Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:17, 10 August 2006 editJcmo (talk \| contribs)438 edits →Hand luggage policy ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:24, 22 October 2024 edit undoPARAKANYAA (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers43,333 editsm →top: clean up, replaced: {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\| → {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|importance=Low\|Tag: AWB
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes}}
	{{talkheader}}
			{{On this day\|date1=2010-08-10\|oldid1=378124116\|date2=2012-08-09\|oldid2=506477258\|date3=2015-08-09\|oldid3=674957918\|date4=2016-08-09\|oldid4=733658955\|date5=2020-08-09\|oldid5=971887521}}
	==Title==
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|importance=Low\|terrorism=yes\|terrorism-imp=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Aviation }}
			{{WikiProject United States \|importance=Low}}
			}}
			{{merged-from\|Timeline of the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot\|23 May 2018}}
			{{archives\|auto=long\|search=yes\|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III\|age=365\|index=/Archive index}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 3
			\|minthreadsleft = 4
			\|algo = old(365d)
			\|archive = Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index
			\|mask=/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes}}

			== External links modified ==
	This may not be the best name - please feel free to rename it as you see fit! ] 06:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:Why not rename it "2006 transatlantic plane terror plot"? <nowiki></nowiki> — ] \| ] 08:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::I'm not happy with "plane" to be honest... do we have any precedents we could use? ] 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"?--] 08:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:The name of the group is almost never used in article titles. --] 09:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::"2006 Transatlantic terror plot"? ] 09:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yeah, I'm a newb. Pardon. Though, I am liking "2006 Transatlantic terror plot." --] 09:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::Or should I say "2006 transatlantic terror plot"? ] 09:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::But the word "terror" used in this way is so nasty! What ever happened to terror''ism'' or terror''ist'' plots? ] ] 09:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::True enough. "2006 transatlantic terrorist plot"? ] 09:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::That sounds good for me. ] 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. \|→ ]°] 09:36, 10 August 2006 (])
	::Sure. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. ] 09:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::I say "2006 transatlantic flight explosion plot". ''']''' <sup>(] ])</sup> 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. ] 10:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	Can we please reach some sort of consensus before changing the title again? --] 10:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::And when we do, can we spell it properly please?! ] 10:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

			I have just added archive links to {{plural:2\|one external link\|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	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. ] 13:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081205123747/http://www.dawn.com:80/2006/09/01/top11.htm to http://www.dawn.com/2006/09/01/top11.htm
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081208194823/http://www.rawstory.com:80/news/2006/Sources_August_Terror_Plot_Fiction_Underscoring_0918.html to http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Sources_August_Terror_Plot_Fiction_Underscoring_0918.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=true}}
	== Terror level? ==

			Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 06:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
	It said the level was raised from "'severe' to 'critical'", but there are two severes on ]. So which one is it? ] 09:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:The site only has one "severe" ] ] 09:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

			== Merger proposal ==
	: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 ] page with the information from http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/Page479.html ] 14:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

			The ] is a good example of what I would call the WP 'breaking news syndrome', by which I mean it successfully covers everything which came out while the story was 'front page news', but not subsequent developments.

			Any meaningful timeline would start at least 6 months before the arrest, ''(the beginning of surveillance)'', and would involve subjects such as the arrest of Rauf in Pakistan, what prompted that arrest and what the consequences were to the UK operation. Also the three trials and sentencing, none of which are covered.
	From what I gather, UK went to the highest. In the US, specific flights are now bumped up to their own "Red" level. --] 09:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

			A considerable amount of detail in timeline is credited to unnamed sources, many US, ''(ie distant from the actual investigation)'' and much is 'early speculation'. Many details have since been discredited, or at least not substantiated, in court or elsewhere. There is general admission that in the initial response, there was a great deal of 'talking up' ''(number of planes, state of readiness, number of 'martyr tapes', etc.)''. Also, a great deal of detail has since emerged about, for example, the role of the US, ''(aided by Pakistan)'', in 'forcing the UK's hand' and about also about how UK initially became suspicious and concluded airlines were the probable targets ''(which they found difficult to prove in court, even though they were able to prove some kind of conspiracy).'' Whilst initial claims are part of the story, a timeline which fails to indicate which claims were later substantiated and which not, is not doing the reader a service.
	: The U.S. is at orange for domestic flights and red for U.K. flights.--] 09:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

			I propose a merger with the present article, since info in the 'timeline' is either unreliable or duplicated with either this, or the ] article. ] (]) 12:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
	Current UK state of alert at 14:00 10/08/06 is "Critical" http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/current-threat-level/
			:{{done}} ] (]) 20:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

			The timeline still contains a great deal of 'breaking news syndrome', ie initial speculation which was never confirmed ''(and in many cases later contradicted, such as a 'tipoff' alertng UK police and them mounting an infiltration exercise, actually it was a massive surveillance exercise and not a tipoff, but suspicious movements to and from Pakistan by the UK ringleader which initiated that surveillance)''. A lot of this info is of the "unnamed US/UK sources said" kind.
	== Links ==

			The role of US intelligence in 'forcing the hand' of the UK police by encouraging the Pakistan arrests ''(which UK police were adamantly opposed to until after UK operatives had been arrested and evidence secured)'' is 'glossed over' and no 'go now' message from Pakistan has ever been confirmed by UK police, though they were afraid that a 'fallback' plan might exist and had arranged to arrest the suspects once they were seen finding out about flights in an internet cafe. These planned, coordinated arrests had to be brought forward to an impromptu 'arrest them all' overnight unarmed operation when UK police heard of the arrest of Rauf in Pakistan - UK police were pretty bloody angry at the 'betrayal of confidence', exposing UK and UK police to unnec danger and lack of coordination shown by the US. ] (]) 11:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
	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 ?

			== External links modified ==
	--] 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. ] 09:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::The rationale behind the ] link was that it was a transatlantic bombing. I do agree that we need to maintain a healthy skepticism here though. ] 09:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::Removed the lists... ] 09:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	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.] 10:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:Several people? Then the BBC and wikipedia are wrong. According to ] & 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. ] 11:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	== Name ==
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327042820/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/threat-severe to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/threat-severe

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	not "airplane" please. ''] ]'' 10:40 ] ] (GMT).
	* Budgiekiller changed it. plane is more sepcific than craft though.. no helicopters involved. --]\<sup>]</sup> 10:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	just wanted to ask if tansatlantic, without '''R''' in it is good, when it was moved to it :) --] 10:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	* That was my fault! --]\<sup>]</sup> 10:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=true\|needhelp=}}
	** Folks, this is an allegation. The title should reflect as much. --]\<sup>]</sup> 10:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 03:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
	:No, the title should reflect the common perception. The article can challenge that.
	''] ]'' 10:48 ] ] (GMT).
	:: no, the name should be as neutral as the article! --]\<sup>]</sup> 10:52, 10 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. ] 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... ] 10:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	"plane" is fine with or without the apostrophe... ''] ]'' 10:51 ] ] (GMT).

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::The POV title tag is fine for now, at least give it some rest for the coming hours. ] 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. ] ] 10:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC))
	::::POV tag removed is also fine with me, as long as people stop moving the article around. ] 10:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::::: The title has a pov, as such, the <nowiki>{{POV-title}}</nowiki> is fine. --]\<sup>]</sup> 11:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

			I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	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. --] - ] 11:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
			*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5wg3NwDrg?url=http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-10T070221Z_01_L10215465_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BRITAIN.xml to http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-10T070221Z_01_L10215465_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BRITAIN.xml
			*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5wg3vG5yS?url=http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page9970.asp to http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page9970.asp
			*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5jiFxc4E0?url=http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/9-25_updated_passenger_guidance.shtm to http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/9-25_updated_passenger_guidance.shtm
			*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5whHx6CvS?url=http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1178302006 to http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1178302006

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	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. ] 13:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	: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. ] \| ] \| 13:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 19:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
	==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

	]

	:The BBC and police have both said "up to 10". CNN would inflate things... ] 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? ] 11:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::MSNBC is also saying 10. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

	==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" ? ''] ]'' 10:50 ] ] (GMT).
	:I just added a CNN ref for that. ] 10:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	::Thanks.

	::It's become "this morning" by now, no need for excess precision. ] \| ] \| 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! ''']<font color="green">]</font>]''' <sup>(])</sup><sup>(])</sup> 10:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	* Well, a house in Hackney was raided, thats all I know so far. --]\<sup>]</sup> 11:56, 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? ''] ]'' 10:59 ] ] (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.
	:<span style="font-family: monospace; font-variant: small-caps;font-size:16px">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 11:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	== International Reactions ==

	Can everyone try to find international reactions, I have only been able to find U.S. reactions. ] 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, ] (] ]) 11:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	==Cite for gridlock==
	the Today programme which reported it. ''] ]'' 11:13 ] ] (GMT).
	:I can't get that link to work. Have you got a text source? ] 11:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	== gatwick ==

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

	--] 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). ] <span style="color:green; font-size:larger"> ♣</span> ] 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, ] (] ]) 11:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:Can you give the URL ] 11:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	::http://www.baa.co.uk/ --Signed and Sealed, ] (] ]) 11:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	::: Good page, just added it to the UK Govt Links section. ] 13:08, 10 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. -- ] 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, ] (] ]) 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"? --] - ] 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.''
	::]] 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Thank God ==

	Thank God that police made the arrests before the terrorists blow up the planes, taking the life of many innocent people.

	--] 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Reid press conferance ==

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

	:Okay. Do we have any of the currently used news stories quoting it? ] \| ] \| 11:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:: I've come across Norwegian press quoting the statement , will continue for any English speaking reference. ] 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 somekind of normal.--] 13:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Removed mention of "binary explosives" ==
	I have removed the following statement:
	:''These may have been ], which would be inert until mixed.''
	since it appears to be unsourced speculation. -- ] 11:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:They were certainly talking about that on ] this morning, but I agree, it should stay out unless sourced. --] - ] 12:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::It seems like a good insight, but it's just not verifiable. ] <sup>]</sup> 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 <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>'d or removed. ]] 12:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::::Or just <nowiki>{{citeneeded}}</nowiki>. A lot of the additions seem very reasonable and plausable. I'm sure references will be forthcoming. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] 13:27, 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. ''']<font color="green">]</font>]''' <sup>(])</sup><sup>(])</sup> 12:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:For those of us not in the UK, could you clarify what Walton Drive is? ] <sup>]</sup> 12:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:It's a street in Wycombe - it's where the one reported arrest there was. ] \| ] \| 12:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	: The "LATEST" bar at the top is reporting this; so there shold be a news article online soon. ''']<font color="green">]</font>]''' <sup>(])</sup><sup>(])</sup> 12:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:Too bad doesn't have real-time spysats... ] 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. ] \| ] \| 12:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	: At least one, at least, has not of pakistani origin. --]\<sup>]</sup> 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	== Good work! ==

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

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

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

	:Tomorrow's featured article, maybe...? :-D - ] {]-]} 14:13, 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 Misplaced Pages/Wikinews as a news source!] 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:Actually, this is quite short for a name of a terrorist attack; see ] and ]. -- ''']''' <small>(joturner)</small> 13:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	* 10 August 2006 Aircraft Bombing Plot ] <sup>]</sup> 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. -- ''']''' <small>(joturner)</small> 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". ] 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. — <sup>`</sup>]</small>`]`]</small><sup>`</sup> 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. ] 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:"2006 transatlantic air sabotage plot"? —<span style="color: red;"><span style="font: small-caps 14px times;">] (])</span></span> 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. — <sup>`</sup>]</small>`]`]</small><sup>`</sup> 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.<nowiki> ~ </nowiki><b>] (])</b> 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	*I'm with Alphachimp too. We don't invent reality, we document it using reliable sources. ] 13:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	*Agreed, wait a while. — <sup>`</sup>]</small>`]`]</small><sup>`</sup> 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	*Agreed, wait a while. ] 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..! ] 14:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	***Probably the most similar event in history was ]...so I guess I would say follow the precedent and wait for a common name to be applied. ] 14:38, 10 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 . Some flights in and out of London Gatwick Airport have been suspended , 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. ] 14:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:Many, including myself, see Misplaced Pages 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—Misplaced Pages is unique. — <sup>`</sup>]</small>`]`]</small><sup>`</sup> 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ], at best. ] 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. --] 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. :-) —<span style="color: red;"><span style="font: small-caps 14px times;">] (])</span></span> 14:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:That is the purpose of '''Wikinews'''. Misplaced Pages is expected to create "time-less" (time-independent) articles. ] 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 Misplaced Pages is "''expected to create time-less articles''"?. — <sup>`</sup>]</small>`]`]</small><sup>`</sup> 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 ]. 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 ]. 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 Misplaced Pages? ] 16:15, 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}}

	== 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). ] ] 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	:, CNN.com doesn't have any of that information. -- ''']''' <small>(joturner)</small> 14:42, 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. ] ] 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.--] 14:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	== O2 Mobile network outage ==

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

	==Qatar Airways?==

	According to Sky News there are reports from Al Jazeera of a failed hijacking of a Qatar Airlines plane. Is this relevant? ] 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... ] ] 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	::I'm not seeing anything of that sort. —<span style="color: red;"><span style="font: small-caps 14px times;">] (])</span></span> 15:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:: Wouldn't call it related just yet, though. ] \| ] \| 15:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:::Found the SN article: ] 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. ] ] 15:23, 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.

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

	== Grammar ==

	Should our words be in American English or British English?{{User:Leroyencyclopediabrown/Sign}}
	: Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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 --] 15:34, 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 ]. 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). ] 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. --]\<sup>]</sup> 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.] 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
	:OK, I think I've fixed it. ] 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"? —<span style="color: red;"><span style="font: small-caps 14px times;">] (])</span></span> 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). ] <span style="color:green; font-size:larger"> ♣</span> ] 15:40, 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. ] <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 15:40, 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? --] 15:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

	No idea but frankly in the context of the wider story it seems like a trival point. --] 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. --] 16:17, 10 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).

Latest revision as of 00:24, 22 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 10, 2010, August 9, 2012, August 9, 2015, August 9, 2016, and August 9, 2020.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Timeline of the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot page were merged into 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot on 23 May 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The Timeline article is a good example of what I would call the WP 'breaking news syndrome', by which I mean it successfully covers everything which came out while the story was 'front page news', but not subsequent developments.

Any meaningful timeline would start at least 6 months before the arrest, (the beginning of surveillance), and would involve subjects such as the arrest of Rauf in Pakistan, what prompted that arrest and what the consequences were to the UK operation. Also the three trials and sentencing, none of which are covered.

A considerable amount of detail in timeline is credited to unnamed sources, many US, (ie distant from the actual investigation) and much is 'early speculation'. Many details have since been discredited, or at least not substantiated, in court or elsewhere. There is general admission that in the initial response, there was a great deal of 'talking up' (number of planes, state of readiness, number of 'martyr tapes', etc.). Also, a great deal of detail has since emerged about, for example, the role of the US, (aided by Pakistan), in 'forcing the UK's hand' and about also about how UK initially became suspicious and concluded airlines were the probable targets (which they found difficult to prove in court, even though they were able to prove some kind of conspiracy). Whilst initial claims are part of the story, a timeline which fails to indicate which claims were later substantiated and which not, is not doing the reader a service.

I propose a merger with the present article, since info in the 'timeline' is either unreliable or duplicated with either this, or the security reaction article. Pincrete (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Klbrain (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The timeline still contains a great deal of 'breaking news syndrome', ie initial speculation which was never confirmed (and in many cases later contradicted, such as a 'tipoff' alertng UK police and them mounting an infiltration exercise, actually it was a massive surveillance exercise and not a tipoff, but suspicious movements to and from Pakistan by the UK ringleader which initiated that surveillance). A lot of this info is of the "unnamed US/UK sources said" kind.

The role of US intelligence in 'forcing the hand' of the UK police by encouraging the Pakistan arrests (which UK police were adamantly opposed to until after UK operatives had been arrested and evidence secured) is 'glossed over' and no 'go now' message from Pakistan has ever been confirmed by UK police, though they were afraid that a 'fallback' plan might exist and had arranged to arrest the suspects once they were seen finding out about flights in an internet cafe. These planned, coordinated arrests had to be brought forward to an impromptu 'arrest them all' overnight unarmed operation when UK police heard of the arrest of Rauf in Pakistan - UK police were pretty bloody angry at the 'betrayal of confidence', exposing UK and UK police to unnec danger and lack of coordination shown by the US. Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327042820/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/threat-severe to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news/threat-severe

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories: