talk of that). Some of these items can also be concealed under clothes and not be detected by a patdown search. Maybe next people will be forced to board airplanes naked. And since there are other methods of hiding things, a body cavity search for every passenger is next. When will they learn and start concentrating on the people, not the tools? El Al, which is a primary target for terrorists, has been doing that for decades. Jcmo 12:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Right but how do you frame what is a policy issue in accordance with Wikipedia standards and the general thrust of the article? if you want to put a section like that in, give us an outline and we can try to come to some concensus? --Charlesknight 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not trivial at all. These policies are stupid. Skinnyweed 16:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Right - so write a section about it and see if it fits the rest of the article... --Charlesknight 16:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Milk MUST (according to BAA rules) be tasted by an accompanying adult) [5] Petee 21:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest that there is a clearer distinction between UK/US/Other hand luggage restrictions Petee 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I came to London from Ireland last week on business and have two laptops with me. Tomorrow I'm not flying home on Ryanair, but am taking the train to Holyhead and the ferry to Dublin. No choice. (Fortunately, the Ryanair flight cost me only £14 and the train and ferry ticket is an amazing £25.) Evertype 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Security measures are inevitably inconvenient, especially if applied suddenly. If you are worried about your valuables being lost if in the hold - insure them, or don't take them at all. A more germane point is lost time for businessmen no longer able to work en route. The answer here is that senior business people will have to rearrange their working/travel schedule to cope. They should be able to do this, that is why they get paid so much! Exile 13:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
British Air will be allowing laptops again according to [this].

Contact Lenses

If you look at Hand Luggage section, it says Contact Lenses are allowed, but no solution. But in order to store contact lenses, you must soak them in solution!----Edtalk c E 16:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

They mean bottles of solution, not the 6 drops that are in the lens case. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/CommentI know, but I'm just saying that DHS should remember that when they're telling us MIXED SIGNALS!!!----Edtalk c E 16:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well even if you had your lenses soaked in nitroglycerin, it wouldn't be enough to damage a plane. --Crucible Guardian 17:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds terribly bad for your eyes. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Nitroglycerin is extremely dangerous in its pure, liquid state. But even if it was 100% safe (at least until detonated), it needs to be remembered that more than one person is supposedly involved in this plot -- aggregation of even small quantities can lead to a significant threat. But, as usual, details like this are usually lost on the so-called "security" apparatus at airports. mdf 18:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Contact lens solution/cases were involved in the Bojinka plot, but it seems to be "Gatorade" type drinks and modified drink bottles in this specific instance. Other than that, I've heard Bojinka nearly every five minutes. That was my first thought when I caught the breaking story this morning.--DasGooch 22:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

International reaction - Czech Republic

See http://www.radio.cz/en/news#3 - could somebody add this? Thanks. 69.17.67.11 17:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Carry on restrictions

Has anyone received or picked up any information whether or not this ban of bringing certain things on planes will be permanent or just at the moment due to the scare? I would assume the latter, but I'm not certain anyway. Kal 22:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

According to UK tv news channels, the ban is temporary but may likely be adopted as a permanent measure. That's all I got from the news. MP (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
TSA's website info conflicts with footnote 36 on the article regarding electronic items and laptops. See http://tsa-7.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/tsa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=254 Bswee 22:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the BBC news this morning, the carry-on restrictions apply only to flights leaving the UK. There are a smaller set of carry-on restrictions imposed by the TSA as Bswee mentions above --Astronaut 13:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we add an image?

I think that an image of the airport conditions and/or confiscated items would be helpful. This looks like a good one, but I don't know if it would qualify as fair use. --CrazyLegsKC 23:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What about Image:Stewart-Raging grannies.jpg, or perhaps that's too silly for this topic :) Ajaxfan 23:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, does anyone know what is up with Image:Heathrow.view.arp.jpg, which is currently in the article, because it's not displaying properly for me in Firefox. Ajaxfan 23:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It is displaying fine for me in Explorer. --Holderca1 23:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it fits, but SKY news had a little video prepaired showing mixing of chemicals in drink-type bottles. They had three series of explosive mixtures: A mixture who's name escapes me, an organophosphate mix and a TATP suspension mixture. Pretty good graphics, but, again, might be too general for this. --DasGooch 04:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If no good image shows up by tomorrow (i.e. ~ 1600 UTC for me), perhaps I'll take a trip to the airport. However, I fear what they will think of me taking pictures arbitrarily in the airport... I'm not exactly the most innocent-looking person and people in the Washington, D.C. area are especially paranoid. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I took several images, but the following two are of best quality (I had another, but I used the flash unknowingly; that picture cropped is the third one):

Both pictures were taken at Washington Dulles International Airport on August 11, 2006. I hope one or the other is sufficient (I'm no professional photographer, and I dare not get any closer to the security checkpoint). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

New York National Guard

I noticed there was a reference to New York National Guard being called up. According to Gov. Pataki's statement today, he has "offered" to step up National Guard presence at New York airports. The latest AP article refers to the fact that the Governor only "considered" activating the National Guard. B.K. 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Lufthansa & other non UK

Lufthansa cancelled only flights to Heathrow, not to all UK. That is exactly what the source claims, I don't know why edit where reverted. Also, as far as at least German media report, hand luggage restrictions only apply to flights from and through the UK. Although significant confusion seems to exist. The cited source only states that the spanish authorities tightened security (without being more specific). There is no blanket hand-luggage ban on flights to the UK

Security reaction

Just wondering, this page is changing far too fast for me to do much editing with my slow dial up connection, but why do we need a United States section and a United States subsection under Other Countries? --Lo2u (T • C) 19:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Technical discussions

Removed mention of "binary explosives"

I have removed the following statement:

These may have been binary explosives, which would be inert until mixed.

since it appears to be unsourced speculation. -- The Anome 11:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

They were certainly talking about that on Five Live this morning, but I agree, it should stay out unless sourced. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems like a good insight, but it's just not verifiable. alphaChimp laudare 12:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This article will be undergoing alot of changes for the few days, so anything that can be verified should be {{fact}}'d or removed. Yanksox 12:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Or just {{citeneeded}}. A lot of the additions seem very reasonable and plausable. I'm sure references will be forthcoming. alphaChimp laudare 12:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Chertoff just confirmed it in the US press conference. As soon as we get a reference, we should add it to the article. alphaChimp laudare 12:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060810/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_terror_plot mentions combining explosives, though not neccisarily "binary."

Inert liquids which become explosives when mixed are binary explosives. Dolive21 13:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

'Liquid Explosives'

One of the buzzwords around this event seems to be the 'liquid explosives' that were planned for this. Can anyone clarify what this could mean? (Right now the word just links to wikipedia's article on explosives.) -- hack 16:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Liquid explosives are just that; an explosive in the form of a liquid. Nitroglycerin and MEKP are examples of these. I suspect that the terrorists planned to synthesize an organic peroxide onboard, due to the presence of hydrogen peroxide and sulphuric acid. In OP syntheses, hydrogen peroxide "peroxidizes" a ketone like acetone or Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEKP) to form unstable but powerful explosives. The acid is a catalyst. From what I've read it is not clear to me that the ACTUAL explosive product would have been liquid. If they were synthesizing an organic peroxide onboard, acetone peroxide (which is a solid, and was used in the london train bombings) would have been much easier because it only needs to be filtered; you need a seperatory funnel for MEKP as it is an oily liquid. The precursors for both of these OPs are all liquids, however. --Crucible Guardian 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly, it would be simpler to sneak ready made organoperoxides onto the aeroplane. The terrorists were going to make pirhana solution, and then mix it with any organic solvent (probably acetone). Figure that you flush a quart or two of acetone down a vacuum toilet, and then flush a pint or two of pirhana solution. You'll get a nice boom out of that. 129.10.244.59 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just heard that they were going to use "Gelled" explosives in a false bottom attached to a gatorade type drink. The bottle was to be sealed as to allow for them to drink the liquid fromt he main compartment if questioned about the bottles at security check points. They were to be detonated with a jury-rigged disposable camera flash.--DasGooch 21:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Untill someone actualy writes something useful on the liquid explosives page, the link might as well look like what it points at... hence changing it to liquid explosives --Jmackaerospace 0110zulu+1 11/8/06

Liquid explosives

Why does the article mention MEKP? The source article linked doesn't. Whilst MEKP is a dangerous chemical it is not the same as TATP.

For that matter, why does the article mention TATP and HMTD? Both of those were crystaline solids last time I checked --70.70.143.237 06:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Im pretty sure its MEKP as mentioned above it cant be TATP or HMTD as they are solid crystals, Glycerol Trinitrate and Ethylene Glycol Dinitrate are liquid explosives but are secondary explosives needing a primary explosive detonator which means they cant be it because the plan states they were going to use a filament to ignite the material. MEKP is the only logical choice as it is fairly powerful, a liquid organic peroxide based explosive and can be detonated by DDT from the filament.58.7.140.128 09:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Exploding Gatorade?

Just a note on the following: "According to a report in CNN, ingredients found in a unnamed British sports drink could have also formed part of the explosive mixture." I think this info was misinterpreted. All the news reports I have seen have suggested the explosives would be concealed within sports drinks/sodas, like a glob of gel in a separate compartment [6]. I haven't seen anything to suggest the actual drink in and of itself would be explosive. --Age234 12:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The way I interpret these reports is that the drinks were to be mixed onboard with other ingredients to create an explosive, not that the drinks are explosive themselves.

Removed text

This section of text needs another set of eyes to look at: [7] - when I read the first reference, it did not even contain the word "acid" in the article. --HappyCamper 20:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the suggestion that the solution could be triggered by a flash camera might be added back in - [8] - but the reference to sulfuric acid and derivatives should not. I have not found a verifyable reference for this, nor was the original text a good representation of the chemistry. --HappyCamper 20:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Related-article discussions

Links

I notice that we are putting all sorts of links to actual terrorists incidents - at the moment all we have is a CLAIM of a incident. This could be just another forrest gate or ricin plot type case, however by putting in the links aren't we engaged in a form of crystal-balling ?

--Charlesknight 09:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We should probably (at the most) link to foiled plots (e.g. shoe bomber), but as you say, eve that is, perhaps, ball-gazing. Budgiekiller 09:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The rationale behind the Flight 182 link was that it was a transatlantic bombing. I do agree that we need to maintain a healthy skepticism here though. Tell me to get back to work! 09:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed the lists... Tell me to get back to work! 09:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The ricin plot was real, several people were convicted of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance, which is a serious offence, carrying a maximun sentnece of life in prison.Dolive21 10:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Several people? Then the BBC and wikipedia are wrong. According to Wood Green no-ricin plot & [9] only 1 person (who was not convicted of conspiracy to commit murder because of a hang jury). Everyone else charged was acquited and several other people charged had their cases dropped. Also, from what I can tell no evidence of ricin was found Bourgass may not have been a very nice person, he was convicted of murder previously [10] and a plot may even have been considered but there is no real clear evidence it got very far. Nil Einne 11:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So what? The security services' job is to prevent plots being put into action. Obviously they try to stop such plots at a stage where some evidence might be forthcoming, but the important thing is to prevent the plot "hatching". There is a difference between the task of trying to obtain convictions (if you want to do this ideally you wait until the bomber is seconds away from detonating his bomb ie "caught red handed") and trying to stop bombs going off (ideally you jump in as soon as you are convinced a plot is afoot). Too early - you might end up with no evidence and have to release everyone. Too late - you end up with piles of corpses.

Exile 13:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Other articles

Some other related articles should be kept up to date as well:

Please add to the list and sign if you have updated a page (with time). --J Morgan(talk) 20:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Heathrow has already been updated, checking other articles. 68.127.232.228 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Updated Airport security article under Notable Incidents with preliminary data. If someone would like to add or elaborate on the initial edit, please do so. TY 68.127.232.228 18:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Plot discussions

Number of Planes

Does anyone know the number of planes that were planning to be blown up. All news stations giving different numbers Sky News: 6 CNN: 20 BBC: 5 BBC are now reporting 9 in 3 waves of 3 --Jedi18 16:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

sam

The BBC and police have both said "up to 10". CNN would inflate things... Budgiekiller 10:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess they have a dilemma nowdays. If they say 10, then everyone will think it's 5. So what should they do? Nil Einne 11:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
MSNBC is also saying 10. alphaChimp laudare 12:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

--84.71.0.89 13:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

presumed plot ?

Why is the plot here presumed? If this plot does not exist, then the entire artlcle is premature. If the plot does exist, then it is not presumed. Are facts from the British government not to be taken as fact? We have seen, even here on Wikipedia, facts from other sources taken as fact before they have been proven. user:mnw2000 12:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this comes down to the presumption of innocence. Until tried in a court of law, we can't assume that any of those arrested are guilty of plotting anything. The UK Government says a lot of things; we shouldn't assume they are all true. --duncan 12:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The tone of this seems to have shifted entirely to an acceptance that there was a plot. Do I think they were upto something? Sure... however at the moment all of those men are innocent and there is no "confirmation" of a plot until it's presented in court.

--Charlesknight 14:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We cannot assume anything at all. We cannot assume they are guilty, we cannot assume they aren't. Assuming is POV and OR. We report what others report. We report what reliable sources tell us. If reliable sources state that these people were arrested because they plotted this, then we will state that these people were arrested because they plotted this. And yes, most people consider the BBC and CCN (and also the UK government) reliable sources. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I think the BBC is a reliable source - and they use "suspected", "alleged" and "suspect" - they don't write their copy as if those men are guilty.

--Charlesknight 14:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Here in the U.S., the media and the government use the terms like "suspect", "allegedly", etc. to describe people and not crimes. Describing people as guilty before they are tried would often interfere with their right to a fair trial. But there is no need to refer to a crime or plot the same way, since it is not going to be put on trial. Calling someone an "alleged killer", for example, does not mean the killing itself is unproven or call it into doubt in any way; instead, it means that the person accused of carrying it out has not been convicted. That people are only allegedly guilty does not mean the plot's existence is only alleged. It is thus proper to say there was a plot to bomb these planes, even though it is also proper to call those arrested "suspects" rather than "conspirators", "bombers", or what have you.

The BBC is constantly referring to it as the "alleged" plot. As long as it isn't proven that there was/is a plot (we currently only have the word of the police and the politicians, and they have in the past announced numerous plots which turned out to be based on false information), we should stick with "alleged' plot. If we don't, we're saying that the plot is a fact, although none of the persons currently arrested have yet been charged for anything, and that would be POV. Thomas Blomberg 21:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of this plot

Why isn't there at least a sentence in the article, specifying that there isn't yet any proof or evidence about the plot that UK officials have discovered ? Remember Colin Powell at UNO about Irak massive destruction weapons... --Effco 15:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think there's no evidence? The police surely didn't just make this whole thing up and arrest people selected arbitrarily. No evidence has been introduced in court yet, or even shown to the media, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.
The analogy to Colin Powell at the U.N. hardly supports your position. There was a great deal of evidence that Iraq had WMDs, and Powell presented much of it during his speech. It turned out that the evidence had been misinterpreted and had thus led the U.S. to an incorrect conclusion, but to say there was no evidence at all is simply wrong.
It may turn out that the authorities are mistaken about this plot or about the involvement of some of the suspects, but whether their beliefs are correct is a different question from whether they have evidence to support those beliefs.
What on earth makes you think there are evidences? The police never publicly arrested any innocent citizen. The red mercury hype, Jean Charles de Menezes are also great evidences that the police offcial communication is to be believed blindly.
Remember: an evidence is not a proof.

Reported planned date of strike

According to the Daily Mail, the date of the attack was to be August 16. I have changed the intro to reflect that. There may be some confusion due to a Times article that insinuates that August 22 may have been a date specualted based on UN/Iran and Lailat al Miraj. I don't think that there is any solid reference that points to a planned strike on August 22. --Elliskev 00:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with this is that the Daily Mail is one of the most unreliable newspapers in the UK, a "red top" mainly devoted to true or made up scandals about celebrities, whereas The Times is, well, The Times - a bastion of prudent reporting, although the change of ownership has made the walls of the bastion somewhat thinner. Thomas Blomberg 21:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Huh? The Daily Mail might not be the most reliable paper in the world, but it certainly doesn't fit the description you're giving it. I'd say it falls decidedly on the respectable end of British newspapers, although with a political bias you could spot from the other side of the Atlantic. JulesH 15:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm conducting a pattern analsys of dates of major terror attacks. With the exception of the March 11th Train attacks, almost all of the attacks since 93 have occured within 60 days of the start of Ramandan. This year Ramanda starts on September 22.--mitrebox 02:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Investigation and arrest discussions

Time

"It was confirmed by a Metropolitan Police Service deputy commissioner that 21 people were in custody as of 9:49 GMT after arrests in both London and the West Midlands." Are we surte this isn't "BST" ? Rich Farmbrough 10:50 10 August 2006 (GMT).

I just added a CNN ref for that. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.
It's become "this morning" by now, no need for excess precision. Shimgray | talk | 11:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

High Wycombe

I've been told that a house was raided in High Wycombe (where I live) - there are three news helicopters going around filming! Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 10:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, a house in Hackney was raided, thats all I know so far. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Walton Drive evacuation

I don't know if I can or how I can cite a news programme as a source, but it just reported it on BBC News 24, Sky channel 503. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 12:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

For those of us not in the UK, could you clarify what Walton Drive is? alphaChimp laudare 12:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a street in Wycombe - it's where the one reported arrest there was. Shimgray | talk | 12:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[11] The "LATEST" bar at the top is reporting this; so there shold be a news article online soon. Trampikey (talk to me)(contribs) 12:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Too bad google doesn't have real-time spysats... Weregerbil 12:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

spurious High Wycombe reports

Someone keeps adding in:

From the information so far released the group appears to have consisted of between 25-35 people, with 21 so far detained, the majority from a town west of London called High Wycombe, there are currently a number of people on the run in woodland area surrounding the houses that were raided and they are being hunted down using helicopters and dogs. The group is suspected to consist almost entierly of British born Muslims of Pakistani origin are suspected to have been planning the terrorist attacks for months, with possible support from Al Qaeda, and may have visited Pakistan for training.

>>>Muslims? I am SHOCKED!

This doesn't seem to be the case - I haven't seen a story saying 25-35, or making any reference to fugitives "on the run" - and it certainly isn't cited "from information so far released". I've removed this five or so times now - it's recently had a BBC news story added on the end which doesn't support the claims. Not sure what's up here - I guess it's someone's personal theory - but people might want to keep an eye on it. Shimgray | talk | 12:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

At least one, at least, has not of pakistani origin. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The BBC never mentions muslims. The terrorists are probably Pakistani methodists. 129.10.244.59 21:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Raid photo

It's original photojournalism (from the street corner opposite ... with about five other news photographers). This raid was a couple of hundred metres from my front door! I saw police gathering around 9am when I was just on my way to work ... It's also now the lead photo on the Wikinews article.

Arkady Rose also got photos of the helicopters overhead around noonish, the time of the actual raid, and I'll upload any of those that look suitable as well - David Gerard 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The helicopter photos are not great, unfortunately - they may be suitable for Wikinews, but wouldn't add anything particularly encyclopedic to this article - David Gerard 08:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Names of suspects

The Bank of England has published a list of names of the suspects whose bank account details have been frozen[12]. Is it suitable to publish these here, or would it be libel as I don't believe the police have announced the names officially yet. Petee 09:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The list is also on CNN, so I added it. Both CNN and the Bank of England are reasonably reliable sources, so unless the police makes a statement it is not correct I see no reason why we could not add them.Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, the Bank of England has published those names, dates of birth, and places, in connection with terrorist financing (their news release is headed "Financial Sanctions: Terrorist Financing", so any potential libel is on the banks' part, not ours) in order that banks and other financial institutions can can track down and freeze accounts held by those people. It's now unlawful for there to be any activity in those people's bank accounts without a special Bank of England licence. -- Arwel (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The list of names was published on the BBC website this morning as well. Budgiekiller 12:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion of Suspects

Is it factually correct that all those arrested were Muslims? Are we allowed to say this? The article says:

  • Twenty-four people were arrested, 22 of them of Pakistani and one each of Iranian and Bangladeshi descent.[14]

And later on

  • Nasir Ahmed, a member of the House of Lords, said that he had been told by the police that 21 of those arrested were British Muslims.[20] Other sources, citing Nicolas Sarkozy, say most of them were Pakistani citizens.[14] (These claims are not necessarily contradictory; it is possible to be both.)

This implies there were three non-Muslims involved? Is this true?

no it doesn't, it means that they know (or believe) 21 of the 24 are muslims. It doesn't give us any indication of the religion of the other 3; maybe they don't know which religion they are (if any), so they could still be muslims too. Also, the line about country of descent is irrelevant to the question of number of muslims. --duncan 09:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean the you believe that there is a resonable chance (like more than 1 in a million) that the other three do not prefess to be Muslims?

Tip Source

Perhaps we should mention that a tip leading to this investigation also came from a Muslim. BhaiSaab talk 19:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

O2 Mobile network outage

This was due to a network error, not related to the anti terrorist actions.[13]

Arrests in Italy?

The article mentioned arrests in Italy with a reference [7] to a Foxnews article. However no arrests in Italy are mentioned in that article (Italy is not mentioned at all), nor can I find any other sources that relate to arrests in Italy in connection with this case. Therefore I removed the references to arrests in Italy from the article. AlexP 10:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for "helping", UK

I saw a press conference Thursday in which the US Attorney General thanked the UK for their "helpful contribution" to this operation. Nice of him to thank us for "helping" them take care of this, just like we "helped" during WW's I and II, I guess. I can't wait to see the Hollywood movie in which brave CIA or FBI agents operate in quaint England and crack the evil terrorists' plot, "helped" by the odd plucky British bobby in his funny helmet, complete with old bicycle, silver-buttoned tunic and wooden cosh. I expect the evil Pakistani terrorist leader will be played by Alan Rickman... 86.7.209.101 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this some weird kind of projection? I didn't realize people in the UK still pictured their police in this way... P.S. If anything, the US "helped" the Europeans during WWI and WWII, even though neither one was really much of our concern (not including the Pacific theater in WWII). If the rising isolationist attitude growing in America today were at hand in the 1940s, we probably would have remained neutral during WWII, at least regarding Europe... Valtam 14:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nationality/Origin of suspects

The article says:

  • Twenty-four people were arrested, 22 of them of Pakistani and one each of Iranian and Bangladeshi descent.

The Daily Mail (which I accept is not to be regarded as in any way reliable) and other papers have reported that at least two of those named by the Bank Of England were converts to Islam - there appears to be quite a bit of evidence that one was born in the UK, his parents being from St Vincent, and another was born in England of English parents - I think the line quoted above is now out of date and should be changed.

US Involvement in Investigation

Does anyone have any details on how involved the US Department of Homeland Security or other departments were in this investigation? Also, whether the US used wiretaps to acquire information on the plot? Several US politicians have given a lot of the credit for the plot being foiled to secret US surveillance programs (see [14] for one example). Chrisfez 00:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Article quality discussions

Good work!

Hi, just wanted to say, great article in such a short space of time! Stevage 12:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, very impressive! 83.88.169.167 12:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, we are all very good people. Thomasmallen 13:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

the problem is that these kind of articles tend to be forgotten fairly quickly so we have lots of stuff in the present or future tense and hypothetical situations still being there even after several weeks have elapsed.--Greg.loutsenko 13:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hate to agree with something so cynical but its true, this will fall by the side as some other celebrity becomes pregnant, divorced, or changes their sex. HawkShark 13:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Tomorrow's featured article, maybe...? :-D - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 14:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're so quick!

Damn. You guys are so quick! I'm watching the news right now, and it's only 9:00 am here. I'll see what I can contribute to here while watching CNN.User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Sign

Your telling me! Bravo on the speed and quality of this article. I checked wiki after hearing about this at 4am EST. and there was already the beginnings of a page. Not sure exactly when the story broke in the US but it was already in motion here, on the good ole' wiki.--DasGooch 22:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Superb work

Fantastic work on this article - the international reaction section is a great addition. When Wiki works well, it shows in articles like this. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done everyone

Never been seriously involved in a real-time major news story development on Wikipedia, but this one has turned out to be remarkable. Well done to everyone involved and especially those who have done the boring stuff like establish proper references and get real citations. Keep up the great great work, it's been a pleasure 'working' with you all. Budgiekiller 20:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd second that sentiment. I've been very impressed to watch the development of this article over the course of the day. alphaChimp laudare 01:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job!

Great job everyone working on this article! 1000+ edits in under 24 hours! —Mets501 (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks. dposse 02:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

General note to all: good job

I feel this needs to be said, especially about important matters such as these -- that this is really WikiPedia at its best, with an extensive, informative and well-sourced article that no single newspaper or journalist could compile. I especially admire the listing of names and ages, and the country reaction list. Good job to all who contributed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.175.95.216 (talk • contribs) .

Good Article

I've removed the GA nomination tag - it is indeed a pretty decent article, but it's also a fairly fast-moving current event, and as such it really isn't going to be a stable article for a week or two at least, and that's pretty essential for any kind of article assessment... Shimgray | talk | 16:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Airports

The article currently includes these sentences: "All inbound flights to London Heathrow Airport which are not already in the air have been cancelled due to congestion at the airport [12]. Some flights in and out of London Gatwick Airport have been suspended [13], although US Airways flights are flying as normal out of Gatwick according to the airline's helpline." These are the sort of time sensitive statement found in a news report, not an encyclopedia. At what time were inbound flights cancelled?, for how long did this last?, etc. Rmhermen 14:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Many, including myself, see Wikipedia not as a regular encyclopedia but as even a major news source. The main page could even be compared to a major news website. Unlike other encyclopedias, this one is updated not only daily but every second. To prohibit such information just because it's "not encyclopedia–like" is unfair—Wikipedia is unique. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
How can an entity that is supposedly not to publish "original research" be a "major news source"? How can something that is supposedly an "encyclopedia" be expected to publish "non-encyclopedic" material? While you claim there are "many" who think Wikipedia should become a one stop shopping mall of information on the Internet (or whatever), others are probably on firmer ground when they suggest that breaking news stuff like this should be fobbed off to wikinews, at best. mdf 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, when i woke up today and heard the situation on BBC radio the first website o went to to get the broadest insight was bbc news, followed by wikipedia. wikipedia is in my opinion is at the forefront of information because it can be editted now, not annually like other published encyclopedias. thus i have to say that wikipedia is more then just a source of information, it is quite a reliable source of news too. not only that because the articles are editted by many people from different parts of the world the articles are quite trustworthy, and the funny thing is the more people edit it the more mistakes are picked out. --Greg.loutsenko 14:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Me too, I woke up this morning, turned on the TV, heard about this, and came straight to WP. :-) —Mets501 (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That is the purpose of Wikinews. Wikipedia is expected to create "time-less" (time-independent) articles. Rmhermen 14:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Why do you think we have a "current event" template? And plus, if we enforced your views, this article would only be about 2 sentences long. People want updated, critical information, and this is where many come for it. In addition, where does it cite that Wikipedia is "expected to create time-less articles"?. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 15:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
People who come to an encyclopedia for information about a current event deserve what they get -- there is even a template about that (or at least there was, cf. Hurricane Katrina). As for "timeless" etc, check WP:MoS. As for being two sentences long: I completely agree. As to why people hold these views, I suggest you watch the current non-WP news and note just how volatile, contradictory and generally confused it really is. Incredible, but true: the sources being cited in articles here frequently change in place at CNN and other outlets, and change enough to invalidate the article. Do these clusterfucks really need to be replicated at Wikipedia? mdf 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I can't even figure out which side of this debate that you're on???. 142.176.58.174 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a template/cross-wiki redirect could/should be put on such articles at an early stage redirecting interested readers to WikiNews, and at the same time, any data in the article transwikied to WikiNews? I'd suggest waiting before such a policy is implemented until log-ins are valid across all Wikis (which should be soon). Just a thought. WLD 16:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Qatar Airways?

According to Sky News there are reports from Al Jazeera of a failed hijacking of a Qatar Airlines plane. Is this relevant? Jvlm.123 15:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Where are you hearing that? Any web references? It could very well be related; that's how Al Qaeda works... Srose (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything of that sort. —Mets501 (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[15] Wouldn't call it related just yet, though. Shimgray | talk | 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Found the SN article: [16] Jvlm.123 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm absolutely not saying to connect it just yet; I want to watch this person's source to see if it developes into a connection. Sorry about any misconceptions. Srose (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Local paper featuring an AP article said this was only a fight between two or so passengers and was misconstrued as a hijacking.--DasGooch 18:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"How world economies reacted"

This section is slightly problematic in that it implicitly suggests that everything that happened on the market is reaction to this event. The sentence on airline stocks is probably relevant, sourceable, and possibly timeless enough to remain in an encyclopedia article even after months and years, but the rest...? Weregerbil 19:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Business commentators are notorious for making stuff up. Hack at it with a hacksaw please. Tempshill 19:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I do NOT agree, how else do you explain the oil prices dropping over a dollar in such short time when they have been rising for the past 3 month everyday practically. Put the oil price drop back in. Nothing else happened this morning that would affect it like that. Obviously a result of this being reported. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.250.132.18 (talk • contribs).

Well actually there's plenty of reasons...profit-taking (from the run-up you just mentioned), nat. gas inventories released today may affected the energy complex, rumours of BP planning to restore oilflows sooner than expected etc. 129.97.58.55 21:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
^^ Vikramsidhu 21:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What?

[17] .... ??? (Specifically [18]) Can an admin block this guy or something?? Ajaxfan 23:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, HappyCamper fixed it. Ajaxfan 23:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Political reactions

I consider this an important section to include, although it might repeat some of what is already there. The politicians run a separate narrative from that of the police operation. The involvement of people in the highest level of government in what should essentially be a police operation is pretty notable. This event, like many other foiled terrorist plots (some of very dubious veracity) is likely to crop up frequently in their speeches about terrorism in the coming weeks, and perhaps they should be mentioned here.

It's hard to overestimate the level of skepticism and suspicion of political manipulation among even the well informed blogosphere. Unfortunately I don't know of an objective way to gauge it in a NPOV.[19] Goatchurch 01:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Theory (conspiracy and otherwise) discussions

Please: Do not use this talk page as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. --Elliskev 13:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

sight

Ill rephrase myself.

There are people that view that this event is staged, see this.

Thank you for expresing how tolerated i am. --Striver 16:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How does this relate editorially to this article? If you can bring a reliable source to the table then do so. (→Netscott) 16:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, it's far from reliable. But thanks for toning down the comment a bit. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not a discussion forum. If reliable sources report on skepticism as to the authenticity of the event, then such items could be included in the article. Until then, such points-of-view should remain out of an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

we can worry about conspiracy theories later --Crucible Guardian 17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a conspiracy, this isn't really the place to advance those theories. It's only a place to discuss the content we add to this article. alphaChimp laudare 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh good, Alex Jones already knows who did it. 2006 Transatlantic Aircraft Plot Truth Movement can't be far behind. Sadly, this is not a joke. Weregerbil 18:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL may be in order here... Striver did stop posting to this talk page, after all. Srose (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

British Lying??

The British said this would have caused more damage and deaths than the September 11th Attacks yet they say 6 to 10 planes were targeted. So lets go with the higher number 10, that would mean an average of 300 people per plan would have to be on all 10 planes...That is a load.--Jerluvsthecubs 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"2,976 people died in these attacks." September 11, 2001 attacks. Also I'm not sure where you get the number 300 per plane; if Boeing 747s were used, they carry about 400-500 passengers. So I doubt it's "British Lying", maybe just the media getting slightly carried away with themselves, as they are wont to do --duncan 20:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hahhahaha, totally. Well, we all know about the UK media... I guess they were assuming 10 7474-400s in full-economy-class format. Headlines, mate ;)--Si42 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Standard load for a Boeing 747, a standard widebody jet, is 416 people. A340, most models, about 300; A340-600, high end for that model, is 380; Virgin Atlantic flies some of those. Boeing 777 is in the 300-400 range. It's not absurdly high. Shimgray | talk | 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The reports I have seen say "a plot to commit mass murder on an unimaginable scale" (as a quote for a Scotland Yard spokesman). I haven't seen any references to there being more deaths than September 11th. Bluap 21:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
well this would be around the same as 9/11. mean average of say 350 people per plane tomes say 9 planes, 3150 passangers and crew. if the planes came down over nyc or philly that would add another few hundred, so yeah it would have been a far worse attack then 9/11.
i REALLY REALLY hate when the yanks say that terrorism started after 9/11. WTF ever heard of ETA, or IRA, or chechnya, the yank can be so stupid.--Greg.loutsenko 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The brits can also be stupid sometimes. That being said, don't divulge into personal attacks. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 22:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Uh, not sure where that came from. See Oklahoma City bombing, World Trade Center bombing of 1993, Khobar Towers bombing, USS Cole bombing, and Unabomber, ect... --Holderca1 23:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
If they blow up the plane as it flies over a large city, it's gonna kill a few more people than just those in the aircraft. 222.153.151.202 06:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Home Secretary John Reid: "Had this plot been carried out the loss of life to innocent civilians would have been on an unprecedented scale."[20] A similar quote was made by somebody at Scotland Yard. Vashti 06:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
John Reid's comment is pure propaganda. The largest loss of life to 'innocent civilians' in such a way is certainly the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although done during wartime by a nation state, therefore not considered an act of 'terror'. Without more facts it's difficult to speculate on numbers of deaths, and if they are in fact 'unprecedented' and 'unimaginable'. --duncan 12:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As it happens, I agree with you entirely, but nonetheless that quote is the source of the media claims that this attack would have been bigger than 9/11. Vashti 16:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Since 9/11 was the single largest "terrorist attack" - and blowing up 10 planes would likely kill at least as many as died on 9/11 - then Reid was justified in what he said. Obviously, there are many examples of bigger death tolls in wartime.

Exile 13:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to toss in legitimate attacks on a combatant state during wartime, might as well get it right. Firebombing of Tokyo killed more than both atomic attacks.

connection w/Oliver Stone's WTC launch

I suspect this plot to be connected with Oliver Stone's WTC movie release date. Media were focused on Oliver Stone's WTC launch and it could help terrorists to get maximal exposure. Experience has demonstrated Al Qaida was acting on symbolic dates. Maybe this possible theory should be mentioned in the current article. BigKahuna 07:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that document the theory, then it can certainly be included. Vashti 07:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
ok then i'll try to find related material. BigKahuna 15:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the hoax nature of scare NOT addressed in the article?

In continental Europe many news already think this was a hoax, or more precisely a government work of fake propaganda, the alleged plot simply did not exist. The purpose was to divert public attention from massive israeli invasion of Lebanon and instill fears of bearded terror and evil Allah, so the population supports the "war of civilizations" interpretation.

It is well-known that paki secret police uses torture and people beaten, frozen and electricuted day and night will soon confess to raping their own mothers or intending to kill the monkeys of Gibraltar with cocoa-nut firing cannons or whatever junk, just to end the suffering. Any info that came from the torture chambers of pakistani military dictatorship simply cannot be trusted.

Also the history of british secret police says they are wrong. They killed the innocent brazilian electrician in the subway, then shot the two muslim brothers,

One actually, as to the rest we don't know any details yet. Rich Farmbrough 19:50 11 August 2006 (GMT).

who had nothing to do with radicalism, based on fake accusations. Once british police was famous for not carrying firearms at all but now they are executing people who have not been charged or convicted. All this needs fair representation in the article! 195.70.32.136 07:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I live in Europe but have not seen a single reliable news agency mention this. As is mentioned above a few times, supply reliable sources and we'll be happy to include in the article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
And while you're at it, try to be civil! Budgiekiller 09:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, have some manners, anonymous user. Referring to Pakistanis as "Pakis" just isn't very nice. I'm prepared to admit that it might be worth mentioning somewhere in the piece that some people *think* this is a hoax. However, the balance of evidence suggests it isn't. A hoax would require a coverup on a massive scale, and risk an enormous backlash if it were found out. The notion that anything that slick and sophisticated could be carried out over here while John Prescott's in charge of the country is hilarious. Bedesboy 11:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You state as a fact that "In continental Europe many news already think this was a hoax, or more precisely a government work of fake propaganda". Could you please give more details, of the media sources who state this, and references to articles where they say it? It would help. Information on Wikipedia has to be verifiable. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So what kinds of criticisms about the government handling of this are there? Skinnyweed 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
May I add this: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --physicq210 00:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


I agree with Rich Farnbrough. There is every chance that this is a hoax. If not a complete fabrication, its been blown out of all proportion. It is feasible that the authorities have stumbled upon the sick fantasies of a few disillusioned young minorities, and are now running hard to make max political yards. Of course the fantasy is extremly unpaletable, but the media hysteria we are seeing at the moment is not proportional to these kids' fantasy. We know there were no tickets purchased. We know some of them do not have passports. We know they do not have plausible terrorist backgrounds -- was there really much chance of them actually carrying this atrocity out?

The lack of 'verifiable content' should not rule out the mention of a possible hoax in the article. What links could possibly be provided at this stage? Until the evidence (or paucity of) is presented in court then the question should remain open and the article neutral. The police have not shown the people any evidence whatsoever... the peoples' encyclopedia should acknowledge so (guilty until proven innocent remember??)

At the moment it serves the agenda of those who wish to legitimise their beligerence by creating an illusion of symmetry to this conflict.

U.S. & U.K. government & news statements about suspects' religious ties

I wonder whether it's worth mentioning, in this article, a difference between British and American government officials and mainstream news media.

On the day on which this news broke, President Bush spoke of "Islamic fascists"—a term that, the United States' NPR News reported, would not be used publicly by authorities in the U.K.

According to The New York Times, a member of the House of Lords said that the police had told him that all 21 (at the time, the reported number was 21, not 24) of the arrested suspects were "British Muslims".

But it seems that most mainstream news reports and government statements have steered clear of wording about the suspects' religious backgrounds or views.

The opening story of the 10 August 2006 edition of NPR's All Things Considered had a report from correspondent Rob Gifford, in London, that included these words:

ROB GIFFORD: Inevitably, there has been speculation about who the suspects are. The areas of London and Birmingham where the arrests were made have large multiracial communities; other suspects were arrested in the town of High Wycombe, near London. But police have been treading very sensitively, giving no background information, bearing in mind often delicate relations with the Muslim community, since four young extremists killed themselves and fifty-two others on the London transport system last July. Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Paul Stephenson was at pains to stress this was nothing to do with any specific community or any specific faith.
PAUL STEPHENSON: This is not about communities. This is about—this is about criminals. This is about murderers, people who want to commit mass murder. This is not about anything to do with any particular community. This is about people who might masquerade within a community, behind certain faiths. But this is about people who are desperate, desperate people, who want to do things that no right-minded citizen of this country or any other country would want to tolerate.

Maybe this interesting question of what to say and what not to say when giving information about such an event is worth mentioning in this article.

President Lethe 08:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


tss, yanks --Greg.loutsenko 13:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is inappropriate. Please restrict your contributions here to discussing the article rather than making racist observations about editors contributing to it. Thanks. --Guinnog 11:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that the comment was directed more at George Bush, than at Wikipedia editors Bluap 16:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Either way, it's unhelpful in my opinion. --Guinnog 07:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. We should keep the racism to a minimum here in the talk page. Valtam 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Grouping sections

As may be obvious, I've been rearranging the discussions. I'll take a break to get some feedback as to whether this is a good idea. Also, (if it seems like a good idea), please help. I'm not really sure what to do with some of these. Disccusions of reaction details? Doesn't sound right. --Elliskev 13:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. It's a good idea - it might stop some of the proliferation. Merging some might be a good idea too... Shimgray | talk | 15:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree 100%, especially as it makes good use of the automated TOC. On the specific section title - how about "International reaction details"? "Discussion of" is probably superfluous for the talk page. Tevildo 17:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Place the War on Terrorism Template on here

People this is part of the War on Terror and should have the War on Terror template placed at the bottom.

Amlder20 14:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The other UK events don't use the template - the term is remarkably US-centric, and the template looks inappropriate used outside that context. Shimgray | talk | 15:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. "War on Terror" is an absolutely stupid, meaningless term anyway – you can't have a war on an abstraction, you'd never know when it finished. -- Arwel (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
This is definatly part of the war on terror, don't blaim us about the name we did not create it! The WOT title applies to the war between the USA and allies against AlQaeda. This attack fits the bill a hell of a lot more than the war in iraq. And the logic its US centric term so we won't put it on UK terorism articles is "intersting".Hypnosadist 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Typical that people would prefer to make events like yesterdays a non War on Terrorism event because it happened in the UK. I think it is rediculous and that this is very well part of the WOT and the UK is very much involved in fighting terrorism. It's a different war, not a war of nations, it's a war of Nations vs Criminals, people who don't just rob their local bank or their corner shop, they kill millions of innocent people. I support this war on terrorism and hope that one day, we will defeat them. Yesterday is an example of that, and a victory for the police and security services of the UK, we deserve acknowledgment in our contribution to ending what could had been the largest terror attack since 9/11.

Amlder20 17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

they kill millions of innocent people. WTF? when the yanks invaded afganistan and iraq they killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians. the yanks call this collateral damage, but this is bull shit, its called murdering tens of thousands of people. al qaeda was created by CIA. trained, funded, they even activly provided intellegence. so i think the yanks should just go and hug their forner friends. and since all you yanks are so christian why dont you turn the other cheek. THE YANKS CREATED AL QAEDA, WHY SHOULD THE REST OF THE WORLD HAVE TO CLEAN UP YOUR MESS. War On Terror is yours, you deal with it.--Greg.loutsenko 18:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't use talk pages to express political views. It just winds people up. This really isn't the place. --Lo2u (T • C) 19:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Still, this should have the War on Terrorism template on it.

Amlder20 19:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. We can't leave this template out because it "sounds a bit American". These were trans-Atlantic flights and this is an international encyclopedia. If there's an equivalent British template that should be added too. I was really objecting to "THE YANKS CREATED AL QAEDA, WHY SHOULD THE REST OF THE WORLD HAVE TO CLEAN UP YOUR MESS" in all caps and to "WTF" - a completely inappropriate use of a talk page that provokes others to misuse the pages too. There's no good reason not to include the template though. --Lo2u (T • C) 19:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
On quick research, none of the London bombing articles have a "War on Terror" template. My feeling is is that is was determined innappropriate for the content at hand. Neither does the 2006 Toronto Terrorism Arrests, something that (As far I remember from CNN) related to the War on Terror. At the current place and time I don't think there is a clear connection to either Al-Qaeda or the War on Terror (And for the most part it is an American term, but I do not feel that it is restricted to only America. Other countries have used it, I believe, including my own).
Besides, all Terror is international (Hence why I'm apprehensive about France's part in the anti-terrorist activites). There is no way anyone can say "Terrorism does not affect my country".
So, sorry, I don't feel the "War" on Terror template is appropriate. I'm sure it's been called part of the War on Terror, but I don't know if that's what Wikipedia wants.
However, if there is a generic "Relating to Terrorism", "Terror Template" or "Relating to attacks purportedly seeking recompense for international greivances", I'd be more for it. Heck, even an "Relating to Airway terror" template would do. I'm sure that there is an appropriate template out there: If War on Terror is the one, so be it. My current beliefs say it isn't, but that's just me. Wikipedia is not a democracy from what I remember of WP:NOT, so whatever. Logical2u 19:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason for that this template gets used in a very POV way in which it usually only gets added to events started by america recently. The london bombing are part of the war on terror i'll check the talk pages.Hypnosadist 19:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well the US government has been pretty clear that this is probably Al Qaeda related. I don't think many really doubt this even if nothing's confirmed. The "War on Terror" template is good as a generic Al Qaeda related terror template whereas aircraft terror or international grievances are rather unhelpful categories (how likely are people to want a list of aeroplane related terrorist attacks and how likely are they to want a list of Al Qaeda attacks?). I know what Wikipedia is not but I'd like to see a template with a name people can agree on to group together all of these Islamic terrorism pages. PS you seem to have mutated into me...--Lo2u (T • C) 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added the template to the july 7th bombing AFTER checking that there was no concensus against such action, i checked all the archives.Hypnosadist 20:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree that, since this was a terrorist plot and the targets were said to be flights heading to the United States on US airlines, there is a US connection and therefore it's at least plausible to tag this with the "War on Terror" template? (If the flights were on, say, a Japanese airline and headed to Japan I'd be willing to tag it with a "History of Japan" template or something like that)130.164.64.72 20:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and add the template.Hypnosadist 20:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the name of the template appears to be War on Terrorism which a) makes more sence than War on Terror and b) makes the argument you've all been having a bit redundant and pointless. For the benefit of our American brethren, UK politicians very rarly refer to the WOT as people sniggering can really put you off your stride in a speech. Journalists tend to precede the term with a cough, a pause or pronounce it in inverted commas ( watch Paxman ). Satirists love the term, and tend to precede it with the possesive: 'George Bush's War on Terror' Jmackaerospace 00:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes and projects

are their any relevant infoboxes or wikiprojects? --Zr2d2 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

relevance?

U.S. domestic politics

"On August 9th, the day before news of the plot was released, the White House launched a campaign to attack opposition Democrats as being weak on terror."

Not that I'm some nutty stickler of a politico, but I do wonder what exactly this has at all to do with the article. Political reactions are germane, of course, but that sentence, in conjunction with the sentence declaring that Bush was made aware of this on the sixth, do not a pretty picture make. russ. 20:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

addendum: it's also curious that all that is under "security reaction," seeing as it definitely is implied that Cheney's conference call was an advantageous political dig. russ. 20:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: for the following, I'm using some generalizations based on popular political opinion. I'm not trying to incite anything, I'm just being brief. The "white house attack" would be the biggest niche for conspiracy theorists in the US as far as I can tell. Joe Lieberman's loss to a "real anti-war" opponent was a potential sign that the Democractic party is growing a spine for the upcoming elections. It is very disconcerting that the terrorist plot was unvieled just after Lieberman's loss (and the White House's renewed attack on Democrats), and that Stone's 9/11 movie just came out, with elections coming up, etc etc. Talk of the conspicuous timing of these events will certainly hit major news outlets before long (I've heard it quite a bit on NPR [radio] for starters). And I'm not trying to validate the conspiracy theorists' claims at all, but it's just the close timing of all of these events (just as the Bush administration gets a "big win" pushing for peace in the Israel/Hezbollah conflict) is something that's drawing a lot of raised eyebrows regardless of stance on a conspiracy. Gspawn 14:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
^Again, not trying to incite anything, not trying to validate or invalidate anything, just providing some commentary.Gspawn 14:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The arrests of terrorist suspects in Britain was arranged by the British police, not the U.S. Government. They have investigating the suspects for months, so it can not have been arranged just for now, as the current events were not known months ago.--213.42.2.21 12:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This constant conspiracy crap is so boring, we are at war and they are trying kill us, get a thought process and get a life!Hypnosadist 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The considerate thing is not to waste peoples time with this conspiracy rubish, its ruining all the articles in this area.Hypnosadist 17:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

All that jazz about timing and whatnot is fine, but I still don't see how that's related to the plot itself--the actual "plot" the suspects were looking to execute doesn't seem to really, mm, relate to the bit I'd mentioned earlier, or at least certainly not under security reaction; however, it could be placed somewhere else, i.e. a subsection about reaction or something, or even more towards "political reaction," but I'd wager a. it's strangely out of place in this article, and b. it's almost certainly out of place in its current section. russ. 16:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

addendum the second: it's also strange that people tarry over the timing for republicans, seeing as, oh, I don't know, it was British intelligence that did the work, insofar as I understand? russ. 16:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


And lastly, it would seem the point is moot--someone went all bold on the point in particular, so it's gone anyway. russ. 16:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Italy

  • Another "relevance" Q. "Forty arrests were made in cities including Rome, Milan, Venice, Florence and Naples, amongst others." This appears in the source CNN article with no real context. Should we remove it from our article? Rich Farmbrough 20:15 11 August 2006 (GMT).

Released without charge

I just caught the end of the news earlier and they said that one of the suspects had been released without charge? Do we know who and are they still listed as arrested here?

--Charlesknight 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles on the suspects arrested

A quick look into the articles created on the suspects arrested in relation to this plot reveal that apart from the fact that they were arrested as suspects, nothing else is written. To me it is quite clear that they don't merit an article of their own. There isn't anything that can even be merged into this article. I suggest deletion of these articles and de-wikilinking of their names in the article. If editors are against deletion, then redirects back to this article should be created on the said pages. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

May be better to wait and see how the story develops, if charges brought etc. Articles are being fleshed out as biog details emerge, (see eg Abdul Waheed). --mervyn 10:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't that create a very bad precedent. The articles should show notability when it is created, not any time in the future. We shouldn't speculate that they would become notable sometime in the future. Rather, they should be created only when there is enough material present to make the article encyclopedia-worthy. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed Bluap 16:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no point to write about them as very little verifiable details have emerged. Moreover, they do not conform to WP:BIO. --Bhadani 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Revenge attacks

Shouldent there be a section on revenge attacks against Muslims, as i hear that a number have taken place and they are clearly significant. --88.108.210.255 10:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Soz i forget to log in--Jedi18 10:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes as long as they are well sourced and link the attacks to this plot.Hypnosadist 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not find that any revenge attacks on anyone had taken place. There is not reason for such revenge attacks. --Bhadani 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article's title?

I note that User:PizzaMargherita has tagged this page with {{POV-title}}: "The neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is disputed." saying:

Just to register my total agreement with Irishpunktom. These are all allegations. Until a jury rules the contrary, there was no plot, only an alleged plot. Even mainstream media understands that. Without mention of the allegation, the title is POV and I favour at least the reintroduction of {{POV-title}}. PizzaMargherita 00:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC) (copied from above).

A couple of points. (1) It's worth starting a new discussion here (not half way up the page) as this talk page is rather long and is going to need some archiving soon. This also makes it much easer to find the reasoning (the edit summary "(As per talk)" does not help in this regard). (2) There was a consensus reached back on August 10 that this name is ok, at least for now. This implies that the Wikipedians who came to this consensus thought that it expressed a sufficiently NPOV for use. Has something changed? (3) It would be very useful if alternatives could be suggested.

I advocate removing the tag at the present time. Andreww 12:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed it.Consensus was to keep the title he can start a new discusion on talk first.Hypnosadist 12:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, (1) thanks for making this a section and reopening the discussion. (2) What changed is that the following no longer holds
Only one editor seems to want to have the POV-title tag on (at least, only one seems to be adding it).
The alternative suggested by Irishpunktom is fine by me: "2006 transatlantic aircraft plot (allegation)", or it could be "2006 transatlantic aircraft alleged plot", I don't really mind so long as it reflects that it's an allegation.
I won't re-add the tag (although I'm strongly convinced that it's appropriate if the title does not change), I must confess that I mostly wanted to reopen this discussion (i.e. after I wrote my comment), sorry about that. PizzaMargherita 14:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Alleged is the 7th word in the article, and placing it in the title makes it clumsy in my opinion.Hypnosadist 14:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the title, as it stands, isn't ideal, although I'd say it's more a case of it being unverified rather than POV. I'll repeat my suggestion from above of something like August 2006 airline security alert (possibly terrorist alert if people like that word?) - this is the most factually correct description of the incident to date. Tevildo 15:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The article covers two distinct issues, the first is an alleged plot to blow up several aircraft en route from the UK to the US, the second is the reaction in terms of increased airport security and the related hindrance to travel. Ultimately we may need to split the article to deal with these two related issues fully (I don't think this is needed yet, but with coverage of any future trial, other possible plots and so on this may be needed quite soon). August 2006 airline security alert covers the second issue while 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot covers the first (I don't think we need to include "alleged" and it is rather clumsy). Any snappy title that includes both aspects of the article? Andreww 16:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
2006 transatlantic terrorist alert? There _is_ "incident" as a universal fallback... Tevildo 18:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Any reason to suggest that terrorist alert is more neutral than aircraft plot?Budgiekiller 19:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The former is real, the latter is alleged and highly political, so very POV if the allegation is left unsaid. I would be happy with "alert" in the title (as opposed to unqualified "plot"). PizzaMargherita 19:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
So how about 2006 transatlantic aircraft terrorist investigation.Hypnosadist 19:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
No, that doesn't cover what's actually happened. There has been a security alert, which is blamed on terrorism. There may be a plot, but that's not yet been established. The investigation is doubtless ongoing, but the article isn't about it. Tevildo 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you've got it the wrong way around this article is about the plot to blow up the plains! The alert is just a side affect of that event not the other way round.Hypnosadist 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Some would disagree. :) If the plot is proven to be genuine, we can split the article. At the moment, the alert is the only verifiable event. Tevildo 20:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
1)The police raids are verifiable events. 2)The British governments' (as well as that of america and pakistan) belief in this "plot" is why we have the "alert".Hypnosadist 20:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. So the plot is not verified and its existence is the POV of the government/police. This article is not about a plot, it's about an alleged plot, and very much about the alert that was triggered by this allegation. PizzaMargherita 21:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
One might say "purported POV", but we're already too far off-topic. :) Tevildo 21:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
(1) True. (2) That is what they claim. At the moment, that claim is not verifiable. Tevildo 21:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel that we should not have "terrorism" in the title. For the article as stands, "alert" is better than "plot" ("arrests" / "raids" are possibilities). Saying "August 2006" is good. I would personally remove "translatlantic". Bluap 21:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this an endorsement of my original August 2006 airline security alert? :) Tevildo 21:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me express myself more clearly, this article is about the police investigation going on in Britain. The difficulties of some air passangers is not that important compared to a police investigation spanning two countries that we know of, involing 25 arrests and alligations of planning to commit mass murder. I think arrests or raids is better than plot and definately better than alert which i oppose utterly.Hypnosadist 21:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
PS transatlantic is important as it points to the intended targets of both Britain and the USA.Hypnosadist 21:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add my support to the suggestion that this article is renamed August 2006 airline security alert. Remember verifiability - there are NO reliable sources we can use at present to verify the existence of the plot, let alone the details. Alleged plot, yes, plot, no. The security alert, on the other hand, is a verifiable, factual description of what is happening. SP-KP 22:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I like the sound of August 2006 airline security alert - It also has a secondary effect of quelling conspiracy theorists thirst as it doesn't imply that there was a plot (which there isn't YET, only an alleged plot - evidence, courts, trials, etc.. you know the drill). - G3, 04:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
August 2006 airline security alert is also fine by me, thanks. PizzaMargherita 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The alert is barely notable, the arrests and searches are. They are also verifiable so how about August 2006 translatlantic security arrests.Hypnosadist 22:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The alert is barely notable if you are not trying to fly. That involves a lot more people than the 24 arrested. PizzaMargherita 22:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, and maybe we should rename the israel-lebanon crisis a "border alert," eh? Airline security alert is a pretty broad term that doesn't really at all describe the cause of what happened and is happening presently--and the alert, in the context of flying, is still barely notable if you compare to the many, many, people who've heard about it in another context, i.e. the planes and their allegedly planned disintegration midflight(i.e. the story seems to be the alleged plot, not the security reaction in the airports). Aircraft raids suggests either aircraft were raided, or aircraft did the raiding, so that won't work. As far as the idea that, "If the plot is proven to be genuine, we can split the article," well, the story concerning the reaction in airport security following the alleged plot seems to be inextricably linked to its chronological origins; if we're to split at some point in the future, there's no sense in renaming for that yet unseen possibility. I can see the idea of splitting it, much like, say, JFK's assassination was [probably? I'm too new and unread in the JFK assassination talk page] split into several separate articles, i.e. reaction, autopsy, funeral, etc. However, the possible renaming of this article to "airline security reaction" should wait till we even know there will be something article-worthy and is more than an alleged plot from which to split this thing.

The idea of allegation as a parenthetical or using the incident panacea seem to have the most appeal as far as I can see. russ. 09:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The word 'transatlantic' should remain, since this is apparently a plot only affecting flights from the UK to the US. It sounds as though the intent was to explode planes over the US, just to board them in the UK. Also, I do not favour inserting the word 'alleged' into the title. Any name for a historical event describes what it was about, not necessarily whether it was justified. This story is definitely about a plot. One important issue is indeed whether there really was a plot, or not, but it is not necessary to clutter up the title with that information. Stating it clearly in the introduction is sufficient. (Though also see my comment below. The UK home secretary this morning used the phrase 'alleged plot' in a TV statement announcing the downgrading of the security alert.) Sandpiper 09:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The only way i can see of sorting this debate is with a fork, move the stuff on what happening to securtiy on aircraft and the cancelled flights to a diffent page.Hypnosadist 09:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
How will that help? It is all the same story. The plot, real or not, is the direct cause of the increased security measures. Though I must admit it is interesting that the UK government had already been attempting to reduce the size of permitted cabin baggage, while the airlines had been planning to increase it. Sandpiper 10:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Because this article is about a series of anti-terror raids in england, the affects to air travelers are a side effect of that and now people are trying to make this article about luggage restictions as if such things were of encyclopedic importance. That why it needs spliting, because they can't tell which of the two events is important and which isn't.Hypnosadist 11:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
But actually the most important thing about this issue is the luggage restrictions and inconvenience. The whole reason people threaten to blow up airplanes is because it causes an enormous amount of disruption and inconvenience, even if no plane ever suffers the slightest bit of damage. There is a huge difficulty quantifying and equating different types of suffering but it is nonetheless necessary to consider how many inconvenienced people amounts to more suffering than one death. This is not just about 'inconvenience'. This disruption will have had a definite effect on the economy, will have increased stress levels, caused people to miss critical appointments, caused them to have heart attacks... The difficulties with luggage is the most serious consequence for most people from this entire issue. It is what has actually affected their lives.
The security restrictions do not appear to have been eased because the authorities consider it to be 'safe', but because they consider it impossible to continue to run the airports with these restrictions in place. If anything, the political risk to the UK authorities should a bomb actually explode seems much greater than the personal risk to anyone flying. If this were not true, I can't imagine why no one has actually gone out and increased the number of security staff long ago, so that there are enough, with enough equipment available, to search people properly all the time. It would seem that there was already a shortage of security staff before this happened,(refs available somewhere online[21]) and long queues for the previous security measures. There were such queues at heathrow a few weeks ago when I was there. Funnily enough, coming back security seemed no less stringent, but was much quicker. There also did not seem much scope for creating extra channels to process people faster. It is also not impossible that this chaos is related to the current building of a new terminal at Heathrow, which plainly implies that the current existing facilities are overcrowded without any additional work load. Anyway, this story is not simply about a security alert, which was predictable, but about a failure to handle it without chaos. This is in fact more of the same pattern we have seen of shooting innocent people while attempting to enforce necessary security. Sandpiper 17:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
You say sandpiper "The whole reason people threaten to blow up airplanes is because it causes an enormous amount of disruption and inconvenience, even if no plane ever suffers the slightest bit of damage." This was not a threat it was attempted mass murder that was uncovered by the security services. Heathrow has been cutting staff to save money that sort of thing should go in a fork article and keep this about the police investigation into this plot.Hypnosadist 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
i have to say, and with regret, that I have seen no evidence that any real plot exists, more than various officials reporting what they have been told by someone else. The main source of information so far appears to be the Pakistani government, who under other circumstances would not be considered trustworthy.And as I have already said, on past performance only a fool would believe these reports are accurate. Now, under the circumstances I am willing to give them rather a lot of benefit of the doubt, and credit for well-meaning intentions, but no, I can not honestly say that I do believe what we have been told. Nor do I find it an acceptable excuse that 'Heathrow have been cutting corners'. This is supposedly an emergency situation, yet the government has not seen fit to ensure that critical services are capable of doing their job. If the security services really believe what they are telling the public, then they should have been prepared for what happens when they announce the inevitable emergency situation. It is the same story. Government causes chaos. (though again to be fair to the security services, no one knows what they actually had to say about the situation before it went through political translation). Sandpiper 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a new game called F with the police, if they give info they screw the prosecution and if they don't every one comes out and says theres no plot and its another forest gate (this one isn't).Hypnosadist 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The difficulty was that they went overboard explaining the importance of their succesfull operation, and then it all turned out to be rubbish. Then they had another go, and (last I heard) shot someone for dealing in pornography? They have yet to redeem their record, so I repeat, on their record, any statement is not to be relied upon. It is a straightforward judgement of the facts presented. I have little truck with this notion of screwing up prosecutions. Statements like that also sound like excuses to avoid explanations: it is quite normal for government oficials to refuse to explain their mistakes and hide behind some alleged contractual obligation. Right now they are obviously feverishly looking for evidence, so plainly they havn't wrapped up the case to their own satisfaction. Sandpiper 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
"I have little truck with this notion of screwing up prosecutions." Unfortunately both British law and EU human rights legislation are quite strict on this.They also have to seach about 10 to 15 address and they just pulled two firearms out of the woods behind some of those properties. They are doing a lot and no reporter has said anything to say there is no evidence unlike the forest gate raid.Hypnosadist 23:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Which are surely not weapons helpfull to people trying to hijack an aeroplane nowadays. Suggests more that they were involved in something different. Sandpiper 00:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly correct. You can't have it both ways, either you can't leak anything about the investigations or you can. If anything, the fact that they reported to have found some guns in a wood is a clear sign that there is still no trace of the alleged liquid multi-component explosives. We have seen this all before. Silence after killing de Menezes, silence after Forest Gate, silence after the invasion of Iraq. Before and after the admission of failure, details are leaked to give public opinion a pacifier (de Menezes was an illegal immigrant who ran away from the police, we found some porn at Forest Gate, "but Saddam was a really really bad guy, so it doesn't matter if the WMD are not there" etc). To call an intelligence operation successful in my book you gather specific information, you raid the premises, and you find stuff. I still hope that they do find something (possibly not planted) to support their case, but based on what we know the skepticism is growing... PizzaMargherita 05:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Why bother with the pretence Pizza, if the police came out with all the evidence you would say it was planted.Hypnosadist 10:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Only if it's demonstrated (as opposed to alleged) that it has been planted. It doesn't matter what I say, what matters is facts. Fact: Forest Gate. Fact: de Menezes. Fact: war in Iraq. Fact: Alpizar. PizzaMargherita 10:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There have been a *lot* of similar arrests, bomb plots etc since 9/11, most of which have led to little or nothing. For the most part, these are forgotten about because they have little effect on everyone else's lives (the arrests/ government alerts etc, not terrorist acts themselves). e.g. remember tanks at heathrow a couple years ago? the plot to bomb Canary Wharf?
However this latest alert differed in that the JTAC and/or John Reid/Blair decided on the handluggage restrictions, which had a minor but noticable effect on thousands of people's lives, and cost £millions to businesses. --duncan 17:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is utterly insane. Calling this the "2006 transatlantic aircraft plot" tells you nothing about the event. It's a terrorist plot; that's why it has gathered so much attention. Excluding the word "terrorist" is deliberate obfuscation. The entire reason this subject is noteable enough to have an article on is the specter of terrorism. To fail to reflect that in the article's name is absurd. Furthermore, quibbling about the word "plot" is stupid. We can't have a policy that anything that isn't proven in a court of law cannot go on Wikipedia. (We might have a very slim encyclopedia indeed!) If the event turns out to be a massive hoax, then we can highlight that in the article, or rename the article as the "2006 transatlantic terrorist hoax". Until then, it lives on in the media and thus in popular imagination -- and the vast majority of English speaking people would recognize this event -- as a "terrorist plot". Nobody is going to search for this event with the word "aircraft" or the phrase "alleged plot". --Hyphen5 20:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a terrorist plot, because no such verifiable plot exists. Wikipedia rules are pretty clear. As I said, they have been applied (correctly) with de Menezes, I can't see why that should not apply for this article. It's all over the media: "alleged plot". In fact, quite a lot of people are happy with "August 2006 airline security alert". Shall we move the article already? PizzaMargherita 07:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Actually, I don't think a lot of people are happy with it, and that sounds a lot like a run-up to a vote, which, if I'm not mistaken, is frowned upon as a matter of settling problems; I disagree with the idea of naming it airline security alert, seeing as that's a byproduct of what actually happened. If a fork were to happen, then we could have an article on the alleged plot and the airline security alert as a separate thing describing what happened at airports, restrictions on liquids, gels etc, but the event as it stands is not being described as an airline security alert; it's being described, as you say, as an alleged plot. I'm sympathetic as to keeping the terrorist thing out of it[though, understandably, hyphen and others have made a practical point concerning the usefulness of it] for the reasons stated by PizzaMargherita, but am not fond of the proposed name change. For one, hyphen's argument about it being "proven" is a strong one, insofar as waiting on proof so as to abide npov policy; glance at the al-qaeda article for a perfect example. No alleged or any other such equivocation(even though they've taken responsibility for sept 11, they would still be only allegedly responsible, seeing as, despite their taking claim for it, "The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?" and, as someone mentioned earlier, the article itself can handle or assert the reality of whether or not x or y is the case. PM[if you don't mind my abbreviating your name as such] seems to be discussing verifiability differently as I understand it: he appears to mean [in the first line of his previous post, anyway] whether or not the plot has been verified to exist at all, as opposed to whether or not it has been addressed as a plot, alleged or otherwise, in a verifiable source calling it more than alleged.

In any case, looking at WP:V, I see "'Verifiability' in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true," and I would take that to mean it's not necessary, beyond citing a reputable source that simply addresses it as a plot, to debate over calling it alleged for the sake of the article if there is a v. source that does so. Can we verify it's being called a plot, not merely alleged, on this side of the pond[the states, for reference/clarification]? Yeah. Can anyone verify right now that it's actually more than an alleged plot? Nope. russ. 07:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sunday Times Online on the Plot

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2310607,00.html very very important info in this piece.Hypnosadist 22:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding this from the end of the above article:

THE MEN THE POLICE ARE HOLDING

The police took 24 people in for questioning and have released one without charge. Most of the rest can be held in custody until Wednesday, although police can then seek permission to hold them for longer, up to a limit of 28 days. Among those seized were:

Usman Muhammed Saddique, 24, from Walthamstow, worked at his brother’s pizza restaurant. Nicknamed Uzi, he is “highly educated” and a fitness fanatic, say friends, but had a rebellious streak. Police took videos and computer disks from his house.


Assan Abdullah Khan, 21, and Waheed Arafat Khan, 25, lived together at a semi-detached house in Walthamstow. The brothers were known locally as proficient amateur mechanics who helped to fix neighbours’ cars. Assan is studying at the University of Hertfordshire and his elder brother is married with a baby. They prayed daily at a mosque close to their home.


Assad Sarwar, 26, lived with his brother in an ex-council house in High Wycombe. His brother, who was not arrested, is known locally as “Valentino” after he posted his details on an internet dating site three years ago, revealing that he liked rap music and fish and wanted to meet a girl with a “nice personality”.


Waseem Kayani, 29, from High Wycombe. A taxi driver who lived with his parents and wore western clothes. Neighbours say he had a pronounced limp and had shaved his head while retaining his long beard. He recently returned from Pakistan with a new bride.


Shazad Khuram Ali, 27, from High Wycombe runs a car trading company which is believed to have employed fellow suspect Assad Sarwar. Accounts show that the company made an £11,000 loss last year. Neighbours have complained about the building of a makeshift mosque in his back garden. Recently visited Pakistan.


Mohammed Shamin Uddin, 35, from Stoke Newington moved into his housing association flat a month ago. The former body-builder is understood to have suffered from mental illness after a violent assault which temporarily left him in a coma.


Waheed Zaman, 22, from Walthamstow is a final year biochemistry student at London Metropolitan University. He is president of the college Islamic society and lives opposite the Queen’s Road mosque where at least eight of the suspects are believed to have worshipped. Friends say he was too busy revising for exams to be a bomb plotter.


Don Stewart-Whyte, 20, son of a former Tory agent, attended a grammar school. His half-sister is Heather Stewart-Whyte, a successful model who lives in north London. She has said that she has never met her half-brother.


Umair Hussain, 24, and his brother Nabeel Hussain, 22, were seized in Hackney, east London. Nabeel, a hospital administrator, recently visited Pakistan — friends say he went with his grandmother

Hopeing to add some of this info.Hypnosadist 13:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Really strange to see all Muslim names. I think they were not Muslims (in the real sense) as Islam does not preach killings of innocent persons. Perhpas they were to comit Blasphemy by their action. However, some one well-versed in Islamic law may please guide me suitably. Thanks and Regards. --Bhadani 16:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this is really relevant to the article, but the fact that these people were about to commit something against Islam does not invalidate the fact that they're Muslims. If they believe they're Muslim, they're Muslim. -- tariqabjotu 18:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. So unless we are sure about their faith as "declared by them" we are not sure of their religion. This was relevant as the religion of the suspects in the page say that they were British Muslims. --Bhadani 08:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

More info from the The Sun via the Austrailian

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20140210-2703,00.html this story concerns Umar Islam.

The Sun newspaper reported that the actions of Islam, 28, a former Rastafarian who converted to Islam, had been "at dramatic odds" with allegations he was involved in the latest terror plot. "Immediately after the bombs, he was sent to Liverpool Street - which could easily have been another target area because it is in the financial district," the newspaper quoted a colleague as saying. "It was where buses were terminating and he joined others in checking under the seats for suspect packages." "He was briefed in evacuation and security procedures, and was making sure the public did not go where they shouldn't. Basically, he was helping to marshall the buses and trying to sort-out the chaos. Whatever his beliefs, he did a great job. He was certainly committed to what he was doing, you couldn't fault him at all. On that day he was trying to save lives, not destroy them."

I'm going to add some of this to the article.Hypnosadist 14:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

New BBC story

This hot of the wire http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4789305.stm This is the useful info:"Police and security service officials have brought in powerful lights to enable them to work through the night in King's Wood near High Wycombe" and " According to BBC home affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford officers were looking for possible signs of makeshift explosives and detonators in King's Wood."Hypnosadist 21:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This search is still ongoing at this point and in several areas of the wood and they will be working all through the night again.Hypnosadist 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

alleged

I'm all for conspiracy theories, and i also don't like all the convenient "terror attacks" that seem to happen when the public starts to forget about the war and the President and whatever. However, this is an encyclopedia. We don't have the luxury to doubt the Press and the governments of two countries. We just report what happened. That's it. "alleged" is a POV word and must be taken out and left out of this article. dposse 03:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that alleged is a POV word. In fact, it should be used until something has been proven; in that case the article would be exhibiting POV without it. However, according to the media, the investigation turned up bomb-making materials and there is proof of the plot. In this situation, the attack is not "alleged". Dbinder (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that we cannot doubt governments.

The plot is alleged until a jury rules the opposite. While it's clear (if debatable) that governments and airport security cannot, can we hold our breath for some time? The principle of presumption of innocence has been observed by WP for almost a year, until the officers who shot seven times in the head a guy who was boarding a train before scores of eye-witnesses were cleared. I can't see why that should not apply here. If anything, there are far too many instances of unqualified "plot" in the article. In mainstream media (UK at least) you can't find "plot" anywhere unaccompanied by "alleged". Whatever some people would like us to believe, it's not only the "Muslim community" who doesn't trust this British police/goverment anymore, ex-Labour Tony Benn yesterday (interviewed by the BBC) was very clear about this.

War in Iraq, de Menezes, Alpizar, Forest Gate, what do these all have in common? Bad intelligence (or lack thereof), worse policies, civilian casualties. I do hope that this plot will be demonstrated to be real. PizzaMargherita 06:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This morning I just saw a government minister, the home secretary, on TV where he used the phrase 'alleged plot'. His statement is still running as of now on BBC news 24 on UK terrestrial TV. Is that official enough? The alleged word has crept into all news reports since the day it happened, perhaps because there seems as yet to be no proof of anything. From memory, I recently heard some statistics re terrorist related arrests in recent years. Of about 1000 people arrested, more than half have simply been released, and only about 30 have been convicted of anything directly related to terrorism. Then we have the couple of people shot by police despite not having any demonstrable terrorist link, which I suspect sounds more acceptable in the US than it does in the UK. In short, while people are willing to go along with security measures because there obviously is a risk, there is an increasing level of cynicism about their effectiveness, and the credibility of any official statement. Wiki does generally give the benefit of the doubt to official government sources. However, there has to be a limit as to how long we are willing to quote statements from a source which repeatedly demonstrates its inaccuracy, without qualifying those statements.
See also http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/threat-level-update statement from home secretary repeatedly using the word 'alleged', though presumably this page will be changed as it describes the current situation:
The police, acting with the Security Service MI5, are investigating an alleged plot to bring down a number of aircraft through mid-flight explosions, causing a considerable loss of life. The police believe the alleged plot was a very significant one indeed.
On the other hand, alleged terrorist suspect would be a tautology, since it would be factual to say that the people arrested are suspected of terrorism, whether there is a convincing basis for that suspicion or not.
If anyone clued up and able to improve articles is reading this, I have noticed that the terrorist related and linked articles are becoming rather out of date. They list people arrested at the time, but there is no mention of what happened to them later. As I said, it would seem the most likely outcome is that they are simply released. Sandpiper 09:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
They (the individual people involved) are alleged terrorist until they are found guilty in a british court of law that is very simple wikipedia policy. As for the Conspiracy theorists STFU and get a life!Hypnosadist 09:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not required to go by what courts of law say. We can make statements based on verifiable sources that do not necessarily require the term 'alleged'. --Golbez 10:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Those of us who live within the jurisdiction of the British courts most certainly are required to go by what they say. There have already been concerns expressed that all the publicity in this case has harmed the chances of the suspects getting a fair trial, or that even if guilty they would get off because potential jurors will have had their judgment tainted. -- Arwel (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately, Wikipedia is not under such jurisdiction. --Golbez 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
However, many of it's editors are. --Barberio 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that will be their lawyers first line of defence in the fair trial they will get.Hypnosadist 11:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
"Presumption of innocence". That applies to an individual prosecuted for a crime. It doesn't apply to whether a crime took place or not! Whether a crime occurred or not can usually be determined long before a trial takes place. That is, if we have a body and a murder weapon, and suicide is ruled out, we don't need to talk about an "alleged" murder. In this case of course things are a little less clear-cut. We don't know if the police have anything more than hearsay (suspect being overheard) - say, forensics, documents, confessions, etc. Imagine that Guy Fawkes had been caught before he'd planted the gunpowder in the basement. Would we now talk about the "alleged" gunpowder plot? As I've stated elsewhere, if you catch your plotter early enough you may be unable to prove in a court of law that a plot ever existed. But as a security service your prime motivation is not to obtain convictions but to foil plots.

Exile 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right, innocence and its presumption apply to individuals only. But in this case you can demonstrate that there really was a plot if and only if you can demonstrate that the suspects have actually taken part of it. Until then they are presumed innocent, and therefore until then the plot is alleged. PizzaMargherita 14:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily. A plot may exist even if it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the individuals concerned took part in it. Example - explosives are found - but they cannot be linked to particular suspects. Exile 14:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Your logic escapes me. Explosives are found, therefore the existence of a plot is demonstrated. ?? PizzaMargherita 15:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That is, if we have a body and a murder weapon, and suicide is ruled out, we don't need to talk about an "alleged" murder.—Think again. In the de Menezes case we sure had all of that and lots more. And yet Wikipedia for one year reverted as POV any "murder" edits. And that was the correct thing to do. PizzaMargherita 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It was a deliberate killing, murder is POV as it claims the death is unlawful. His unfortunate and wrongful death was not murder and no criminal charges are to be brought although the trial started today under the Heath and Safty at Work Act about this event.Hypnosadist 15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the news, but I'm missing your point. I think we agree so far. PizzaMargherita 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That was something of a special case. If a cop shoots someone then "murder" is not the default position - though it may turn out to be murder as the evidence comes in. Exile 14:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong again. The same holds for any other human being, and that is called "presumption of innocence". PizzaMargherita 15:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

PizzaMargheritas comment about "Bad intelligence (or lack thereof)" is the point i was trying to make. Personal feelings cannot come into a article like this, or any article for that matter. However, i can see from Hypnosadists point of view and i guess i can agree with that. dposse 15:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Alleged is not POV. Alleged is in fact a neutral term, and often used as such. Remember, as well as WP:NPOV we have to abide by WP:V. In most cases, WP:V trumps WP:NPOV in a conflict between the two. Untill it becomes verifiable that the named plotters are involved, then we can't say they were without it being a POV. Verification is likely to come from a court conviction, then we can say they were convicted of it. Until then, or the release of significant evidence in support, we should use Alleged. --Barberio 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Guns found at Walthamstow

According itv news firearms have been found at one of the addresses in Walthamstow. Its not on the website yet.Hypnosadist 17:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Once it is it can be added. —Mets501 (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Heres a video report from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm "Police investigating the alleged plot to blow up transatlantic flights have found a handgun and a rifle at two addresses. The detentions of 23 people held in custody will be reviewed on Wednesday evening. Daniel Sandford reports." Its not in text yet.Hypnosadist 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A video link should be fine. dposse 23:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
How is that relevant? Nobody ever claimed that guns were going to be used in the alleged plot. They're not so easy to take with you on an airplane. David Sneek 07:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It's very relevant to this article. It shows how desperate the police are to find some evidence. PizzaMargherita 07:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Alternate to "desperate", they told about the weapons because they found them. In an alternate universe where they didn't disclose the discovery, people are going "why are the police withholding their findings? The taxpayers have a right to know. Conspiracy, conspiracy!" In an another alternate universe the police didn't find the weapons, and the same people are going "bumbling fools, couldn't find their own asses in the dark." So it goes. Weregerbil 09:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
But you have to notice that the police claim to have found guns, not explosives. Sandpiper

The police claim Nothing its another leak (the bbc TV news says it understands that 2 guns have been found)but from the bbc some more info http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4793393.stm "Searches are being conducted at several locations linked to the investigation, code-named Operation Overt. In Pakistan up to 17 others are believed to be in custody, including Briton Rashid Rauf, who is thought to be the brother of Tayib Rauf, 22, one of those arrested in Birmingham last week." The police have cordened off the Whole wood and have been searching day and night for three days. The Madrid bombers had guns, and its not suprising really.Hypnosadist 11:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you mean to make that point, I expect the madrid bombers also wore trousers. That makes us all likely bombers. Sandpiper 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thats not what i said, just don't think finding of guns in the hands of terrorist (if thats the truth) is suprising just because they are no use in the plot we have heard of does not mean terrorist would not want guns. Much terrorism (such as in northern ireland) is funded by "normal" crime as well, this would be another reason for a gun.Hypnosadist 19:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
yes, you did. I do not find it surprising that terrorists might own trousers, but no way does owning trousers prove that people are terrorists. Similarly, owning guns does nor make one a terrorist, otherwise half of America would have to be arrested. Awkward job for the half not owning guns to go out and arrest the half who do. Sandpiper 21:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry cultural differences, i'm a Brit so only criminals(or the police) have guns, you must be american where anyone can own them.Hypnosadist 22:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a brit too. And it is not true that only criminals or the police have guns in the UK. It is true that anyone legitimately holding guns would be unlikely to keep them in the middle of a wood, but that does not make them terrorists. I imagine very very very few of the supposedly large number of guns privately owned in this country belong to terrorists. Sandpiper 08:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Point taken on police officially not claiming to have found anything. Let's wait and see I guess. PizzaMargherita 11:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Having said that, yesterday "unofficial police sources" (whatever that means) leaked to BBC that they found a suitcase in the woods with "everything one would want to build a bomb". But didn't they just tell us that they couldn't say anything because they would have compromised a fair trial? It looks to me like the skeptics were right: they hadn't found anything yet. And to be honest I'm fed up of these controlled leaks. PizzaMargherita 12:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
What evidence do you have they are "controled leaks", my bet none at all. The media bribe and manipulate individual police officers to get information on cases in most countries around the world. They want that story, even the BBC, if the Police had Nothing they would not have got past the Senior County Court Judge yesterday, does this Something equal proof they are guilty NO! Have the police said anything offical, Yes that they found "items of interest" in the woods and thats all they have said. I've said it before the police can't say much at all without risking the prosicution, and that risk should not be taken just for poeple who won't believe what they are told anyway. This lack of information creates a vacuum of facts that the media depending on the ethics of that media group fill with Leaks, Suppositon or out-right made up BS. Pizza if you want Trial by Media not by Jury just say so but its not going to be a fairer system.Hypnosadist 13:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Wait a second, who is trialling by media now? Earlier you said that you were sure that this is not another Forest Gate (i.e. that the suspects are guilty). What insider info led you to believe that? PizzaMargherita 14:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
If the Police had Nothing they would not have got past the Senior County Court Judge yesterday, does this Something equal proof they are guilty NO! That why i don't think this is a complete screw up like forest gate, the only thing that went right was that guy didn't die. Also there rumours that there was no bomb found started within a day, nothing like that has come out in the mainstream media this time. Also the thing with the Bank Details again separates this from Forest Gate.Hypnosadist 15:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
So now if something radical happens like freezing assets of the suspects it means that they are guilty. Like saying: if they shot somebody as he boarded a train, he must have been a terrorist. Also I would like to point out that you claimed that this was not another Forest Gate (i.e. that the suspects are guilty) on 14th August, shortly after the arrests and well before they got past the CCJ. PizzaMargherita 15:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
No i explained the differences between this case and Forest Gate, and you choose to deliberately misrepresent what i say. Read what i have said.Hypnosadist 16:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Incomprehensible Referencing

Do others agree that the system of referencing currently being used is

  • Non intuitive and incomprehensible to an occasional user. (indeed also to experienced ones)
  • Makes the text impossible to read when trying to edit
  • Destroys the benefit of in-line links to other sources, so that a reader is unable to simply click up the reference without shifting his page and losing his place?
  • Can't preview the references you add when editing only a section of a page

Does anyone have any better ideas? Sandpiper 11:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • No (grin). However, rather than taking the topic up on the talk page of this article, it might be better to take it up elsewhere, like possibly the 'Manual of Style'. I think it will be rather difficult to change the current system, unfortunately WLD 09:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Evidence

So, were is the evidence?. And by the way, What a coincidence!. Do note that the last link is from MSNBC--Striver 17:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As i've said the police have released no evidence to the public as it would jepordise the case. But i forget that the British police work for the Republican party, or is it the "Banking Interests" that are telling the British government what to do Striver? Hypnosadist 17:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that so far no evidence has been made available is significant, I think, because British intelligence services have an extremely poor record in terror related cases: see the Wood Green ricin plot for example, Jean Charles de Menezes, or the 2 June 2006 Forest Gate raid. Not to mention the alleged plot to blow up Old Trafford. Shouldn't the article reflect this lack of credibility? David Sneek 20:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The first independant test of the evidence comes lunchtime tomorrow when the police have to bring each subject to court and present a case for continued detention under the anti-terrorism laws. Also don't confuse what the Daily mail claims is happening with what the police say is happening.Hypnosadist 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not advocate writing the article with a sceptical tone towards the statements that a plot exists, but having said that, my opinion is that if any significant evidence proving the existence of a real threat had been found, then this would have been 'leaked' immediately. At this point it is not necessary to leak prejudicial information about individuals, from the POV of the authorities the desperate need has to be to demonstrate that they are correct in the mere existence of a threat by someone. But I agree tomorrow should be interesting. I think it was at that point, last time round, that the authorities suddenly declined to produce any evidence. Sandpiper 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Plea for info on Pakistani arrests

We only have a few words on these, has anyone got good links or sites to look at for information.Hypnosadist 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tasting baby formula at US airports

At least one person inserted an edit on the basis that he had personally seen people required to taste baby formula at US airports. Someone else immediately reverted this to a version saying it had been proved that this was not the case, on the basis of an official motice saying this would not be required. I do not find this convincing. For my money, no official notice of general policy can ever 'prove' that a certain thing never happened. Anyone got better information? Sandpiper 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the person who made this edit. Originally I had first stated that UK passengers were being forced to taste baby formula to prove it was not a hazardous liquid (explosive). I then went on to say it was rumored that US passengers were being forced to do the same. I did not personally witness people tasting baby formula at US airports, though this may have occured. Fox News Channel reported at one point that it was rumored that this was occuring. The NY Times article that I cited is where I got the information that TSA would not be requiring US passengers to taste baby formula. Mynameisryan812 16:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's quite possible that it was planned to make ppl taste formula/bottled breast milk, until someone actually checked and found that it wouldn't be immediately toxic, and if you were going to blow up a plane with liquid explosive anyway then why would you care if you were made drink some... RTÉ (Irish) radio had a British security expert interviewed on the morning of the alert saying it was pretty pointless... Bastun 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Under 1.2 (Scope of Plot > Liquid Explosives) it explains why tasting the baby formula was irrelevant. The container that the plotters planned to use was to contain the original liquid on the top. Thus, they would be tasting a harmless drink while the explosive material sat at the bottom of the modified container. We need to make clarification on this section. I think we need to state that immediately after the incident was uncovered, passengers in the UK were forced to taste baby formula. In the meantime, it was rumored that US passengers had been forced to do the same. I do not know if this actually occured or not; I was hoping to see if anyone had witnessed this or had any sources. As more details of the plot were uncovered, this was deemed unnecessary due to the reason I mentioned above. Mynameisryan812 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit I meant is the one with this description :

19:55, 15 August 2006 MarcusGraly (Talk | contribs) (→United States - I travelled by air Monday Morning and saw people being made to drink formula at SFO) I take it User:MarcusGraly meant what he said, but i was hoping he might drop in and comment. Sandpiper 21:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The official UK Home Office guidance is still stating that baby milk (and also baby food) has to be tasted by the parents.[22] --duncan 21:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Linking dates

Do we really have to make every date in the article a link to the wiki page for that date? Normal convention is only to link the first occurrence of anything in an article. And in this case I'm not sure I want to know whos'e birthday it was when this business began. Sandpiper 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In order for the date processing to work correctly, dates ARE one of the things you are ALWAYS supposed to link. When the software sees, say, [[11 September]], it automatically knows to render that as "September 11" on my screen. However, if it wasn't a wikilink, that automatic conversion would not happen. --Golbez 22:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
So why is it necessary to automatically render dates into a different format? Sandpiper 07:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Because peoples' preferences for how they read dates are strongly culturally ingrained, and disagreements lead to transatlantic edit wars. There was a hell of an argument about this back in 2003 before date formats were made a user preference – I should know, it's the only major edit war I've been involved in since joining Wikipedia. See the MoS (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day. Which is why I'm going to be bold and relink the dates. -- Arwel (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Somehow that ought to be the epitaph of the human race. Killed by war over date format. Sandpiper 19:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Big enders and little enders, Gulliver must have come to wikipedia!Hypnosadist 14:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Strangely I am quite accustomed to dates appearing in articles in whichever format they were written. Must be one of my little eccentricities. Sandpiper 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hand luggage rules

Just a comment that it would be real helpful to have the current hand luggage rules for different flights written up in detail somewhere. William Jockusch 07:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It ought to be in the section #hand luggage restrictions. This does describe the current situation in the UK, though i am not absolutely sure it precisely describes the situation re liquids (which may be still banned to US but not elsewhere if bought after passing through security?) Sandpiper 07:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are international flights. For instance is it currently allowed to take what used to be the standard carry-on suitcase with you or not? William Jockusch 08:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)