Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Heathrow Terror Plot?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "2006 transatlantic air sabotage plot"? —Mets501 (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name for this story/event

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How about scheme? :) Really, plot seems fine. --Elliskev 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Transatlantic Bomb Caper? has a nice retro feel to it, old school reporting style Jmackaerospace 22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Plot"?

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  New title 

message: 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)
replies: text: I like it. :) Strawberry Island 18:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too. :-) -G3,03:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Support --0g 16:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical suggestion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: * 2006 transatlantic liquid bomb plot. MP   (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add more below

message: Should our words be in American English or British English?
: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Grammar

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Prevented vs. Disrupted

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Was or is

message: 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)
replies: text: Okay. Do we have any of the currently used news stories quoting it? Shimgray | talk | 11:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've come across Norwegian press quoting the statement , will continue for any English speaking reference. Tsaetre 11:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reid press conference

message: 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 [].  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: OK, I think I've fixed it. LeoO3 15:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pakistan connection

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: External links and references

message: 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)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
thread_title: Citations: Proper Source?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Citation/Neutrality issue for 'Political Reaction' detail

message: 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)
thread_title: According to so-and-so

message: 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)
thread_title: Citation for mixing components of explosive on flight?

message: 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)
replies: text: The Home Office site only has one "severe" MyNameIsClare talk 09:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Terror level?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: gatwick

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Flights from Paris

message: 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)
replies: text: They mean bottles of solution, not the 6 drops that are in the lens case. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I 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)

text: That sounds terribly bad for your eyes. - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Contact Lenses

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Carry on restrictions

message: 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)
replies: text: What about :Image:Stewart-Raging grannies.jpg, or perhaps that's too silly for this topic :) Ajaxfan 23:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: It is displaying fine for me in Explorer.  --Holderca1 23:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Can we add an image?

message: 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)
thread_title: New York National Guard

message: 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)
thread_title: Security reaction

message: === 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It seems like a good insight, but it's just not verifiable. alphaChimp laudare 12:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article will be undergoing alot of changes for the few days, so anything that can be verified should be 'd or removed. Yanksox 12:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or just . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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:   - when I read the first reference, it did not even contain the word "acid" in the article. --HappyCamper 20:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the suggestion that the solution could be triggered by a flash camera might be added back in -  - 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)
thread_title:  Technical discussions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It seems like a good insight, but it's just not verifiable. alphaChimp laudare 12:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article will be undergoing alot of changes for the few days, so anything that can be verified should be 'd or removed. Yanksox 12:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or just . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed mention of "binary explosives" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  'Liquid Explosives' 

message: 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)
thread_title: Liquid explosives

message: This section of text needs another set of eyes to look at:   - when I read the first reference, it did not even contain the word "acid" in the article. --HappyCamper 20:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the suggestion that the solution could be triggered by a flash camera might be added back in -  - 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)
thread_title: Removed text

message: ===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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Removed the lists... Tell me to get back to work! 09:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Several people? Then the BBC and wikipedia are wrong. According to Wood Green no-ricin plot &  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  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)
replies: text: Heathrow has already been updated, checking other articles. 68.127.232.228 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Related-article discussions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Removed the lists... Tell me to get back to work! 09:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Several people? Then the BBC and wikipedia are wrong. According to Wood Green no-ricin plot &  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  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)
thread_title: Links

message: Some other related articles should be kept up to date as well:
*Airport security
*Transportation Security Administration
*London Heathrow Airport
Please add to the list and sign if you have updated a page (with time). --J Morgan(talk) 20:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heathrow has already been updated, checking other articles. 68.127.232.228 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Other articles

message: 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)
replies: text: The BBC and police have both said "up to 10".  CNN would inflate things... Budgiekiller 10:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: MSNBC is also saying 10. alphaChimp laudare 12:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Planes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: presumed plot ?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reported planned date of strike

message: 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)
thread_title: High Wycombe

message: 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)
replies: text: For those of us not in the UK, could you clarify what Walton Drive is? alphaChimp laudare 12:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a street in Wycombe - it's where the one reported arrest there was. Shimgray | talk | 12:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Too bad google doesn't have real-time spysats... Weregerbil 12:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Walton Drive evacuation

message: 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)
replies: text: At least one, at least, has not of pakistani origin. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The BBC never mentions muslims. The terrorists are probably Pakistani methodists. 129.10.244.59 21:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: spurious High Wycombe reports

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Raid photo

message: The Bank of England has published a list of names of the suspects whose bank account details have been frozen.  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The list of names was published on the BBC website this morning as well.  Budgiekiller 12:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of suspects

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Arrests in Italy?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Thanks for "helping", UK

message: 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  for one example). Chrisfez 00:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US Involvement in Investigation

message: ===Good work!===
Hi, just wanted to say, great article in such a short space of time! Stevage 12:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, very impressive! 83.88.169.167 12:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Tomorrow's featured article, maybe...? :-D - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 14:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: thanks. dposse 02:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article quality discussions 

message: Hi, just wanted to say, great article in such a short space of time! Stevage 12:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, very impressive! 83.88.169.167 12:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Tomorrow's featured article, maybe...? :-D - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 14:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good work!

message: 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.
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)
thread_title: You're so quick!

message: 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)
thread_title: Superb work

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Well done everyone

message: Great job everyone working on this article!  1000+ edits in under 24 hours! —Mets501 (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks. dposse 02:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good job!

message: 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)
thread_title: Good Article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: That is the purpose of Wikinews. Wikipedia is expected to create "time-less" (time-independent) articles. Rmhermen 14:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Airports 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm not seeing anything of that sort. —Mets501 (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Wouldn't call it related just yet, though. Shimgray | talk | 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found the SN article:  Jvlm.123 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Qatar Airways? 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: ^^ Vikramsidhu 21:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "How world economies reacted" 

message: .... ??? (Specifically ) Can an admin block this guy or something?? Ajaxfan 23:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, HappyCamper fixed it. Ajaxfan 23:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: 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.  Goatchurch 01:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political reactions 

message: Ill rephrase myself. 
There are people that view that this event is staged, see www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806terrorplot.htm this].
Thank you for expresing how tolerated i am. --Striver 16:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Indeed, it's far from reliable. But thanks for toning down the comment a bit. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: sight

message: 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)
replies: text: If you can find reliable sources that document the theory, then it can certainly be included. Vashti 07:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok then i'll try to find related material. BigKahuna 15:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: connection w/Oliver Stone's WTC launch

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And while you're at it, try to be civil! Budgiekiller 09:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: So what kinds of criticisms about the government handling of this are there? Skinnyweed 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: May I add this: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --physicq210 00:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is the hoax nature of scare NOT addressed in the article?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I think that the comment was directed more at George Bush, than at Wikipedia editors Bluap 16:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, it's unhelpful in my opinion. --Guinnog 07:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  We should keep the racism to a minimum here in the talk page. Valtam 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. & U.K. government & news statements about suspects' religious ties 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Grouping sections 

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

message: ===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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: ^Again, not trying to incite anything, not trying to validate or invalidate anything, just providing some commentary.Gspawn 14:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  relevance? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: ^Again, not trying to incite anything, not trying to validate or invalidate anything, just providing some commentary.Gspawn 14:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: U.S. domestic politics

message: 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)
thread_title:  Released without charge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Agreed Bluap 16:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Articles on the suspects arrested 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes as long as they are well sourced and link the attacks to this plot.Hypnosadist 10:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Revenge attacks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sunday Times Online on the Plot 

message: 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)
thread_title: More info from the The Sun via the Austrailian

message: 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)
thread_title:  New BBC story 

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

text: A video link should be fine. dposse 23:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Guns found at Walthamstow 

message: 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)
:*Yes WLD
*Makes the text impossible to read when trying to edit
:*Yes WLD
*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?
:*Yes WLD
*Can't preview the references you add when editing only a section of a page
:*YesWLD
Does anyone have any better ideas? Sandpiper 11:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible Referencing 

message: So, were is the evidence?. And by the way, www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/150806thenexus.htm What a] www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/150806thenexus.htm coincidence!]. Do note that the last link is from MSNBC--Striver 17:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Evidence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plea for info on Pakistani arrests 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The official UK Home Office guidance is still stating that baby milk (and also baby food) has to be tasted by the parents. --duncan 21:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tasting baby formula at US airports 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So why is it necessary to automatically render dates into a different format? Sandpiper 07:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Somehow that ought to be the epitaph of the human race. Killed by war over date format. Sandpiper 19:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Big enders and little enders, Gulliver must have come to wikipedia!Hypnosadist 14:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Linking dates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hand luggage rules 

message: This article really does not read like an encyclopedia - does anyone have the time to put this right?  Anthony.moore 17:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic Style 

message: I really don't like that infobox to the other related articles right over there on the right hand side above the photo; I always miss it, and I think many other's do to.  Can we put those links back at the top of the page indented and italicked as it's done for many other articles?Goatchurch 13:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox