Misplaced Pages

Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hack4good (talk | contribs) at 16:25, 10 August 2006 (Added question about clarifying re: Liquid Explosives). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:25, 10 August 2006 by Hack4good (talk | contribs) (Added question about clarifying re: Liquid Explosives)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3

Title

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

Why not rename it "2006 transatlantic plane terror plot"? — Rickyrab | Talk 08:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not happy with "plane" to be honest... do we have any precedents we could use? Budgiekiller 08:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


Terror level?

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

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


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

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

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

Links

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

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

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

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

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

Name

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

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

No, the title should reflect the common perception. The article can challenge that.

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

no, the name should be as neutral as the article! --Irishpunktom\ 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. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sam

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

--84.71.0.89 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" ? Rich Farmbrough 10:50 10 August 2006 (GMT).

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

High Wycombe

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

Flights from Paris

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

http://challengestempsreel.nouvelobs.com/business/art_57977.html ("L'état du réseau")
(quick translation)
- British Airways: no flights in destination of europe until 2pm GMT.
- Lufthansa et Air Berlin: flights going to great britain cancelled. until 2pm (Lufthansa).
- Bruxelles' airport: flights from and to london cancelled or delayed.
- Air France: flights to london cancelled until 12h GMT. air france will reassess the situation in the afternoon.
- Portugal : flights to london cancelled, in the following airports: Lisbon, Porto, Faro 's international airports, and for the following airlines: TAP Portugal, British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa and Olympic Airlines.
- Alitalia (italian): No planes to london in the morning
- Ryanair (lowcost, italian): all planes to great britain cancelled for today.
- Iberia: flights cancelled untill 12 gmt.
- Qantas : Increased security check for all flights from and to great brittain. Passengers will only be able to take the bare minimum with them inside the plane: passport, waller, plane tickets, preferably in a transparant bag.
- KLM: all planes to London-Heathrow cancelled until further notice.
- aéroport de Nice: 1.500 passengers waiting.
- BAA has asked that all planes going to London-Heathrow that had not yet departed be kept on hold.
FiP 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. Hello32020 11:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Cite for gridlock

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

I can't get that link to work. Have you got a text source? WLD 11:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

gatwick

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

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

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


FYI for BAA websites

This is just an FYI advisory message...

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

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

Weasel words?

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

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

Thank God

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

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

Well, let's hope that they got everybody. I'm a little concerned if they raised the threat level this high. alphaChimp 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. Tsaetre 11:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Removed mention of "binary explosives"

I have removed the following statement:

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

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

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

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

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


'Liquid Explosives'

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

Walton Drive evacuation

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

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

spurious High Wycombe reports

Someone keeps adding in:

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

>>>Muslims? I am SHOCKED!

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

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

Good work!

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

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

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

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

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!Thomasmallen 13:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is quite short for a name of a terrorist attack; see 7 July 2005 London bombings and 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 10 August 2006 Aircraft Bombing Plot alphaChimp 13:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Disagree. That implies that the event was supposed to occur today and that is not necessarily true. However, I do think we need to mention bombing somewhere. The transatlantic aircraft plot could theoretically refer to anything. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "Air" can easily be substituted for "aircraft" I believe. As names for the mode of travel, they are interchangeable i.e. "I'm travelling by air". Thomasmallen 13:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "2006 aircraft attack plot"? Seems simple enough, and it specifies that there was a plot for "attack", unlike the current title. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 13:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Plenty of aircrafts have been attacked in wars throughout the world. Maybe we need to go with something catchier and less uptightly accurate too. 9/11 tells nothing about the nature of the event.
    • "2006 transatlantic aircraft attack plot", cause location should be noted in title. Hello32020 13:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Not clear enough. Aircraft attack could mean anything. How about we just wait a couple of weeks until this becomes a little more clear and then change the title. alphaChimp 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
"2006 transatlantic air sabotage plot"? —Mets501 (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How about "2006 UK–US terrorist attack foiling incident"? Or something the like? We should address the places directly affected as well as that the breaking news is that the event was foiled by the UK authorities. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 13:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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. Rmhermen 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. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
How can an entity that is supposedly not to publish "original research" be a "major news source"? How can something that is supposedly an "encyclopedia" be expected to publish "non-encyclopedic" material? While you claim there are "many" who think 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 wikinews, at best. mdf 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, when i woke up today and heard the situation on BBC radio the first website o went to to get the broadest insight was bbc news, followed by wikipedia. wikipedia is in my opinion is at the forefront of information because it can be editted now, not annually like other published encyclopedias. thus i have to say that wikipedia is more then just a source of information, it is quite a reliable source of news too. not only that because the articles are editted by many people from different parts of the world the articles are quite trustworthy, and the funny thing is the more people edit it the more mistakes are picked out. --Greg.loutsenko 14:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Me too, I woke up this morning, turned on the TV, heard about this, and came straight to WP. :-) —Mets501 (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That is the purpose of Wikinews. Misplaced Pages is expected to create "time-less" (time-independent) articles. Rmhermen 14:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Why do you think we have a "current event" template? And plus, if we enforced your views, this article would only be about 2 sentences long. People want updated, critical information, and this is where many come for it. In addition, where does it cite that Misplaced Pages is "expected to create time-less articles"?. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 15:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
People who come to an encyclopedia for information about a current event deserve what they get -- there is even a template about that (or at least there was, cf. Hurricane Katrina). As for "timeless" etc, check WP:MoS. As for being two sentences long: I completely agree. As to why people hold these views, I suggest you watch the current non-WP news and note just how volatile, contradictory and generally confused it really is. Incredible, but true: the sources being cited in articles here frequently change in place at CNN and other outlets, and change enough to invalidate the article. Do these clusterfucks really need to be replicated at Misplaced Pages? mdf 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). Srose (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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? Jvlm.123 15:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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? 216.16.224.26 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. Bluap 15:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks alot. I just got confused because the flights were going to the US.

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

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). LeoO3 15:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

External links and references

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

I'd recommend they be removed/moved, but some of them may have been generic references for some of the original article content (i.e. references not linked to particular individual sentences). zoney ♣ talk 15:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Superb work

Fantastic work on this article - the international reaction section is a great addition. When Wiki works well, it shows in articles like this. doktorb words 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? --Jcmo 15:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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).