Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Staged

More news: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/170806probing.htm UK police probing alleged bomb plot release one] --Striver 21:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely that's old news. The 24th was released ages ago. (By the way, who knows anything about him/her?) PizzaMargherita 22:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

in total two people have now been arrested and released, 25 arrested all together last I saw. Sandpiper 08:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oplan Bojinka

Has anyone found any mention of Oplan Bojinka in connection to this? Its basically the same plot with minor tweaks, it was said Oplan Bojinka transformed into the Sept 11 attacks. I would be interested in adding a comparrison however I have not seen any sources draw such a connection. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Target America, Terror in the sky, [http://www.youtube.com

I thought Youtube links are frowned on but could an editor/admin with more experience say if this is true.Hypnosadist 16:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

YouTube is sufficiently noteable to have an article. I see the article discusses a change of view by CBS, who have decided they like being quoted on it. So it rather depends what the nature of the particular content is, I would think. Sandpiper 07:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

did i say so, or did i say so?

So, is it an official hoax now, or do we still need to wait? No, let me gues, you want them to admit that they have nothing? Oh, then i wont hold my breath...

This is just a mind games for Pearl Harbor 3. Anyway, is the information i linked to included in the article? HOw about [http://infowars.net/articles/August2006/180806bombings.htm this]? Oh, www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/180806Asset.htm this one] was good. And in case you are searching for more imediate motives for the false flag, see www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/180806fingerprinted.htm this]--Striver 03:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is something that supports the official view: prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/190806tapes.htm] --Striver 04:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

To save everyone some time: the "official hoax" youtube video is a news report which mentions the alleged plotters didn't have airline tickets (sold at your local friendly travel agent's), some didn't have passports (is that British passports since most of them have dual nationality? Also 10 planes, 24 alleged plotters, do the math), and the explosive components hadn't been assembled into bombs yet. British police wanted to wait for some of those things to happen so that there would be more obvious evidence, US authorities wanted to arrest earlier to reduce risk. Weregerbil 07:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

“ Police sources have confirmed that the alleged plot involved the use of TATP, triacetone triperoxide, which was to be made up from liquids. This has led to speculation that peroxide, acetone and sulphuric acid might have been disguised as bottles of drink to get through hand baggage checks. Forensic explosives experts say if this was the case the liquids would have had to be mixed on the plane to attain the crystallised TATP explosive.

Gerry Murray, of the Forensic Science Agency in Northern Ireland, believes this would be very difficult, particularly if carried out in the toilet of a passenger jet. The liquids have to be kept at freezing point when they are mixed and the TATP crystals must be dried before being ignited, a process which could take several hours.

Some 250g (9oz) of solid TATP would be needed for a substantial explosion, but Mr Murray said if the individual had never made the explosive before he would need a great deal of luck to manufacture it on a plane. Another theory is that pre-made explosives would have been hidden in the false bottom of plastic drinks bottles to foil hand luggage checks. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/190806_b_questions.htm the Guardian]

”

Still waiting to hear that it was all bogus hatemongering against Muslism... --Striver 18:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So: some have speculated that the liquids would have been mixed on the plane. This is hard to do. So it probable that the speculation is incorrect. The mixing would probably have been done beforehand. Do you have a point? Other than showing that the Internet speculation about mixing stuff on board is probably false?

That is a good reference, thanks! Now if "chem lab in plane loo" speculation surfaces in the article again we have a source saying it probably isn't true. This is exactly what this talk page is for: maintaining the article. Thanks again! Weregerbil 18:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian is not "internet speculation", its as a WP:RS as it will ever get. As for refuting your claims, see Sandpipers comment below. --Striver 19:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the newspaper is not internet speculation. It is reporting on internet speculation and saying the speculation is probably false. Do you see the words "This has led to speculation" in the article? Weregerbil 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/140806babymilk.htm Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Baby Milk?]. As if WHITE Baby milk could ever be... anything else than white baby milk... but considering that the mission was hatemongering, it all makes sense... --Striver 18:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

From the above Guardian article:

“ Was it really necessary to impose such strict security measures at British airports?

It seems unlikely. The threat level in the UK was raised to critical, which means an attack is imminent, after the arrest of what Mr Reid said were ALL the "main suspects".

Given that, it seems the measures forced upon British airports for several days were unnecessary. Police sources and the government indicated that if they were looking for anyone else those individuals were peripheral to the inquiry. The argument that the disruption of such a plot might spark others to bring forward terrorist actions is debatable.

The security services allege that this was a very specific, well-planned plot, which took nearly a year to put together. It seems unfeasible that others were planning to do the same thing in the same way.

”

At least, THAT is mainstream. --Striver 18:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

well I am a little bemused. If anyone is now suggesting that these liquids might be mixed before boarding the plane, then this is hardly a liquid bomb scare. Was the idea that someone was going to ask for all the ice for the in-flight drinks and then disappear with their bag to the loo for hours (takes time to get to the US), or that someone was similarly going to disappear into the loo at Heathrow for hours, then take the finished product onto the plane? Hmm. Likely we are not going to get anywhere fast here with regard to article writing, but strikes me that someone definitely does have some more explaining to do about exactly how they thought this plot was going to be carried out. Sandpiper 18:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

In pure form TATP is a crystal. It readily dissolves into a liquid, for example the very dangerous compound dihydrogen monoxide. Such a liquid is still explosive. It is also less sensitive to going off accidentally, instead requiring a detonator (cell phones and MP3 players have been mentioned.) Weregerbil 19:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So the story has now changed from "they were going to mix it on the plane" to "they had already mixed it"? Do you have any WP:RS for that, or is that WP:OR?--Striver 19:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen a reliable source claim that mixing on the plane was going to happen. Some editorial speculation, Internet rumors, The Register following those rumors, and the like. Do you have any reliable sources mentioning that the police were saying lavatory chemistry was being planned? I don't think the story has changed, the story never was what you say it was.

Incidentally, in addition to "TATP readily dissolves in water": when TATP is produced using regular processes it is automatically dissolved in water. It needs to be specifically dried to make it a solid crystal. Weregerbil 19:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so now it is no liquid explosive anymore, but a dried crystal? As for "a reliable source claim that mixing on the plane was going to happen", did you miss the Guardian article that started this section? --Striver 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concept of a solution? Sugar is a crystal. Put it in water and you get sugar water which is a liquid. You can try this at home. And The Guardian does not claim lavatory chemistry was going to happen, it reports on a claim that was going to happen and then debunks the claim. Weregerbil 19:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

TATP, triacetone triperoxide, is not known to be definately the explosive, in fact i have heard other reports that the explosive was to be hidden at the bottom of a drinks bottle as opposed to a liquid explosive.We don't know because no-one outside of this case and conspiracy nutters STFU and get a LIFEHypnosadist 19:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:PA. And then why were they afraid of baby milk? --Striver 19:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I read the "STFU" remark as his own remark to himself to stop rambling and go do something productive. A joke! By "baby milk" do you mean the prisonplanet.com stuff? If you ever happen to try the sugar+water=solution experiment you can also try sugar+milk=MYSTERY. Milk is mostly water. Weregerbil 19:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This was interesting:

“ ...Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.

After a few hours - assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities - you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.

The genius of this scheme is that TATP is relatively easy to detonate. But you must make enough of it to crash the plane, and you must make it with care to assure potency. One needs quality stuff to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale," as Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson put it. While it's true that a slapdash concoction will explode, it's unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows. At best, an infidel or two might be killed by the blast, and one or two others by flying debris as the cabin suddenly depressurizes, but that's about all you're likely to manage under the most favorable conditions possible.

We believe this because a peer-reviewed 2004 study in the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) entitled "Decomposition of Triacetone Triperoxide is an Entropic Explosion" tells us...[1]

”

--Striver 19:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

it's unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows thats all it needs at high altitude.Hypnosadist 19:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"We asked University of Rhode Island Chemistry Professor Jimmie C. Oxley, who has actual, practical experience with TATP, if this is a reasonable assumption, and she tolds us that merely dumping the precursors together would create "a violent reaction," but not a detonation. To release the energy needed to bring down a plane (far more difficult to do than many imagine, as Aloha Airlines Flight 243 neatly illustrates), it's necessary to synthesize a good amount of TATP with care." [2] --Striver 19:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the quote refers to an explosive mixed in lavatory conditions. I think we have now pretty well established that the speculation of lavatory chemistry has been well debunked, and that the explosives were to be mixed beforehand on the ground. Weregerbil 19:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

csmonitor does not agree: "The immediate security concern is containers of liquids and gels - which officials suspected might be used to hold substances more insidious than water, contact lens fluid, suntan lotion, or baby formula and which a terrorist could mix on board to create a powerful explosive. As a precautionary measure, the US Department of Homeland Security Thursday barred passengers from carrying most liquids into the cabins of commercial carriers." [3] --Striver 20:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff said during a press conference that they'd planned to board with "liquid-explosive ingredients and detonating devices disguised as beverages, electronic devices, and other common objects." [4] --Striver 20:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like someone hadn't at that date researched the production of TATP as well as we have here. We have you to thank for all those references that let us be more informed on the subject than the person who wrote that! (Well, maybe he was thinking of another explosive, let's give him the benefit of doubt). Fortunately the Wikipedia article we are discussing here already mentions the problems of the mixing speculation and that if TATP indeed is the explosive it probably needs to be mixed beforehand. Weregerbil 20:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"By now you'll be asking why these jihadist wannabes didn't conspire simply to bring TATP onto planes, colored with a bit of vegetable dye, and disguised as, say, a powdered fruit-flavored drink. The reason is that they would be afraid of failing: TATP is notoriously sensitive and unstable. Mainstream journalists like to tell us that terrorists like to call it "the mother of Satan." (Whether this reputation is deserved, or is a consequence of homebrewing by unqualified hacks, remains open to debate.)"[5]--Striver

Yup, the instability is why it is easiest transported in solution form. The more water you add to it the less volatile it becomes. Weregerbil 20:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Section break

Anti-Muslim fearmongering, stating it would be MIXED, and also garbeling facts: video --Striver 20:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If they mean TATP then that television program indeed is probably wrong about it, per your excellent research! It is also possible that the TV clip refers to some other substance, as while TATP is a two component solution it isn't produced by simply mixing only those two compounds together as the clip shows. Weregerbil 20:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

lol, www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/190806_b_Zawahri.htm more fearmogering]--Striver 21:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/190806_b_Nerve.htm Hitting a Nerve] By Craig Murray:

“ I appear to have hit a nerve with my call for a sceptical view of the alleged "bigger than 9/11" plot. In the UK, at least, the more serious wing of the mainstream media is beginning to catch up with the idea that all is not well here...

This brings us to one particuarly sinister aspect of the allegations--that the bombs were to be made on the plane.

The idea that high explosive can be made quickly in a plane toilet by mixing at room temperature some nail polish remover, bleach, and Red Bull and giving it a quick stir, is nonsense. Yes, liquid explosives exist and are highly dangerous and yes, airports are ill equipped to detect them at present. Yes, it is true they have been used on planes before by terrorists. But can they be quickly manufactured on the plane? No.

The sinister aspect is not that this is a real new threat. It is that the allegation may have been concocted in order to prepare us for arresting people without any actual bombs

Let me fess up here. I have just checked, and our flat contains nail polish remover, sports drinks, and a variety of household cleaning products. Also MP3 players and mobile phones. So the authorities could announce--as they have whispered to the media in this case--that potential ingredients of a liquid bomb, and potential timing devices, have been discovered. It rather lowers the bar, doesn't it?

”

The CounterPunch article then reminds us of the Bogus so called ricin plot and mentiones the granny that stoped the flight...--Striver 22:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This will be the Wood Green ricin plot were one man was convicted (sentanced to 17 years)of trying to produce ricin, and according to the BBC after the trial "They discovered castor oil beans - the raw material for ricin - along with equipment needed to produce it and recipes for ricin, cyanide, botulinum and other poisons, along with instructions for explosives." but i bet striver thinks that means he wasn't a terrorist. There was nothing bogus about this incident, a field test (rough and ready) showed the pressence of ricin, the experts at Portland Down said it wasn't.Hypnosadist 12:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I quote the above source.

“ I spoke at the annual Stop the War conference a couple of months ago. I referred to the famous ricin plot. For those outside the UK, this generated the same degree of hype here two years ago. It was alleged that a flat in North London inhabited by Muslims was a "Ricin" factory, manufacturing the deadly toxin which could kill "hundreds of thousands of people". Police tipped off the authorities that traces of ricin had been discovered. In the end, all those accused were found not guilty by the court. The "traces of ricin" were revealed to be the atmospheric norm.

The "intelligence" on that plot had been extracted under torture in Algeria--another echo here, as the "intelligence" in this current case has almost certainly been extracted under torture in Pakistan. Another police tip-off to the media was that the intelligence had been stored in plastic jars, and they had indeed found plastic jars containing a suspicious substance. It turned out the containers in question were two Brylcreem tubs. What was in them? In the first, paper clips. In the second, Brylcreem.

”

--Striver 12:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Do read the wiki article. --Striver 12:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Heres the BBC link on the conviction [6] as usual you mix up what the British Government says is so and what Tabloid "News"papers say is the case. The one Point i do agree with you is that Torture is not acceptable and the British Government should not engage in Torture by Proxy.Hypnosadist 12:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

POV edits

Please discuss here before making drastic unilateral (and POV) edits.

This one is bordering vandalism, for which User:Morton devonshire is sadly known for.

This one ignores all the discussions we had about "alleged". Although I would agree that the title needs to be made consistent with how mainstream media (UK at least) are qualifying the plot. PizzaMargherita 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks -- see WP:NPA. The data that is sought to be included borders on the absurd, and is not supported by reliable sources. See WP:OR, WP:Verify and WP:RS. Morton devonshire 23:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted again. Please seek consensus before making such radical and questionable edits. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 23:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Alleged should be reserved for those accused of the crime, not hte activity itself. There is no doubt that a major event happened and it seems the best word for that is plot. Who is responsible for it or whether it was a threat may be debatable. We qualify accusations with alleged, not events. Go to the airport and see if your wait time or the new restrictions are "alleged" or not. The event happened. It is incorrect to use alleged. --Tbeatty 23:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary and more importantly the press do not seem to be aware of your convention. Please seek consensus before such edits. PizzaMargherita 00:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or the press. My last edit was to attribute who made the claim (who 'alleges' it). Alleged is a weasel word and is to be avoided on wikipedia. It is much preferred to use active voice and say who is making claims. --Tbeatty 04:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have no problems with your last edit (as opposed to your first one). In the future, please discuss first. PizzaMargherita 08:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-published web sites are not encyclopedic sources, please see WP:RS. "Skeptics respond to the arrests" is based on junk like prisonplanet.com. says any editor may remove such material from articles. Weregerbil 09:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/160806sceptical.htm this]? Take a closer look. --Striver 12:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Were is the evidence that they were actualy ploting anything, except for the police saying so? Are we just going to cite their word as gospel? --Striver 12:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

...may I add, after so many times they got it wrong? It all boils down to the fact that UK police as it stands cannot be considered a reliable source anymore, as it lost its credibility in this crywolf game. And as Striver correctly points out, the burden is on them to offer some evidence, because at the moment we have none. PizzaMargherita 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Striver you are not the only one to hide from reality in conspiracy theories, and this is meaningful or notable in any way?Hypnosadist 13:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:PA. I'm asking a legitimate question. You regard not accepeting anything the media says at face value as "hiding from reality"? Well, i can merit myself with me not having joined the Nazi party, just because the media said it was good, and i would not have swallowd fearmongering bogus nonsense like this one, just because the media said so. --Striver 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Striver the Wood Green ricin plot were someone was convicted of plotting to spread Ricin or other poisons on british streets. Keep bringing this up, the fact the police stopped them before they made Ricin is a good thing not a bad thing. As for me being a nazi WP:PA go back to listening to your pet nazi at prison planet, he'll tell you about how "banking interests" took over America after the great depression. You're the one who reads Nazi propaganda and believes it just so that you can lie to yourself that "Islamic Terrorism" does not exist.Hypnosadist 13:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't twist my words, i did not call anyone a nazi. --Striver 14:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

sectfact tag

I just added a sectfact tag to the 'The skeptics respond to the arrests' sub-section. I think any conspiracy theories need to be cited to main line newspapers or news sites. These allegations need reliable source, or they need to go. Mytwocents 17:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If they were in a news paper, they wouldnt be labeled conspiracy theories, would they?--Striver 17:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This section is complete Speculation Conspiracy theories are not notable, not varifiable and above all a continued personal attack on all british wikipedians. Completely made up info on self-published websites should not be in an Encyclopedia as WP:V says. And this teach the controversy argument is rubish as well, as there is no controversy except on Conspiracy nutter sites. I repeat these lies being told about the british police and government and now even the next King of England and Scotland is Highly insulting.Hypnosadist 18:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we've tagged this section to death. I propose we move the 'skeptics..' section to the talk page, until it can be written with citations to reputable news sites. The it can put back in. Mytwocents 18:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are Lies allowed in this Encyclopedia

This prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/110806_b_Cooked.htm] conspiracy BS is totally against Wikipedia's policy of WP:Vand WP:RS. Its got the Prince of Wales conspiring with Gordon Brown to overthrow Blair thats why he Murdock and Bush faked this plot. This BULLSHIT must go.Hypnosadist 16:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Its use as a primary source to document a real phenomena, not as a source of stated facts. Chill. Or go afd Mein Kampf arguing RS. --Striver 17:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read about self-published sources in WP:RS. Seriously. New editors might not know about WP:RS and can violate it by mistake. But by now you should know WP:RS exists and I think you should be expected to make an effort to follow policy and guidelines. Check out point #2 in WP:V#The_Policy. Weregerbil 18:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine Striver just lable it correctly, as rants writen by non-notable, non-knowledgeable and totally Biased person pushing his agenda against the Fedral Government of the US.Hypnosadist 18:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That is fine with me. --Striver 19:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That prisonplanet link is such bullshit (prince charles and Gordon Brown) - I tried to remove it but cannot seem to do it in such a way that does not mess up the references - I'll support any editor who removes it. In addition, I don't believe the register reference about the explosives should not be in that section - that's a discussion of a technical aspect of the proability of that approach working rather than the sort of foamed mouth rant on the prisonplanet link. --Charlesknight 18:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime...

...a panicked nation ostracises people from planes for speaking a language they don't understand, and neo-con propaganda (oddly making its way into Google news alongside mainstream news sources) defends their action. Thankfully, there were no US federal air marshals on the flight, so at least the pair survived the accident. PizzaMargherita 18:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

yes some poeple have been terrorised into being racist, this is exactly what Osama wants. Are you posting this to enhance the article or just talking political smack?Hypnosadist 18:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

real questions

From the Guardian:

“ Paul Stephenson, the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police, told the public his officers had thwarted a plot to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale". It was an apocalyptic scenario challenged at the time by journalists, who forced an admission that what was meant by these words was "on a scale never before witnessed in Britain",

Was there any plot at all?

It is clear that the security services have collected a vast amount of surveillance material over the past year, which they claim points to a plot in the making....The operation involved tracing the money that went in and out of their bank accounts and involved the Pakistani security services. (Striver: And we know that ISI and CIA are buddies...)

Police sources have confirmed that the alleged plot involved the use of TATP, triacetone triperoxide, which was to be made up from liquids. This has led to speculation that peroxide, acetone and sulphuric acid might have been disguised as bottles of drink to get through hand baggage checks. Forensic explosives experts say if this was the case the liquids would have had to be mixed on the plane to attain the crystallised TATP explosive...Gerry Murray, of the Forensic Science Agency in Northern Ireland, believes this would be very difficult, particularly if carried out in the toilet of a passenger jet. The liquids have to be kept at freezing point when they are mixed and the TATP crystals must be dried before being ignited, a process which could take several hours...Some 250g (9oz) of solid TATP would be needed for a substantial explosion, but Mr Murray said if the individual had never made the explosive before he would need a great deal of luck to manufacture it on a plane. Another theory is that pre-made explosives would have been hidden in the false bottom of plastic drinks bottles to foil hand luggage checks.

Was it really necessary to impose such strict security measures at British airports?

It seems unlikely. The threat level in the UK was raised to critical, which means an attack is imminent, after the arrest of what Mr Reid said were all the "main suspects".

Given that, it seems the measures forced upon British airports for several days were unnecessary (read:fearmongering). Police sources and the government indicated that if they were looking for anyone else those individuals were peripheral to the inquiry. The argument that the disruption of such a plot might spark others to bring forward terrorist actions is debatable.

The security services allege that this was a very specific, well-planned plot, which took nearly a year to put together. It seems unfeasible that others were planning to do the same thing in the same way. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/190806_b_questions.htm]

”

--Striver 21:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Was U.K. Bomb Plot Plausible? --Striver 21:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Where's a link to that story in the guardian? so I can read the whole thing in context. There is also confusion about the explosives here - just because something is technically difficult to do does not mean that someone will not try it. I don't think that bit should be mixed up with the bullshit like "Prince charles and gordon brown were involved!" I don't think the two go together. --Charlesknight 22:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I quoted it, just klick the link and follow the link to the Guardian article. --Striver 22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Heres the link straight to the Guardian [7] Hypnosadist 23:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

PS Heres an intersting bit that may need to go into the article. "The Guardian has established that scientists at the government's forensic explosives laboratory at Fort Halstead, Kent, are examining substances which have been seized during the searches." Hypnosadist 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

America and survailance :[http://infowars.net/articles/August2006/200806Anti-Terror.htm]--Striver 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeees, just as planed, www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/200806Surveillance.htm keep the fearmongering heat up], so people wont question the iminent Pearl Harbor 3. --Striver 23:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol, they keep repeating the dubunked toilet-mix: "Government sources say there was a plan to bring down as many as a dozen airliners flying to the US, possibly in "waves" of two or three at a time. It is alleged that two apparently harmless chemicals would have been combined in flight to produce an explosive, and detonated by an electronic device such as an iPod or a camera. The Home Secretary, John Reid, has said the main suspects are in custody, and that there is "substantial" material evidence to support the case. "www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/200806Surveillance.htm]--Striver 23:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooh yeah!, fear Big Brother: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/200806fear.htm Flying with fear: The future of air security: It may be bad now. But soon, you'll be scanned, sniffed and 'undressed' by the cameras]--Striver 23:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The last thing security experts are predicting is a return to business as usual. "We've crossed a Rubicon," says Simon Stringer, a consultant with Kroll Security. "If anything, you're going to see far more draconian restrictions." omg, is Kroll involved in this? Boy, this goes high level. What a coincidence that the same company that was heading security for wtc (hiring Marvin Bush) is now hyping the fearmongering. --Striver 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Daily Mail:

“ The Briton alleged to be the ‘mastermind’ behind the airline terror plot could be innocent of any significant involvement, sources close to the investigation claim.

Rashid Rauf, whose detention in Pakistan was the trigger for the arrest of 23 suspects in Britain, has been accused of taking orders from Al Qaeda’s ‘No3’ in Afghanistan and sending money back to the UK to allow the alleged bombers to buy plane tickets.

But after two weeks of interrogation, an inch-by-inch search of his house and analysis of his home computer, officials are now saying that his extradition is ‘a way down the track’ if it happens at all.

It comes amid wider suspicions that the plot may not have been as serious, or as far advanced, as the authorities initially claimed. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/200806evidence.htm]

”

Dont miss the priceless fearmongering Quran-Muslim-Terrorist picture in the article. --Striver 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Daily Show: CNN's Fearmonering --Striver 03:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we also include The North Korea Times article? IT seems to convey what a lot of the sceptics are trying to get across.--Tbeatty 08:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes lets include the last paragraph "When it comes to the airliner plot, however, analysts and security experts are united in their opinion that this was truly a deadly plan on the verge of being carried out. The security services and the government desperately need the cooperation of all sections of British society in the fight against terrorism, and must begin to restore public trust by being open and forthcoming about the facts of the alleged plot. Without sufficient information, the public will simply fill the gaps with its own theories." although i'd like an admin whos not edited here to say whether The North Korea Times meets WP:RS.Hypnosadist 10:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not true just c'uz they say so, you still have Jan Guillou and the American former ambasador contesting its factuallity. --Striver 11:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, its true if they say something that you like and not if its something you don't, now i understand!Hypnosadist 11:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Alleged should be reserved for those accused of the crime, not hte activity itself. There is no doubt that a major event happened and it seems the best word for that is plot. Who is responsible for it or whether it was a threat may be debatable. We qualify accusations with alleged, not events. Go to the airport and see if your wait time or the new restrictions are "alleged" or not. The event happened. It is incorrect to use alleged. --Tbeatty 23:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary and more importantly the press do not seem to be aware of your convention. Please seek consensus before such edits. PizzaMargherita 00:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or the press. My last edit was to attribute who made the claim (who 'alleges' it). Alleged is a weasel word and is to be avoided on wikipedia. It is much preferred to use active voice and say who is making claims. --Tbeatty 04:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have no problems with your last edit (as opposed to your first one). In the future, please discuss first.

Anyway, I am still convinced that the title should contain "alleged". This is another reason why. Last we had this discussion only one editor was insisting to keep it this way. If there are no objections I'll make the move. PizzaMargherita 08:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I object to the title containing 'alleged.' We should not use weasel words in titles. We could use 'arrests' or 'investigations' but not 'alleged'. I think the current title is actually okay. --Tbeatty 14:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. By the way, hear it from the horse's mouth, John Reid: "The police and authorities are convinced there was an alleged plot here. They have intervened and, in the course of the next few days, we will wait and see what happens in terms of charges." PizzaMargherita 00:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And again: "He also stressed it was important to remember the investigation remained a 'suspected terrorist plot' because nothing had yet been proved." [bold mine] Note three occurrences of "alleged plot" in this page-long article. Consider this: "War on terror" is an idiotic propagandistic expression, but we still have an article with that name, have we not? PizzaMargherita 01:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I object to including "weasel words" in the title. Words like "allege" remove authority or give credence to authoirty that is non-existent. It is easy enough to have more descriptive titles without taking away legitmate authority of opinion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Use of the word alleged is not necessary because opinions that Wikipeida cites should all be sourced. People will think they are guilty and people will think they are not guilty. WP will source and cite both opinions but neither will require weasel words. --Tbeatty 00:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Words like "allege" do not remove authority. They correctly qualify the noun that follows, because there is no plot unless/until a court of law rules so. Otherwise saying that there is a plot is tantamount to saying that the main suspects thereof are guilty, which they are not until proven so. This principle has been respected with the killers of de Menezes, I can't see why it should not apply here. I suppose I can live with your new title, but please fix the dozens of double-redirects that you have created. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Current title, "2006 transatlantic aircraft plot investigations", does not solve the issue. The plost is still alledged untill they are convicted. Comments? --Striver 03:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I maintain what I read in WP:V about this "allege" debacle[what follows is a truncated version of my post far above, to which no one substantively responded or rebutted]: "In any case, looking at WP:V, I see "'Verifiability' in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true," and I would take that to mean it's not necessary, beyond citing a reputable source that simply addresses it as a plot, to debate over calling it alleged for the sake of the article if there is a v. source that does so. Can we verify it's being called a plot, not merely alleged, on this side of the pond[the states, for reference/clarification]? Yeah. Can anyone verify right now that it's actually more than an alleged plot? Nope." Investigations makes the title really clunky, and the desire to use "alleged" or "allegations" seems to be referring to verifiability beyond the scope of what the original policy seems to have intended. Besides, no one's produced a satisfactory reason as to why the article itself, as someone else asserted, can't state whether or not there's issues about the likelihood of a plot really existing, as opposed to reflecting this in the title. russ. 04:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Russ, in all honesty, I can't work out what you are proposing we do. Even John Reid insists that this is an alleged plot, and virtually all media is still calling it that, so I'm moving back and in doing so fixing all the double redirects that Tbeatty created. PizzaMargherita 06:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source. Wikipedia does not make assertions that require "alleged." Rather, Wikipedia in a NPOV way presents all notable viewpoints. As such, weasel words are not needed. Please read "weasel words" as it pertains to Wikipedia. To solve this, I changed it to "plot investigation" because the investigation is not alleged, it is real. It is NOT acceptable to have alleged in the title. HTere is no consensus for you to add alleged, and even if there were it would violate WP rules on "Weasel words." --Tbeatty 08:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You have just created loads of double redirects. Again. The burden is on you to fix them, else I'll revert. Barring that, I can live with the current title. PizzaMargherita 08:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving a page like this, while the discussion is still ongoing and without correcting the load of double redirects that resulted from it is not acceptable in my opinion. I just moved it back to fix the redirects. If it is moved again, PLEASE fix the mess that results from it. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I will check on this later at work where I have tons of time, I will move it if its still with the alleged title since its something people can deal with it seems and I will fix the redirects. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 09:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Alleged is the correct title until something is proved. Please do not move it again, unless consensus is reached here to do so. --Guinnog 09:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Alleged is POV as should be clear from every time this has been brought up, any chance on a compromise like "plot investigation" or some other form of words. Hypnosadist 10:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Alleged is not POV at all, like many editors that you are ignoring have already argued. All the media are using it. John Reid reminds us we should use it. There is a difference between being suspected and being convicted. We have respected presumption of innocence in other cases. Not using "alleged" is POV. PizzaMargherita 11:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not attempt to come to a compromise all the editors can agree on, as you had no concensus to change the title.Hypnosadist 11:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I do acknowledge that finding a title to this mess is very hard, especially one that keeps everyone happy. And I did say a couple of times that I can live with "investigation". However, I will very strongly oppose any unqualified "plot" as POV. PizzaMargherita 11:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Investigation is fine with me.Hypnosadist 12:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about the investigation, its about the alledged plot. --Striver 11:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A good title is indeed difficult to find. Some suggestions (trying to find a middle way between using alleged and stating the fact of the plot too hard):

• 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot arrests (would require a slight rewrite of the introduction to place more emphasis on the actual arrests, but makes it clear that it are only arrests and no convictions)
• 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot anti-terrorism operation (makes it clear that it was an intelligence operation, implying a level of uncertainty)
• 2006 transatlantic aircraft anti-terrorism operation (leaves out the 'plot' alltogether).

And most importantly, try not to mess up by moving this article around all the time without having a certain degree of consensus. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'd asserted earlier was that I agreed with leaving the title as it was before, transatlantic aircraft plot, and investigations, while making the title a little clunky in the saying, was still acceptable; the only point I was making is that you seem to be talking about something absolutely verifiable beyond wikipedia, whereas the policy specifically mentions that, for example, you don't need to check if something out of an NYT article is true[Speaking of which, for those of you with a free registration already, you can see this NYT article where they don't, and interestingly so given the amount of media PM refers to that adds this qualifier, preface plot with "alleged." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/world/europe/20family.html?th&emc=th]. So PM maintains calling it anything other than alleged is pov; the way I read verifiability, we can do away with this whole alleged mess if there are reputable sources that are calling it a plot. NYT is calling it, at least in that article, a plot. There were arguments about calling it alleged until it was proven, but that seems to be discussing verifiability beyond what's called for. It's not on us to wait till/find out it's "true" before we put a title on something; we just need reputable sources sourced, and there are statements to that effect as well, concerning not discussing what's true or not so much as what they believe, in other policy pages and the like.

To summate: I propose that all the worrying over alleged is silly because it goes beyond the demands of WP:V as far as I read it[and no one's had cause to say I'm mistaken], and I'm tempted to think we should leave it at its current state, if only because the constant name-changery is a little headspinning[plus, there is a nicer bit of assonance with the present title, rather than investigations, if that counts for anything.], but it seems to be at odds with weasel word policy. I don't know as much about that, though. russ. 15:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Russ, could you do me a favour and use indentation when you write? I have to re-read your sentences 3 times to analyse them. Like this:

   What I'd asserted earlier was that
       I agreed with leaving the title as it was before, transatlantic aircraft plot,
       and investigations,
           while making the title a little clunky in the saying,
       was still acceptable;
   the only point I was making is that
       you seem to be talking about something absolutely verifiable beyond wikipedia,
       whereas the policy specifically mentions that,
               for example,
           you don't need to check if something out of an NYT article is true
           [
               Speaking of which,
                   for those of you with a free registration already,
               you can see this NYT article where they don't,
                   and interestingly so given the amount of media PM refers to that adds this qualifier,
               preface plot with "alleged." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/world/europe/20family.html?th&emc=th
           ].

I still don't fully understand what you meant, but at least proper indentation saves me a couple minutes of parsing. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 16:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies about that; I'm new enough in terms of participation that I'm unaware of the standards in conversation here. In any case, do tell where exactly I'm being unclear, and I'll do my best to respond with a concise summary. My main point is that it seems like you're talking about verifiability, regarding the use of alleged, beyond what WP:V asks. russ. 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok no problem. In fact, sorry for taking the piss (I couldn't resist) and glad you weren't offended. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my reading is: we have at least one source saying it's a plot, therefore we cannot question that. Well, the same should apply to "alleged plot" then, surely. The fact is that some sources say "plot", some say "alleged plot". (My impression is that the Brits are being much more conservative, but that's besides the point.) Which is correct? In my view, the version that respects presumption of innocence. PizzaMargherita 17:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Alledged is more genral and less inclusive, hence less pov. alleged does not exlude factuality. --Striver 17:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How about Attempted 2006 transatlantic terrorist plot? - Blood red sandman 01:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Legal Challenge to the detention of female known a "J"

This from the BBC [8] according to the article "The case is expected to go before Mr Justice Collins at the High Court on Monday afternoon." this challenge is under Europian Human Rights Law.Hypnosadist 14:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One woman has been released without charge(from the story below) this is probably "J".Hypnosadist 16:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No. According to this evening's Six O'Clock news on BBC Radio 4 "J's" Lawyers were in court challenging her detention when news came through that she had been charged with having information which [s]he knew or believed might be of material assistance in preventing the commission of terrorism. So it seems that J is probably Mehran Hussain Andreww 17:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Some sources say Mehran is Umir's and Nabeel's brother[9][10][11]. I kind of think Mehran is a male name. More below on the Hussains... Weregerbil 17:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

More info from the BBC, Eleven now charged

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5271998.stm this is the story i'm going to add this information now to the article.Hypnosadist 16:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The last entry on the list of charged people is Mehran Hussain. Is this a new person to our "Suspects arrested in the UK" list? I can't make heads or tails of the Hussains. Some sources say Nabeel, Tanvir, Umair are brothers. MSNBC says the brothers are Mehran, Nabeel, and Umair. Mehran and Tanvir can't be the same person because both have been charged. Mehran and Nabeel can't be the same because the charge is that Mehran failed to disclose Nabeel's plotting. Which ones are the brothers and how many are there? My head hurts... Weregerbil 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Still obsessed with the Hussains :-) After a bunch of googling I'm convinced is that Tanvir is unrelated.[12][13][14] Mehran wasn't on the original Bank of England list, and some newspapers knew there were three brothers and simply assumed the three listed ones were them. Weregerbil 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is so messed up i'm suprised Saddam is not on the list as a brother! LOL!Hypnosadist 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is The Register a reliable source

I 'Verify credibility', tagged the paragraph in the 'Skeptics respond... section. It restates an online article from The Register. This sites wikipage says it; frequently uses sarcasm in its articles and often provides an iconoclastic stance (e.g. refering to Google as the worlds largest text-ad broker). Some think its reportage is closer to that of British tabloid newspapers than other technology web sites, terming it a Tech Tabloid .

WP:RS says "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence...." "Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media." are suspect. So, does 'The Register' stand on it's own as a reliable source? I don't think it does. I think the last paragraph in the 'skepics respond..' section needs to go. Mytwocents 18:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As a daily Reg reader I wouldn't make a blanket statement for its reliability. Some things The Reg knows about, sometimes it publishes deliberately provocative opinion pieces and what would be called WP:OR if it were done on Wikipedia. In this case the article is the research of one individual with unknown expertise in terrorist chemistry. And, as Striver's research above reveals[15], the whole article is based on the wild speculation that high-quality TATP was going to be manufactured on the planes. So both the reliability and the relevance of the article remain low. At this time snakes TATP lab on a plane remains a conspiracy theorists' straw man. Weregerbil 18:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Reg article suggests two things:

• that creating TATP on board in sufficient amounts to blow up the airplane is very unlikely due to the delicate and time-consuming process. The TATP article does mention that TATP may be created as a byproduct. Whether or not the expected amount of TATP may be sufficient to bring down a commercial airliner is unclear. However, creating a mix that could produce TATP will always produce a strong odur (as discussed in the TATP article).
• that bringing ready-made TATP onboard is unlikely due to its unstable nature although there probably was a good chance of getting it on board unnoticed prior to the hightend security checks and apart from the untimely explosion risk. The unstable nature of TATP is confirmed by the TATP article.

The Reg article discusses problems with both approaches to successfully blowing up an airplane which makes the article interesting in my opinion although it may prove not to be correct. I do think however there are too many questions that remain unanswered by this article and that need to get answered in order to assess the likelyhood of a successful terrorist attack with TATP:

• exactly how much TATP is required to blow up or bring down a commercial airliner? Notice that the article says it is unlikely that an uncontrolled explosion during the TATP preparation process would be powerful enough to bring down the aircraft. Such uncontrolled explosion could result in a fire or decompression. At cruising height either incident may create conditions that can result in a fatal outcome for the plane and it passengers. While it's obvious that avoiding such incidents altogheter is much safer an uncontrolled explosion during the preparation process of TATP is unlikely to have the same immediate effects on the plane as a controlled explosion. See Cabin pressurization#Rapid loss of pressurization (rapid decompression).
• is the TATP fabricating process as described in the article correct? The TATP article does give some clues but not many.

What I suggest is that when it is decided that the Reg article is an unreliable source and must be removed it is replaced by (a link too) a discussion on how TATP being brought on board or being fabricated on board can successfully bring down a commercial airliner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.240.162.2 (talk • contribs).

The article has gained some unsourced speculation on TATP production. Per "unsourced information may be removed by any editor" I'll remove that.

On The Reg article: discussion of TATP production in lavatories has yet to be shown to be relevant as the whole concept appears to be based on speculation. Until Scotland Yard suggests that was going to happen we shouldn't try to invent that was going to happen.

On instability of TATP: it is indeed unstable. But you can make it arbitrarily stable by dissolving in water or some other liquid (while making it increasingly harder to ignite). That's the way suicide bombers do it. Hence Liquid Bomb Plot.

Before engaging in more speculation on the matter in the article we should wait for information from reliable sources who know what the alleged plotters were allegedly going to allegedly do. Stop guessing the composition and method of production ourselves. Or base it on speculation by some guy in a web magazine. WP:RS, WP:NOR please.

On the style of The Reg, from today's edition: Nuclear Holocaust starts tomorrow. That article also based on one guy's research. Weregerbil 08:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. The article states that "The Register ran a story on the practicalities of producing TATP on board an airplane from constituent liquids and concluded that, while theoretically possible, the chances of success would be extremely low.". That's why there's skeptism about the use of TATP. I've just added a few lines to explain that any TATP that's brought or created on board and exploded - no matter how weak the explosion - is likely to cause havoc on the plane. This is an important point and one that's not addressed by the Reg article. Also, I've added a link to the ValuJet Flight 592 article that proves that a fire on board can bring down the plane.

I agree that the use of TATP has not been confirmed. Notice however that I've added this discussion to the section on skeptism as expressed in the Reg article. Also notice that the article says that "According to the Guardian, police sources have confirmed that the plot involved TATP". So I'm not stating or inventing facts about the alleged plot. I'm merely stating that if TATP would be used there's a good chance that an explosion could seriously damage the interior of the cabin and could bring down the plane.

Please note that my lines were not unsourced. The only line that's unsourced and was marked as such is the one about the odor. The other facts about TATP come from the TATP article. So I don't understand why sources lines are removed because they are unsourced.

Honestly, I don't understand why these lines have been removed. They don't invent any facts about the alleged plot. Instead they discuss some aspects of an approach that would have been used by the alleged attackers as speculated by other sources. The lines state that bringing any form of TATP on board and bringing it to explosion - no matter how weak the explosion - is a very bad idea and is likely to cause an emergency situation on board and is also likely to put the plane and the life of it passengers and crew at risk. I'm not sure with which of these statements you don't agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.201.46.80 (talk • contribs).

The bits I deleted:

It should be noted that mixing the ingredients that are required to produce TATP by itself may produce an unstable chemical agent after a couple of hours.

Maybe this should be put back? I don't really understand the sentence, sorry! Does that mean pre-made TATP solution may become unstable? I can't spot how the cited TATP#Accidental byproduct explains this. Also "may produce" means "might not produce". I think we should have reliable sources that explain the relevancy of this to the plot in question. Not suggest ourselves that eventual instability is a problem for the plot.

When this agent explodes it may not be sufficient to blow up the hull of a commercial airliner.

Seems unsourced and speculative.

An explosion can however cause fire in the cabin or injure passengers. See ValuJet Flight 592.

Linking TATP's effects to ValuJet Flight 592 would be WP:OR as the chemical was not present on that flight. We shouldn't speculate on effects I think.

Mixing the ingredients to create TATP will always produce a strong odor.

Unsourced and apparently based on the speculation that on-board chemistry was planned?

We should be careful even in what questions are addressed. If the article discusses on-board chemicals manufacture, or instability of chemicals, etc, we are giving the reader the impression that these are serious problems which make the plot unfeasible. Even though we don't directly say that. It's not that I question the truth of the statements. It is perfectly possible to create a woefully misleading article using purely factual statements! Weregerbil 12:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My points are:

• sources that are skeptical about the use of TATP in the alleged plot say it's unlikely that TATP could be used effeciently
• while there are chances of producing an unstable agent and bringing it to explosion inside the cabin
• by either bringing a ready-made agent on board undetected
• or by mixing the ingredients that can produce TATP on board which might produce an unstable agent without the continuous stirring as described by the Reg article. Instead the mixture would just rest. It does however take time (couple of hours) as described in TATP#Accidental byproduct.

The Reg article overlooks this possibility although the success rate is undetermined prior to some experiments.

When this agent explodes it is unknown if the explosion could be powerful enough to blow up the hull of a commercial airliner. If the explosion proves not to be sufficiently powerful to instantly destroy the hull of the airplane there still remains an undetermined chance that it does cause sudden decompression [16]. (You're right that ValuJet Flight 592 is unrelated here since little heat is created when TATP explodes so it seems unlikely that a fire is started.)

Hence, speculating that it is unlikely to bring down a commercial airlines in an act of terrorism by bringing TATP to explosion inside the cabin while airborne seems to be wrong.

The question is: do we include this in the article? I think it's a valid point to make provided that we say that such a point is speculative at best. However, the Reg article is speculative as well which is not mentioned in the article.

"The Register ran a story on the practicalities of producing TATP on board an airplane from constituent liquids and concluded that, while theoretically possible, the chances of success would be extremely low." I think it's important to mention the Reg article as one of the most prominent speculations on TATP. However, I also think we should say it's speculative and explain why.

Poll for the title, once and for all.

Why bother moving it when we're collecting names for a poll for the title of the article? Anyway, here's the list of names proposed, in order (after the previous and current title). You are free to add more sections, if you wish. Poll should end on the 31st. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC):

I say the poll should end at 00:00 UTC August 24 if one title is clearly prefered. What do you think? —Mets501 (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 22:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

For now, I'm moving the article back to the original "2006 transatlantic aircraft plot", which seems to be what most people prefer. We can keep this poll open but there seems to be a clear winner. —Mets501 (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If the poll has closed (and I can't see much if any action in the last few days) could someone remove it from Wikipedia:Current surveys, as it's filling up valuable space that could be better used for bitter pokemon naming convention polls. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

August 2006 alleged transatlantic aircraft plot

#--Guinnog 18:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

1. --Striver 00:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC) i can live with this.

2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

1. Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Hypnosadist 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
3. KISS. Weregerbil 18:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
4. If another aircraft plot happens this year, then the month can be added. --StuffOfInterest 19:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
5. —Mets501 (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
6. violet/riga (t) 22:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Mytwocents 00:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC) 7 it is
8. Cúchullain ^t/c 01:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Hmm... haven't we been here? -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Yes, this one seems most neutral of all the picks. Current title is confusing regarding what word the modifier belongs to. Morton devonshire 02:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
11. The obvious title. Batmanand | Talk 09:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Gor Blimey, turn your back and a brand new argument over title has come and gone. This title Sandpiper 21:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
13. "Alleged," my ass. Clashwho 19:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

August 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

# Mytwocents 18:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

August 2006 aircraft security alert

1. Bluap 18:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Striver 00:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC) most NPOV
3. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC) this title describes what actually happened and when: the security alert was in Aug 06, therefore we can have it in the title, regardless of when any alleged plot was planned.

2006 London aircraft bomb plot

1. Vsion 01:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 transatlantic aircraft plot arrests

(would require a slight rewrite of the introduction to place more emphasis on the actual arrests, but makes it clear that it are only arrests and no convictions)

2006 transatlantic aircraft plot anti-terrorism operation

(makes it clear that it was an intelligence operation, implying a level of uncertainty)

2006 transatlantic aircraft anti-terrorism operation

(leaves out the 'plot' alltogether).

Operation Overt and its Aftermath 2006

(This is the codename of the police investigation)

1. Hypnosadist 10:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC) Yes this is my second vote but i just thought of this name. If we put ALLEGEDLY back to being the seventh word in the article this might be ok.

[Questions the Poll]

I am not going to vote, because (a) I don't think vote stacking is the right way to solve the problem and (b) we should have a discussion about each aspect of the title separately, in order to avoid combinatoric explosions of candidates. For example, one could prefer "2006" to "August 2006" but favour "aircraft" over "airline". And so on. PizzaMargherita 18:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree. Voting is evil. We should resolve this by consensus instead. --Guinnog 18:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes voting has to occur when consensus cannot be reached. This article keeps being moved, and no one can agree on a title. We can't do this by consensus. —Mets501 (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I find the standard "date disambiguation" formats used by Wikipedia for such current event articles absolutely appalling. They do not read well, and do not look at all encyclopaedic. For this article, I would suggest "Alleged transatlantic aircraft bombing plot of August 2006". This is lengthy, but encyclopaedic. The current title as I write this ("August 10, alleged transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot") is as lengthy anyway. I suggest such an appending of the date/month/year with an "of" is far more proper, and should be used for other articles based on current events. zoney ♣ talk 21:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The day and even the month appear a bit unhelpful. The alleged plot wasn't hatched on that day or month, and the attacks were not going to be carried on that day. That was only the day of some of the arrests and when the plot hit news. Best avoid giving the reader the wrong impression on the get-go. Also WP:OR, that's not what others seem to be calling it. Stop messing with the title, if reliable sources eventually settle on what this is called we can change then. Heck, maybe one of the alleged bombers spills the name of the plot and we'll have our fancy new title right there. Weregerbil 08:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

well, why don't we name this "Operation Overt"? Why is that not the best name? --Striver 13:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That is the name of the police investigation which is just a part of all this. However, if that term becomes a widely used term in the media for this whole thing then it would be the right thing to do, we just don't want to be the only ones who call the entire affair that. Weregerbil 13:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good then, let's call it "alleged plot", because that's what the media are calling it. PizzaMargherita 20:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Double redirects

To those who decided to play around with the article name, are you going to take responsibility and clean up the double redirects you left behind? Part of performing a move is cleaning up the mess left afterward. --StuffOfInterest 19:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Taken care of. In the future, please do check "what links here" when you do a page move. --StuffOfInterest 21:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Except that we now have the talk page and the real page at a different name. Brilliant moves again people.... Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Article:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

Talk:Talk:August 10, 2006 alleged transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot

Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: I just moved the talk page back to match the real page. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Any admins out there can we get some bans for the people who keep moving this page without concensus, and thank you to StuffOfInterest and Cpt. Morgan for fixing the mess.Hypnosadist 10:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the article from page moves, so there should be no more moves from "2006 transatlantic aircraft plot" until consensus is reached on this page to use a different title. —Mets501 (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Very fair play, given that you have just moved it to the version you wanted without a consensus (and made a newbie mess with the double redirects). This is admin abuse in my book. PizzaMargherita 12:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say concensus was well established in the poll above. More people chose the current title than all others combined, so Mets' action is anything but abusive. --StuffOfInterest 13:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you StuffOfInterest. I'm sorry, PizzaMargherita, but I think you need to review what consensus is. At the time I protected it, "2006 transatlantic aircraft plot" had 9 votes, one other title had 2 votes, and another had 1 vote. If that's not consensus enough, then Wikipedia would just come to a standstill. If another title had 9 votes vs 2 and 1 vote I would have moved it to that title as well. —Mets501 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As any admin should know, Wikipedia is not based on votes, but on discussions and consensus. We very clearly do not have a consensus here, and only few proponents of the current title are discussing. PizzaMargherita 21:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the title

...as opposed to vote-stacking on pre-canned titles. PizzaMargherita 10:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking? oh you mean getting out voted. Hypnosadist 11:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean vote stacking. I refused to vote in the poll, so how exactly did I get voted out? As I said very early in the process, I do not recognise that poll as overriding the discussions for which this page is for. PizzaMargherita 12:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The poll is part of the discussion process. If you choose not to participate, or offer alternative names in this case, then you are voluntarily giving up your voice. --StuffOfInterest 13:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As you can see below, I am most definitely not giving up my voice. I can't really say the same of many of the voters in the previous poll, which simply dropped a signature without discussing the matter. Wikipedia is based on consensus and discussion, not votes. PizzaMargherita 21:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Date format

"August 2006" seems appropriate, but I'm not too fussed. PizzaMargherita 10:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes to August 2006, but droping the month is ok with me.Hypnosadist 11:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Airline" vs "aircraft" vs "aeroplane" etc

"Airline" seems the most region-neutral. PizzaMargherita 10:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't care which, its an irrelivent detail.Hypnosadist 11:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Include "Transatlantic" or not

Definately This is an planned attack on both the UK and USA by hitting flights between the two countries with passengers mostly from those two countries on board them.Hypnosadist 11:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Plot" vs "alleged plot" vs "alert" vs "investigations" vs "arrests" vs "incident" etc

I'm fine with any of "investigations", "arrests" or "incident", but if we have "plot" we must also have "alleged". Reasons are:

1. Media and officials (UK Home Secretary John Reid and head of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism branch Peter Clarke) are calling it "alleged plot".
2. Applies presumption of innocence like Wikipedia has correctly done for other cases (e.g. de Menezes has never been called a murder)
3. For consistency. This article title correctly contains "alleged" - Timeline of the 2006 alleged airliner terror plot
4. "Alleged" is not a weasel word in this context, it's the truth and it's verifiable, because nobody has been convicted. Conversely, unqualified "plot" is not verifiable and is POV.
5. (new entry) By not qualifying "plot" with "alleged", Wikipedia is potentially exposing itself to a powerful libel lawsuit.

PizzaMargherita 10:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What are your "compromise term"'s? If they are ("alert" vs "investigations" vs "arrests" vs "incident") then any of them other than alert is acceptable to me as this is one of the biggest police investigations in british history, and that level of importance is not covered with "alert".Hypnosadist 11:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that the people arrested are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (not by public opinion), then we should avoid making any statement implying the existence of a plot or the guilt of alleged perpetrators. English courts really don't like 'the media' pre-judging the outcome, and while the English courts may not have jurisdiction as far as Wikipedia is concerned, I think it would be courteous and professional not to jump to conclusions. On that basis, perhaps the article should be about the "August 2006 commercial air-travel security alert", and simply describe the citeable facts as known to the authors. I wouldn't want to contribute to another Birmingham Six, Maguire Seven or Guildford Four. It may be appropriate to have a separate article on the alleged plot - I'm not sure. WLD 13:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Either "arrests" or "alledged plot". --Striver 13:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged plot" v "plot": some common sense required

• Three things. Firstly, there can be a plot without anyone being convicted of it; an alleged plot is only alleged if there is a dispute over whether or not a plot per se exists. I do not think that there are many people - media commentators, "men on the street", even British Muslims - who would now deny that there was a plot; indeed, a magistrate has agreed that there was a plot, or else the police would not have been granted extra time to interview suspects. Secondly, the main reason that the BBC et al. keep using "alleged plot" is for reasons of legality, about not predjudicing any future trial. Aside from the fact that the police themselves have already released considerable details about the plot before the alleged perpetrators (in that case alleged is apposite), here at Wikipedia we are not bound by such constraints. Thirdly, this back-and-forward name moving is ridiculous and unhelpful, confusing people trying to find this page and creating double redirects here, there and everywhere. Let us choose a name asap and stick to it unless or until any future trial/police activity forces a change on us. For my part, I see nothing wrong with the current title. Batmanand | Talk 13:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Not true. The plot is as alleged as the involvement of the plotters. You can't have a real plot without convicted plotters, much like you can't say that de Menezes was a murder with nobody being convicted of murder. Contrary to what you claim, no magistrate has agreed that there was a plot, and nobody who believes in the principle of presumption of innocence can rationally think otherwise. As far as I'm aware Wikipedia adheres to this principle, which is incidentally a pillar in the UK juridical system.

2. The press uses "alleged plot" because it's correct, not for legal reasons.

3. Agreed. PizzaMargherita 13:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am not a lawyer, so I may not be 100% here. As far as I remember, plotting a criminal act in the UK is an offence in itself. As for "I do not think that there are many people - media commentators, "men on the street", even British Muslims - who would now deny that there was a plot", the only opinions that count are those of a jury, and possibly magistrates in the cases of offences that can be tried by a magistrate. A magistrate has not agreed there is a plot - simply that on the current evidence presented by the police there is, in the magistrates legal opinion, a case to answer, which is by no means the same thing as averring guilt. The "reasons of legality, about not predjudicing any future trial" are extremely important. Guilty or innocent, these people have a right to a fair and unprejudiced trial. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that just because the police have arrested someone that they must be guilty, or that 'there is no smoke without fire'. We do not know the full facts of the investigation, and should not make unwarranted assumptions. To do otherwise undermines the very foundations of the legal systems both of the UK and the USA. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is a principle that many people better than I have died for. WLD 13:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer either, so again my opinion can only be seen in the context of an interested layman, but I think you misunderstand a number of things I am trying (clearly very inarticulately!) to say. All are basically about the presumption of innocence. Of course there is a presumption of innocence for the people who have been arrested, including those who have just today been charged. And therefore of course when referring to the people, we must used "alleged" or "accused" or whatever words are necessary (eg "the alleged terrorists", "the accused maintain their innocence", ""the alleged plotters" etc). But the article title concerns the plot itself, which is a totally different kettle of fish. Of course you can have a plot with no convicted plotters; it just means that either a) the actual plotters have not yet been found, b) the actual plotters were acquitted at trial due to lack of evidence or some other reason or c) the alleged plotters are in the post-plot, pre-conviction/acquittal stage. For this plot, c) is true. *NB: my examples in the next few sentences are just off-the-top-of-my-head examples; I am sure better ones exist so do not take what I say as carefully considered gospel!* a) might reasonably have said to have occured in the case of the Preparedness Day bombing, where there clearly was a plot (the bomb went off!) but the culprits have yet to be identified, let alone convicted. b) occured for some time in the case of Jacques Rose. He was acquitted at trial, and although he was later convicted of a lesser charge, there was a period in between when there was a plot, but only alleged plotters. c) is the situtation we currently find ourselves in with the transatlantic aircraft plot. I hope this makes what I was trying to say a little clearer. Batmanand | Talk 14:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Clearly, no bomb exploded. As no bomb exploded, there is no current publicly available evidence that a plot existed. Various people are inferring from inadequate grounds that a plot existed, but the only people who know are the perpetrators (if indeed there are any) and possibly the police, who are usually quite careful not to prejudice a trial. So we are not in case (c). If there is/was a plot to explode bombs on airliners, then it would be criminal. No-one has yet been tried and found guilty or innocent of such a criminal plot, so the plot can only be alleged at present. That's my take on things. WLD 14:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I would say that there is evidence of a plot: the bomb-making suitcase and the martyrdom videos seem to me to be pretty conclusive. Of course, I have not seen them personally. But in this case I am willing to trust the police when they say that they have got the items described. Of course, that is just my personal POV, and I suppose you are saying that we are meant to be NPOV. I would respond by saying that the vast majority of people would not deny the existence of the plot itself, probably because they, like me, have faith in the police. But perhaps that is, again, just my POV; I do not have any evidence for it. Hmmm... it's a toughy this one. Batmanand | Talk 14:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pizza you said "2. The press uses "alleged plot" because it's correct, not for legal reasons." and you could not be more wrong. The UK has the strongest Libel Laws in the world, and if a particular news group said they were ploters not alleged ploters they can be sued. The news group would then have to prove (at this time without the evidence the police have collected) in court to the evidencary level of the ballance of probabilities that they were plotters or whatever they claimed they were. If they fail to do that then damages will be awarded, and if you've wrongly accused someone of attempted mass murder i'm guessing those damages would be the largest in legal history (and libal cases have gone above the million pound mark). They also have to pay ALL court costs as well at several thousand a day for a high court where this notable a trial would be held, and all lawyers fees. They say Alleged because the consiquences of breaking that Civil law are great enough to keep them in line.Hypnosadist 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So how do you explain that some sources do indeed (incorrectly) omit alleged? And even if it were for legal reasons, how is WP immune from libels of the magnitude you describe and not, say, from infringment of copyright? PizzaMargherita 15:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WP is not immune to british libel law, its just no case has been brought against WP. I explain some sources omit it because some of them make mistakes or like many on wikipedia think that libel does not apply either on the net or to non-british based news organisations. Also if alleged is in the title or made clear it does not have to be mentioned its an alligation every line or every little detail that is talked about. You will see the major british news groups like the BBC and ITN are very particular on the subject, less notable you are the less risk of being sued.Hypnosadist 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is pretty notable and a lot of effort is going towards preventing any legal actions against it. I cited the infringment of copyright laws as an example. Who said that libel does not apply on the net or overseas? I very much doubt it, why would one law apply and another not? PizzaMargherita 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The press DO NOT USE alleged in their article titles. They only use it when they themselves profer it up as a truth without a citation. It is for legal reasons. However, when it is attributed as an opinion of someone else (as all Wikipedia articles are) it is not used. alleged is an unnecessary weasel word in the title. Please see 'weasel words' in the style manual.--Tbeatty 18:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The press do indeed use alleged or suspected in their titles.

The weasel words style guide very clearly does not apply here. Have you not read it? Or are you simply trying to twist it to your convenience?

Finally, if it is for legal reasons, why would Wikipedia be so foolish to expose itself to a libel lawsuit of gigantic proportions? By the way, thank you for pointing out yet another good reason why we should have "alleged plot" in the title. PizzaMargherita 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It lets striver post complete BS that the Prince of Wales is involved in a plot to over throw the british government, and no one says jack shit about it. The second point is you have lost this arguement, Twice and a vote against so please come up with a wording without alleged in the title that you can agree with and then we can see if other people like it.Hypnosadist 20:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How about "August 2006 commercial air-travel security alert"? WLD 20:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between reporting and endorsing. And you know that. --Striver 20:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you reply to each and every post does not mean that you win an argument, especially if you fail to address or ignore key points, or you post irrelevant rubbish. The poll (which I remind you is not a vote) does not override these discussions. Wikipedia is based on consensus. I can't honestly say that many of us are working towards a consensus or at least a compromise. I think I have indicated for at least three times now that I am willing to compromise with any word of your choice which is not the name of a crime (such as "plot") unless qualified by "alleged" or similar. Any of "arrests", "investigations", "alert" or "alleged/suspected plot" are fine, but I am open to other suggestions. PizzaMargherita 21:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How about Operation Overt Arrests August 2006.Hypnosadist 00:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

All good. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 07:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Suspects' bios

The AfD of individual suspects' articles closed as "no consensus, keep". Would it be better to move the biographical information to their own articles? Only leave a minimum, e.g. "Ahmed Abdullah Ali, charged on 21 August 2006" (to be changed to "cleared of all charges" or "convicted to so-and-so years in prison" should those things later happen). The car mechanic, birthday, address, etc trivia just clutters the main article. Weregerbil 17:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, these are guys are collectively infamous, I don't think any of them warrants their own wikiarticle. So far, anything about these individuals can be told in one or two sentences. These guys are not notable enough for their own indvidual pages, but perhaps we could fork the bio sub-section if it gets too big. I don't think we're there yet. Mytwocents 18:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... all of them already have their own articles. Weregerbil 08:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The articles exist, but a quick sample suggests that this article hold more bio-information than the individual articles. IF those individual articles are to stay it should be the other way around. Agathoclea 08:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We probably need to make a "2006 transatlantic aircraft plot suspects" sub-page and move all the bio info there. Then we could speedy-delete the individual suspect bio pages because of the lack of notability mentioned above. Each suspect doesn't warrant their own separate article. Mytwocents 17:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that idea my2cents.Hypnosadist 18:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

<AOL>I agree too.</AOL> WLD 09:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that this was already discussed in AfD. No consensus to delete was reached. I'm not sure speedy deletion after AfD is allowed. Also I don't think "does not assert notability" speedy deletion applies as being the focus of a major terrorist investigation rather does assert notability... Weregerbil 11:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that suggestion, as having individual articles is too much of a risk of being a honeypot for adding weakly sourced additions, and having them in one place makes it easier to monitor. And some of the sources are very weak indeed, I think one was "time.com said that the guardian reported that a unnamed neighbour claimed that the suspect did". I would also suggest that news reports written immediately after the event be carefully examined for reliability, the nature of "getting the scoop" means that a lot of padding/weakly referenced material gets inserted, even if the source is usually reliable for non-time-critical reports. I was also very concerned with the closing admin's comment that he "wasn't overly concerned with WP:BLP" - crime suspects is one case where we should be extra careful, surely? I do think wikipedia shouldn't be trying to follow breaking news stories until it settles down, for several reasons (seee WP:DUST), but mainly because press reports in the heat of the moment are less reliable. But what is really discouraging is that even after it settles down, these less reliable press reports are used as primary references for bios on living people. Regards, MartinRe 11:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. For an example of what has happened in the past for the same situation see an old version of Mohammed Abdul Kahar, one of the suspects in the forestgate raid. (see current article for how it turned out) I would regard the second paragraph as very negative and potentially harmful, but these is the type of things that gets "reported" in the heat of the moment, and used by wikipedia editors as sources. Not good, in my opinion, and repeating the same mistakes again is even less so. Regards, MartinRe 11:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I see this has become another typical muddle. The articles continue to exist, but someone has converted them all to multi-redirects back to the main article. Very professional for anyone who clicks on one and finds themselves redirected to the blank '2006 transatlantic aircraft terrorist plot, which is a redirect to here. burble burble burble. Now, I don't see they have enough information in them to exist as articles in their own right, so there is no real reason for them to exist right now. But this might change in the future. I don't see why they should be linked from here right now. That just makes a nonsense for readers. Sandpiper 22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of those mistakes were mine, I redirected some of the sub-articles (which contained less info than the main one) back to main article, but created some double re-directs by accident. I've fixed those now, but haven't had chance to remove the self-referencial links as yet. I also think that they don't have enough info to exist in their own right, but I'm happy enough with the suggestion of having an article with meta-bio info of all the suspects as outlined above. That keeps the trivia out of the main article, but still keeps it one one place which makes it easier to check for WP:BLP/WP:RS issues) Regards, MartinRe 00:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't checked all the links yet, but I concur with MartinRe's effort so far. Having all the suspects bios on one page makes life a lot easier. As I've said, the suspects, as a group, warrant a sub-page fork from this article, but each, as an individual, do not per WP notability. Mytwocents 05:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 transatlantic aircraft plot suspects

I've made the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot suspects sub-page. I plan to add this {{see|2006 transatlantic aircraft plot suspects}} over the main paragraph, then the list of names and info on the suspects will be covered on the sub-page fork. This will reduce the page size a good amount. Some of the individual suspect articles have additional info that needs to be copy and pasted to the new sub-page. I haven't had a chance to do this yet. If anybody wants too, be my guest. Deleting the links to the 'suspects' pages will make them orphans but they will be accessible by their wikilinks on older versions of the main article. You can use the history to go to an older version of the page. Eventually, the individual pages will be deleted because of their orphan status. I'm not going to rush this fork, but the page is ready to go, if and when it's needed. Mytwocents 07:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)