Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

dispute tag

Good idea, if one's intending to draw some attention and perhaps aid in clearing up or assisting conversation about the title; that said, where next? People should probably state, concisely[a lesson, for my part, sorely needed], what beefs they've got about the title and, perhaps more importantly, what they think the appropriate solution is. The poll/impromptu vote highlighted the options people are considering, but not the rationale, so's I figure we should get around to doing that. --r. 19:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well me and pizza seem to agree that Operation Overt Arrests August 2006 could be acceptable to both of us, so does anyone have a major problem with that title.Hypnosadist 22:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

SO the police decided that 'Overt Arrests' was the right name for this operation, or did you mean they called it 'Overt Arrests August? Unlucky August to have annoyed inspector Overt. No, won't do.Sandpiper 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's sounds too obscure to me. The name Operation Overt is an interesting bit of trivia, but it hasn't caught on as a household name for this particular incident yet. If it does become common, then, that's another story. Mytwocents 04:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandpiper, Mytwocents, what do you propose? PizzaMargherita 06:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that's the criterion, then "alleged plot" should be the way to go, as it seems to be the most frequent expression in the media. But since many oppose it (for reasons that it would be nice if somebody summarised, possibly arguing the 5 reasons "pro" that I reported above) we need to look for some sort of compromise. PizzaMargherita 05:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about "August 2006 commercial air-travel security alert"? - describes the facts, and is boringly uncontentious. WLD 08:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

All good to me. PizzaMargherita 08:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Security alert does not cut it for me concidering this is one of the biggest investigations in the History of British Police and Security services but if this was the only option other than alleged i'd live with it.Hypnosadist 12:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with Hypnosadist here. PizzaMargherita 15:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I suggest that the facts of the day (i.e. the alert and its immediate effects) and the investigation (Operation Overt) should be in separate articles, obviously linked - otherwise this article is going to become a rather big and unwieldy portmanteau of related topics. I'm very concerned that we do not make prejudicial statements that may come back to haunt Wikipedia. Most of the newspapers I have seen in the UK are using quotation marks around the work plot ('plot') to try and distance themselves. WLD 13:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

splitting the article has been suggested before, but the only logical ground for doing so is if it becomes too big. Sandpiper 22:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well based on the fact that virtually noone outside the security services calls these kind of incidents by their official codenames, and given the Wiki guidelines on naming conventions (WP:NAME - "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity") I'd definitely say any use of Operation Overt as a major heading is a no-no. - HTUK 03:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the present title "2006 transatlantic aircraft plot" is almost right. Though it needs the word "terrorism" (or similar) between "aircraft" and "plot" otherwise it's too ambiguous. (There's a plot to fly transatlantic aircraft?! Oh my!) The existence of a theory that there was a plot is a fact (if you follow me!) so this heading is not inaccurate provided it is made clear at the outset in the article that this plot is an alleged one (and I think the opening sentence ("According to British and American authorities...") does this. Although perhaps it may better read as "British and American authorities believe...") - HTUK 03:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (Yes, sorry I know that wasn't "concise"...)

News

The Independent: Airport ban on carrying liquids is permanent, warn security chiefs, Passengers will be ban-ned from taking liquids bought outside the security screening zone on an "enduring basis", security experts at the Department for Transport (DfT) said. The officials indicated that any relaxation of the rules would depend on the development of technology able to detect all potentially explosive liquids, the perceived level of threat and the experience gained from operating the procedures.. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/250806liquids.htm]

Tell me how that is not baseless. Havent we already concluded that the toilet mixing plot was non sense? I guess the authorities should read wikipedia... "Surrend, give up all your rights! Obey! Give up freedom for liberty!" --Striver 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It really makes no sense, if I'm allowed a little blogging rant. How do they define "liquid"? Is ice ok? Is glass (a high viscosity liquid) banned? Why are nailclippers banned, and glass is not? I think the pilot who said that these rules are thought up by "utter morons" was very correct. PizzaMargherita 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, may I remind the utter morons who said that liquid-solid mixtures are also disallowed that the human body is mostly made of water. I'm tempted to board with a bottle of water shoved up my ass just to prove the point. PizzaMargherita 15:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

lol! " A MOBILE phone that rang on a flight between London and New York sparked a mid-air security scare yesterday. More than 200 terrified passengers on British Airways flight BA179 were diverted back to London's Heathrow Airport after the phone rang and its owner could not be found." [1] The masters of terror, knowing how to creat headlines! --Striver 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is very old news, surely. PizzaMargherita 17:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It was news to me :( --Striver 14:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

More detailes www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/250806castesystem.htm (!) here] --Striver 17:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and in case you are wondering were the madness stops, NY Times has the answer: [2] --Striver 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

BBC: "www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/260806diverted.htm UK-US plane diverted over 'scare']" --Striver 23:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Flight paranoia --Striver 23:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet more islamophobia (and you know it has to be bad for me to call it that) at an US Airport, from the BBC [3] this is just nuts!Hypnosadist 11:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no time. Just dumping a few references. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] PizzaMargherita 13:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fucking insane... Sorry, but that is the most accurate way to describe it! The doctor thing was like... what?! ... here is www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/300806charged.htm another source]--Striver 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Updated and wikified"

Any comments about this edit? (sorry I have no time, note edit summary and diffs) PizzaMargherita 14:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

well I thought it was a pretty massive edit to put through all at once, and therefore difficult to tell exactly what had been changed, moved or deleted. i prefer it if edits like this are done section at a time, so it's easy to see the differences. i've made a number of edits since then, but it could be we ask nicely for this big edit to be reverted and the editor to redo them in bitesize chunks for the benefit of the rest of us! --duncan 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that it was a big edit, but the style of the article was not encyclopedic any longer - probably reflecting the way that it has grown up piecemeal as the story developed. It was designed as a starting point for further changes. If people would rather the edit to be made in small chunks, then feel free to change the way the edit was done - I don't have time to change this right now. Also, it seemed that the talkpage was getting caught up in niceties such as whether the plot or suspects were alleged, and meanwhile the article was no longer in a wikipedia style. Of course, it goes without saying that if anybody objects to anything, then change/discuss it. By the way, I did mention the edit in the talk section labelled 'Encyclopedic Style' over a week before making it, and nobody objected. Of course, I wouldn't make such a substantial change without prewarning people! Anthony.moore 13:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry but I had to revert. I tried to make sense of the huge edit, which among other controversial things almost halved the number of references from 135 to 82. I am also sorry because this also reverted subsequent edits by duncan, but I figured it's easier to reintroduce them than making sense of that monster edit. Is it possible to do some kind of semi-automated merge for duncan's edit? Else I can offer to re-introduce them manually. PizzaMargherita 19:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take you up on that offer! To be honest, I basically just went through it after Anthony.moore's edit line by line, and don't recall exactly what i did or if it still applies now you've reverted. i'd need to check the history to see what i did. --duncan 21:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put my edit back in (with subsequent updates) one bit at a time - I hope this pleases people :-) Unless changes are only minor (or correcting errors of fact), please debate them here first. Anthony.moore 12:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What was your reasoning for removing the list of what airlines were affected[15], the security measures taken worldwide[16], the quotes from John Reid and Paul Stephenson[17] and a lot of content from the introduction[18]? Could any of this (especially the list of airlines and countries) still mostly be made available, but in a briefer form? --duncan 14:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that's a lot of (possibly controversial) removing without discussing first. However I appreciate the piecewise and commented editing, thanks. I'll go through the diffs myself as well at some point. PizzaMargherita 16:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I upset anyone, I didn't realise the changes would be so controversial! As requested, here is my reasoning for the changes you mention:

I removed the list of airlines affected because it was incomplete, and not the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Whilst undoubtedly useful for a reference in the days immediately following the raids, I did not feel that it was encyclopedic now. I do think, however, that if others think that it would be useful to retain the information, a separate page for it would be a good idea.
I removed the security measures taken worldwide as they too were incomplete, and the detail not really suitable in this article. Again, I do think, however, that if others think that it would be useful to retain the information, a separate page for it would be a good idea.
I removed the Reid/Stephenson quotes as they did not seem relevant to the section on the reaction in the UK. To me, they just seemed to repeat information elsewhere in the article. If I missed anything in there that isn't elsewhere in the article, then it should be put back in - but in the relevant section, which probably isn't the one where it started.
I shortened the introduction as the information contained seemed to be chosen at random, and without any reference to what was most important. As the article is so well-organised with subject headings, people looking for specific information should be able to find it pretty quickly. I do think, however, that the introduction is now very short. Perhaps lengthening it to a paragraph (selecting the most important information) would be better. I may look at this in the next few days, but if you can get there before me, then go for it!

I hope this helps! :-) Anthony.moore 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Pizza Margherita - I understand why you've reinstated the information from The Register, but could you please explain the reasoning behind why the criticism from Craig Murray is particularly noteworthy? If this was an Uzbek-based plot, I'd understand, but in this case I don't see what marks Murray out from all the other sceptical commentators. Anthony.moore 09:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

He made very specific comments about suspects not having tickets and many of them not having passports. I think he was the only one (or the first anyway) to pick on that. Again, thanks for your understanding why I reverted your massive change and for taking the time to reintroduce them piecewise and adding your rationale above. PizzaMargherita 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, I see your point. Would it be possible to source to Murray's blog at [19], which is the source of the quotes in Islamic Republic News Agency article - I know linking to blogs can be controversial, but all we are doing is saying Murray said... and here's where he first said it. Anthony.moore 10:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The moment we do that, the whole quote is removed. PizzaMargherita 11:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the reason for that? Anthony.moore 14:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Given the current title, the opening sentence may be interpreted as "the plot is no longer alleged" and is anyway awkward and ambiguous. I propose we revert to the version that I believe Tbeatty put forward. PizzaMargherita 21:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

minitruth

[http://infowars.net/articles/August2006/310806prosecute.htm minitruth] for real. Beware of thouhgcrimes! --Striver 17:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/060906praying.htm Jewish man removed from airplane for praying] "He wasn't exactly praying out loud but he was lurching back and forth," Faguy added.

lol, beware of "lurchcrime"!--Striver 17:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the maintenance of the related Wikipedia article. Is there something in regard to that you have to say? Wikipdia is not a soapbox or a chat forum. Please do not use it as such. Weregerbil 20:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A little cleanup

Would anyone object to rolling up the information about who has been charged and released under the "Investigation and arrests" section? I was thinking Timeline of the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot could contain the dates of each court appearance and the main article more of a summary. Weregerbil 20:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Its info like "Hand luggage restrictions" that need forking off this page and the info on arrests and charges needs to be here. This article is still focusing on some airport delayes few people remember today and not on one of the largest cases in british police history with a trial that is so complex and involves so much data that is not due to start until Jan 2008 at the earliest.Hypnosadist 14:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, you don't fly often, do you? :-) PizzaMargherita 16:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Like most people on the planet NO.;-) But i do think the information on the exact nature (down to each product) of the luggage resrtictions can be moved to a sub page, leaveing more room for info on either or both of the suspects and the knock on securrity alerts.Hypnosadist 17:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ps Some of the info deleted by Anthony.moore could also be put in subpages insted of a deletion of useful sourced material. Hypnosadist 17:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's time to split. Sorry guys gotta go. PizzaMargherita 18:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Weregerbil - this section is quite confused at the moment, and shortening/summarising it, and ensuring the detail is on the timeline would be better. Also, I don't really see how you could reasonably separate off the hand luggage restrictions - a separate page for them would be quite odd, and I think they're a very important part of the impact of the plot. Anthony.moore 22:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment: disruption was verifiable consequence of policy, not "plot". This article is about an investigation, not a plot. PizzaMargherita 07:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the plot caused policy caused disruption - so the plot caused disruption. But I'm not too worried about the wording with respect to this! Anthony.moore 18:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course the hand luggage restrictions should be mentioned but not with a table listing each item. All this info could go in a separate page call Airline disruption August 2006 and reference this page as the cause but leave her for the case and the suspects.Hypnosadist 22:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so we could split the article into a main article, a timeline (existing), suspects (existing), political reaction and security reaction. This schema would seem to work - any comments? Also, separating like this would mean that we could put back in the details of the reaction in other countries that I took out earlier today. (I'm not sure whether it would be a good idea to put in the incomplete list of airlines affected - views welcome.) One other thing (O/T) - I see a large gap in the Service Resumption - any ideas how to fix? Anthony.moore 23:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As we seem to have a consensus, I've put through some of the changes suggested - see history for details. In particular, I've created a page on the security reaction, removed some of the details that are on the timeline, and added a navigational template at the top. Anthony.moore 09:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV tag

Article title conforms to approprite guidelines, meaning is explained in the lead, redirects from everwhere exist. Rich Farmbrough, 15:14 8 September 2006 (GMT).

The dispute is not settled, I was actually planning to file a RfC this weekend. Redirects would be fixed as part of the move. PizzaMargherita 16:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So, how long for the pov tag, remove it now? 3 days?, 1 week? Has anyone discussed this in the past two weeks? The tag has mold on it from disuse. Let's say goodbye to it Mytwocents 18:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see you working towards a consensus much, or addressing the problems that have been raised against the current title, that's for sure. So the title is still being disputed. Anyway, if removing it until I get around to filing this RfC makes you feel better that's fine by me. PizzaMargherita 22:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think removing the tag would be good. If you file an RfC, you will include a link to a sub-section of the talk page, such as Talk:2006 transatlantic aircraft plot/Pagemove that will provide the place to discuss a new title. I don't think furthur talk will change the consensus, but it's your time and effort.... so hey, it's up to you to do it, or not. Mytwocents 03:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The current state is not a consensus, and it's everybody's duty to discuss and strive to reach one. I think I have done my part. PizzaMargherita 07:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The current state is concensus of every one except you Pizza, thats good enough.Hypnosadist 11:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with PizzaMargherita on this one; until a conviction I think we need to keep alleged in the title.--duncan 12:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the plot is still only alleged, but I don't see this issue as big enough to change the title, so long as it is clear in the article (preferable in the introduction) that nobody has been convicted (yet). Anthony.moore 20:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I found the link about duty free items from august 16th, but i'm not familiar with how to fix it here. the address is http://www.moodiereport.com/blank.php?nextpage=mr_rep1.php&category_id=News&tn=document&id=11720

Suspect numbers

As far as I can tell,

25 suspects arrested
14 charged
5 released
0 still held without charge

Help?! Anthony.moore 12:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi here a bbc list of 17 suspects charged. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5272264.stm and i'm sure more people have been released than 5, i'll keep looking.Hypnosadist 13:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I've now had a closer look at the timeline, and my reckoning gives:

10 August - 24 suspects arrested (24 held without charge/0 charged/0 released)
11 August - 1 suspect released (23 held without charge/0 charged/1 released)
15 August - 1 suspect arrested (24 held without charge/0 charged/1 released)
16 August - 1 suspect released (23 held without charge/0 charged/2 released)
21 August - 11 suspects charged, 1 released (11 held without charge/11 charged/3 released)
23 August - 2 suspects released (9 held without charge/11 charged/5 released)
24 August - 1 suspect charged (8 held without charge/12 charged/5 released)
30 August - 3 suspects charged (5 held without charge/15 charged/5 released)
7 September - 2 suspects charged, 3 suspects released (0 held without charge/17 charged/8 released)

Everything now works - I apologise for any inconvenience! One point though, some of the problem was that the timeline only mentioned one of the two released on 23 August - but BBC article states that two were released on that day.

Personally, I think that the above information should be incorporated into the article - any ideas how/where? Anthony.moore 22:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Current Event Tag

This event no longer seems current - any objections to removing that tag? Anthony.moore 15:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Given no objections I've removed the tag. I don't know how controversial this will be, but feel free to discuss, as ever... Anthony.moore 20:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sceptic Nigel Wylde

Any views on edit? The source doesn't seem reliable to me - what does everyone else think? Anthony.moore 09:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The source, The Raw Story, certainly is reliable.Self-Described Seabhcán 10:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Raw Story broke the Plame affair story and have been used as a source by CNN and others. [20] Self-Described Seabhcán 10:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

At least the quote asks the right question: So who came up with the idea that a bomb could be made on board? Answer: The Internet. The Internet invented that TATP was going to be manufactured in a lavatory and now people keep debunking that theory. See straw man. On the whole the paragraph is not really relevant or informative as it is based on a fictional premise that has nothing to do with this plot. I wouldn't dwell that much on lavatory chemistry unless some evidence surfaces such chemistry was actually planned. Weregerbil 15:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that claim? Most of the print media I have read about it quote "Police sources" or "security sources". Self-Described Seabhcán 15:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't have a reliable source where the police says "explosives were NOT going to be manufactured in lavatories". Such negative statements are not usually made or reported. Much like it is hard to find a reliable source that explicitly says "cows are NOT pink" (phrase gets two google hits though :-). Do you have a non-speculative reliable source that quotes the police saying lavatory chemistry was planned? There is a lot of speculation but a real source that directly quotes the police saying they have evidence of plans of on-board manufacture? The plotters may still have had such plans of course; they would have probably failed to produce high quality TATP though; maybe a fire at best. Weregerbil 16:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the police never give direct quotes in such cases, they just give 'anonomous' statements to (mis-)lead the press. I doubt that 'the internet' (meaning bloggers, I suppose) invented the toilet-bomb story and that it was then reported in the mainstream. The British press will usually report only what their 'anonomous' security sources want them to. MI5 are usually the ones who make stuff up. But seeing that the toilet bomb claim have at least been reported in the print media, I think a debunk of that claim can be included here. Self-Described Seabhcán 16:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I too think it's good to mention that toilet chemistry is unlikely to work and hasn't even been seriously suggested. People who read this article may have seen the rumor elsewhere and it's good to say it's just a rumor with no substance. Wikipedia shouldn't dwell on the subject too much though since it doesn't appear to be actually relevant except as a conspiracy theorists' straw man. Weregerbil 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move —Mets501 (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Title not pov

The examples given of allegations cover allegations that are made and proved to be false and hence forever remaining allegations. The British police say there is a plot, they are notable and that is verifiable. As long as it is made clear that it is the CPS and the british police saying that (as it clearly does) then it is not POV to call this a plot.Hypnosadist 18:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. The home secretary notably and verifiably said: "The police and the authorities are convinced that there was an alleged plot here." http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-24,GGGL:en&q=%22The+police+and+the+authorities+are+convinced+that+there+was+an+alleged+plot+here%22 Head of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism branch, also notably, and also verifiably, said, "This has all given us a clearer picture of the alleged plot." http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-24,GGGL:en&q=%22This+has+all+given+us+a+clearer+picture+of+the+alleged+plot%22 This and all that duncan and pizzamargherita have already said. HELLO?!?

Interesting parallel by the way. Blair: we won't "give one inch" to terrorists (except of course all our freedoms). Reid: the (idiotic) security measures are "here to stay" (except of course all the backpedalling that's happening). Dickheads.

The title is POV. We presume innocence, we do NOT presume guilt. It is not guilty until proven innocent. And by the way, there will not be any convictions: BBC www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/131206liquidbomb.htm Non-RS comment] i told you so. --Striver 20:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray slammed the so-called foiled plot story as "propaganda" on behalf of Bush and Blair who yearn for a "new 9/11" to reinvigorate their flagging support base: "None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time," said Murray. --Striver 20:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

support --duncan 07:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to vote. It's the arguments that count, not the votes. And the arguments for leaving this title have been very feeble, just look at the archives. 205.228.74.11 09:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Either it's a plot by terrorists to blow up planes, or a plot by authorities to hoodwink the public. Either way it's a plot. -- Beardo 03:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, maybe that can be illustrated in the article? If not, the point is voided. --Striver 16:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Very funny. This is possibly the strongest argument yet for keeping this POV title. 83.67.217.254 09:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose Alleged is virtually meaningless here (and no protection against libel). All it will do is move the article to a location less likely to be searched for. We have Popish Plot without any "alleged", although there is entire consensus that it was imaginary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The point on searching has already been made and it's invalid, as the current title would stay as a redirect. "Alleged" is not meaningless here, it's what the media have been calling it, it's not POV, and it's what this plot actually is: alleged. 83.67.217.254 13:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

more people bared from airports. This should be a new article. --Striver 23:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose : What next? "Western alleged possibly a transatlantic aircraft plot" as the title? It's NPOV for now without sounding too much of a mouthful. Idleguy 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "NPOV for now"? You mean, if anyone is convicted we should change the title to "2006 aircraft plotters are a bunch of muslim bastards, so there, I told you hahaha"? Also, may I remind you that having titles that don't "sound too much of a mouthful" is not a stated Wikipedia goal, whereas NPOV is. And "for now" the title is POV. 83.67.217.254 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - per Seption. We don't need politically correct qualifiers to plug up the title of every Wikipedia article that exists. Patstuart^talk|edits 18:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - As long as it's described as an alleged plot in the article, then we don't need the qualifier in the title. The page clearly describes the plot as under investigation and pending trial. Wasn't this decided back in August? Mytwocents 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Pointless suggestion, appalling precedent if adopted. Andrewa 09:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Metz continues his biased campaign. He is pushing his POV leveraging on his admin status. First he moved the article to the title he liked and then protected the article against moves. Now he unilaterally calls the present state a consensus, while the pro-keep struggle to make a point other than "No, it's not POV". 83.190.250.192 11:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

manilla connection

when i first read about this plot on wickipidia, there was a subsection on the history of the plot. It was something about serbian islamists hatching such a plot in manilla in the phillapians in the early 1990's. Some thing to do with the Bosnian war and US backed mujahuden fighing the serbs. (was the origanal plot something hatched up at the CIA base in manilla? famous for the OSS(CIA) opperations carried out during the Veitnam war???)

any rate....... could someone please add the original HISTORY paragraph back to the artical?

Concerned UK citizan and Wiki Newbee

Breckmackellar (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Are self-published web sites such as infowars.com and prisonplanet.com considered reliable sources? These are essentially blogs of one person who can write whatever junk he feels like...

The "Skeptics respond to the arrests" section also mentions The Register's research into producing TATP in a plane lavatory. I could add "The production of TATP in a lavatory is an invention of the Internet and has not been suggested by credible sources. Therefore The Register's chemistry speculation has little connection to reality" — but I don't have a newspaper quote for that. So the misleading implication must remain in the article as is? Is there some way to mention that a source has invented some fact when there is no other source saying they invented it? Weregerbil 08:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No not in the slightest bit of reliability at infowars or their like.Hypnosadist 11:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's all relative, isn't it? I'm not a big fan of Alex Jones, but you've got to give that in the last few years he's proven much more reliable than the intelligence of unnamed Western countries. PizzaMargherita 12:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Alex Jones is white supremasist who has become the darling of the Left and Muslim's with his critiques of Bush and the Bildaburg group. As i say he blaims "Banking Interests" for the problems of the world, and we know who he means by those two words. He his border-line mentally ill with his pranoid delusions, the problem is he has just enough real facts to make his (and his readers) delusions hang together. This man believes America is a ZOG (Zionist occupied Government) but now he is famous with the left as a good guy he does not talk about that, America is just controled by "Banking Interests". Do some research pre 9/11 you'll find i'm right.Hypnosadist 13:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least he's not killing innocent people. PizzaMargherita 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does make a change from all those people/groups the left support such as Saddam, Hezbollah, Hamas, Mugabi etc.Hypnosadist 14:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Beaver Has been involved within Defence industry, media, military and political ... Flexible. Value. Confidential. Formed Jan 2005 by Paul Beaver ... and also terrorist expert ofcourse:).24.132.171.225 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Alleged" in opening line

Given that a poll has now decided to call this article "2006 transatlantic aircraft plot", why does the opening line still say "alleged"? We don't need to use this word if we're also saying "According to British and American authorities" do we? Surely that qualifier makes clear that the plot is alleged. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "alleged" should go from the first line given the wording. But (in case it wasn't clear) I still strongly believe that having unqualified "plot" in the title is POV and should be changed. PizzaMargherita 13:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Alleged needs to be in the first line and American authorities have nothing to do with this case at all. Pakistani authorities have made arrests but not the americans. The only group to charge anyone is the British CPS, only they have they legitamate power to say what has happened according to them as they have the evidence the police collected.Hypnosadist 15:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

But what I'm saying is that "According to British and American authorities..." is just another way of saying "British and American authorities allege...". Does it really need to be said twice?--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 11:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, otherwise it would be same as saying: "British and American authorities allege that according to them the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot ....", which I hope everybody agrees is a plain ugly sentence (but in effect it only has according and alleged switched in position from what the opening sentence of the article wass when it included also alleged) Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned somewhere on this page that, at least at the time, the British Home Secretary was using the phrase 'alleged plot', in sentences like 'the police have discovered an alleged plot'. So it would then be accurate to say 'according to British authorities there was an alleged plot'. I know, seemed rather odd for him to be speaking in terms which plainly implied the actual existence of such a plot but still to be describing it as 'alleged', but he was. I havn't checked to see of he still is. Sandpiper 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought I mentioned that. Search for "horse" in this page. PizzaMargherita 06:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason John Reid uses 'alleged' is because High Court Judges often don't like it when politicians say things publicly that can prejudice a trial, i.e. the right of defendants to a fair trial. --duncan 07:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the "according to..." line originally for the express purpose of removing "alleged". "alleged" is a weasel word. It's bad enough that it starts passive voice (but at least it's specific). Wikipedia is not a news source. It is a tertiary source which means everything posted should be sourced as the opinion of a specific group. There should be no "alleged" in wikipedia, just sourced facts from secondary sources. --Tbeatty 05:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The best sentence is the most straightforward and active voice. "British and American authorities say the 2006 Transatlantic Aircraft plot is....". That is the way Wikipedia sentences of fact should be constructed. No weasel words, active voice. It says who has the view, what the view is, and it sources the view. This is in contrast to an uncontested view which would simply say "The 2006 Transatlantic Aircraft plot is ..." --Tbeatty 05:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with your wording of the intro. However, "alleged" is not a weasel word, very definitely not in this context. We specify exactly who alleges what in sentence one. I mean, look at examples of actual weasel words. Please state which part of WP:WEASEL we would be violating by using "alleged". Also please address any of the five problems I have (and other people here share) with having unqualified "plot". PizzaMargherita 06:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"alleged" as it is used here is of the same form of the adverb "allegedly" which is clearly listed. It is designed to cast doubt where none exist. No one doubts that the British authorities said there is a plot. We don't need alleged. Here are words to avoid. --Tbeatty 06:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading. We don't allege that the government say there's a plot. Rather, the Government allege that there is a plot. "Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them.", "Acceptable use: O.J. Simpson allegedly murdered his ex-wife and a friend of hers in 1994. [In the context of crimes, alleged is understood to mean "alleged by government prosecutors".]" --duncan 07:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, thanks for finally providing the reference that demonstrates that "alleged" is perfectly valid in this instance. I would advise to actually read WP guidelines before goofily brandishing them in your defense. I hope this clears it all up. PizzaMargherita 07:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong and it is why it's in the list of words to be avoided. As I have argued before, it is okay to refer to the plotters with alleged. "Alleged plotters". It is not okay to refer to the whole incident as alleged or allegedly. To use the O.J Simpson case, it would not be okay to refer to the murder as alleged as in "O.J. Simpson is a suspect in the alleged murder of Nicole Smith" because alleged is being used to modify the murder. --Tbeatty 13:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You have a short memory. I have already proved you wrong about this, and then you suddenly changed your mind about why "alleged" should not be used. PizzaMargherita 21:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please define "the whole incident". No planes were blown up. Nobody boarded a flight with a bomb. Nobody was killed. Unlike say the OJ Simpson case, where there was 2 dead bodies, in this case, nothing actually happened. Because the police arrested the alleged plotters before anything happened. Until they are tried and convicted, we don't even know for sure there was even a plot. So the plot is alleged, just as the suspects are alleged plotters. Until found guilty, when we can call it a plot and call them plotters. --duncan 18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And that is the use of alleged to be avoided. The plot has plenty of evidence but that is besides the point. The fact that it has been called a plot by the government and that it is directly attirbuted as the government's belief is sufficient. Using alleged in the case where it is already qualfied with the holders of the opinion is designed to cast doubt on the claims. That is not the function of Wikipedia and that is why it's listed in the words to avoid. We have correctly sourced who holds the opinion and it doesn't require additional modifiers to cast doubt on them. --Tbeatty 19:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, you've just changed your mind once again as to why we should not use "alleged". Tbeatty, can you not read? Or are you just trolling? I'll spell it out for you:

Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from [other words that should not be used] in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity—they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear. PizzaMargherita 21:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand so I will try to type slower. They are to be avoided. They are not banned words or anything like that. They are unnecessary in the context of the opening statement because the people making the claims have been clearly identified. I'll quote the opening sentence and highlight relevant parts.

2.2 So-called, supposed, alleged, purported

These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable—at the very least the person who said it! Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications.

Any questions?--Tbeatty 22:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Another own goal. "Where doubt does exist, [which it does] it should be mentioned explicitly, [which we would do if we used alleged] along with who's doing the doubting [which we are already doing]". So there's no need for a consensus, based on this guideline we "should" use alleged. Moreover, you can't read only half of the rule. The other half (quoted above) is even more explicitly saying that "alleged" in our case can be used (or even, once again, should be used, depending on the interpretation of "they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear"). What do the others think? Am I feeding the trolls? PizzaMargherita 09:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, just to be clear, I remind everyone that here I am not talking about the opening sentence anymore. I'm happy with the opening sentence. I'm talking about using "alleged" in the title. PizzaMargherita 09:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And another thing just occured to me. Could you please explain why writing "alleged plotter" is ok (your words), but saying "alleged plot" is not? Isn't "alleged" in the first phrase not the same "alleged" as in the second phrase? And therefore, according to your untenable interpretation of the Wikipedia guideline, shouldn't the first phrase be avoided as much as the second one? You are contradicting yourself. PizzaMargherita 16:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretation is exactly wrong. We should NOT use alleged unless we are specifically talking about named plotters. That's it. Otherwise we introduce unneccesary bias. --Tbeatty 17:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this argument is so powerful (and new) that you have actually convinced me. By the way, you may want to direct your unfounded and irrationally selective crusade against the a-word to other articles. Good luck! PizzaMargherita 23:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The body of the article makes clear that it is an alleged plot we're discussing and that the investigation is under way, not closed and the plotters convicted. I don't think there is a burden to qualify the word plot in the title, or to narrow the focus of the title by substituting the word investigation or the like. The use of the word alleged in the title strikes me as a cute, passive aggressive way to inject some POV doubt into it. Skepticism of the police or the truth of any reports can be included in the article, but the hint of such a minority view should be left off the title. This is the sentiment that led me to vote with the majority for the current title. Mytwocents 17:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You agree that the article is about an "alleged plot". Good. The title of a Wikipedia article should describe what the subject matter is, agreed? Then why would "alleged plot" be POV? It would simply be calling the subject matter with its name. While you may argue that the media are using "alleged" to "inject some POV doubt" into their news report (and I would in most cases disagree), do you really think that the Home Secretary and even senior policemen, in using it, are being sceptical about the investigations? I hope not! The way I see it is that, using your words, not including "alleged" in the title is a passive aggressive way of injecting POV, because it implies that the suspects are guilty. PizzaMargherita 19:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see a news media piece use "alleged plot" in the title. They overwhelming just say "plot". --Tbeatty 04:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

here's some for you, I'm sure others can find more. NB: some of these are in the text not the title, but that's immaterial. Also the BBC and others also usually qualify the phrase terror plot by putting it in apostrophes, i.e. 'terror plot'. I'm sure if we did the same here that would be shot down as POV. BBC BBC BBC BBC The Times AP Scotsman USA Today Financial Times Bloomberg even Fox News!

--duncan (was unsigned)

Haven't we been here before? Tbeatty, please stop wasting our time. You have already raised this, and I have already provided with quite a few references.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

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.

PizzaMargherita 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

For up-to-date references please visit this dynamic link. Last time I offered this link to you (I think this is the fourth time I post it) you said "This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or the press.", and now you come back and say that since the press is not using "alleged" in the title (which is wrong and anyway immaterial) and since the majority of the press is using unqualified "plot" (which by the way I challenge you to prove), we should keep the current title. Once again you are contradicting yourself, you are sounding more and more desperate, and your arguments are looking more and more pretextuous, inconsistent and repetitive. Now what are you going to raise next? That "alleged" cannot be used to describe a plot, only plotters? PizzaMargherita 09:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already told you that alleged is used by the press to describe plotters, not hte plot itself. Pre-empting it doesn't make it invalid. But all your references for "alleged" in the title reference plotters. I have never quibled with "alleged plotters" only "alleged plot." And most of your references use "suspected" which I doubt would be as acceptable to as a title. "2006 Suspected Airliner Plot". And it is consensus to leave out alleged as an undue modifier used to inject POV bias into the title.--Tbeatty 04:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"I've already told you that alleged is used by the press to describe plotters, not hte plot itself" ... "But all your references for "alleged" in the title reference plotters." -- and you're still wrong. Please see the sources I listed:

"the alleged terror plot"[21]
"an alleged plot"[22]
"an alleged plot"[23]
"an alleged plot"[24]
"alleged plane bomb plot"[25]
"Alleged Air Plot"[26]
"alleged airliner bomb plot"[27]
"alleged terror plot"[28]
"alleged bomb plot"[29]
"Alleged Plane-Bombs Plot"[30]
"the alleged plot"[31]

--duncan 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Pizza look up Concensus.Hypnosadist 15:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it easier, try WP:CON. --StuffOfInterest 16:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It is indeed an interesting link:

It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus.

PizzaMargherita 16:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

it's a bit topical for titles i suppose, somehow i think they could do with a standard, does legislature offer any solutions for trials? or do they only do the heavy stuff?24.132.171.225 (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we have a new section

On the legal and political issues around releasing information on Operation Overt. This is a very big issue, many people IRL have been saying the same sort of stuff that Striver and Pizza have said about this is dodgy and the police can't be trusted. The police are naturally guilty until proven innocent, so the Muslim community has Demanded to be shown evidence of the plot. Now of course come the alligations that the CPS is coaching the jury through the media.Hypnosadist 14:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

okay but these are quite incredible storys, and you have an opinion to. i am definetly not convinced that policemethods that comprive interference or provocation render any true results for example.24.132.171.225 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

News

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/220806Data.htm Officials Seek Broader Access to Airline Data]
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/220806cosmetics.htm BAA bans all passengers' cosmetics]
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/220806believeblair.htm Only 20% Of Britons Believe Blair On Terror Threats: Neo-Fascists need to stage real attack to reclaim credibility and obedience]

--Striver 20:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Striver, thanks for posting this, but if I am allowed a comment, given the source you keep quoting is not exactly enjoying wide currency here I'm not sure this is building your case effectively. All the best. PizzaMargherita 21:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are the New York Times, London Telegraph and The Guardian disputed sources? --Striver 21:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Audio interivew with Craig Murray regarding torture and the intel for this hoax, very intresting www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/210806murray.mp3]. --Striver 22:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

ONE MONTH short of the fifth anniversary of 9/11, the United States awakened to news that British authorities had broken up a purported plot to use liquid chemical bombs to blow up as many as 10 American-owned planes as they flew across the Atlantic to the U.S. [32]--Striver 23:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Striver will you stop posting this insulting crap, i consider it a Personal attack!Hypnosadist 00:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? Could you be more specific? I did not mean to offend you. --Striver 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this from Neo-Fascists need to stage real attack to reclaim credibility and obedience (the neo-fascists are the labour party)!

"This crescendo has not gone unnoticed and the Blair cabal will do everything within its reach to manufacture fearmongering distractions, including staging another terror attack in London, attacking transport systems in major cities, or releasing bio-weapons targeting their most organized and effective opposition - the farming community which is based mainly in the north. The 2001 Foot and Mouth outbreak led directly back to Porton Down, the government's own bio-weapons research facility." This sort of continued baseless attacks on the Whole of British Government(not just the executive) is highly insulting to me.Hypnosadist 20:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, i see. Let me apologise on their behalf, i know for a fact that they are not blaiming the whole government, just the small criminal parts. For example, they whold not have the whistelblowers they have, if the whole government was corrupt. Watson was to unsensitive in his rethoric there. On the other side, i can say that i personaly get offended when Category:Conspiracy theorists is kept, while Category:9/11 Truth Movement is deleted, when everyone knows that there are people questioning the official view, without having their own theoris. I also get personaly offended every time i hear people that hold my view being uncriticaly refered to with insulting labels with impunity. I will kepp posing my news, since i insist that they are relevant, but i will give put a (!) in front of articles i suspect might offend you. peace. --Striver 21:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Some real news

This from the BBC [33] another passenger looks dodgy story. This could be a real terrorist event or it could be another islamophobic event. But 14 arrests is quite a lot, and after theo van gogh the dutch are very touchy.Hypnosadist 21:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

recently i wrote the aljazeera all threats we had in netherlands were to the greatest extend fake, next minute there was a threat, fake. i wasn't published though, omg personal interference and the media. or wosname? you can say what you want but this teho was foulmouthed:/.and making the scene of political polemics.(talking with ministery of immigration or whatever in terms of goatfuckers :S). writing their speaches almost. i am sorry but i don't miss it. wosname "pacing, propagandism" (ref nl. stemmingmakerij)24.132.171.225 (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

:It was actually 12 arrests, and now 12 released. By the way, what happened to the West Virginia terror scare? I think these panic episodes as a pattern after the UK alert are very notable and deserve at least a section in this article. I'll give it a stab this weekend. PizzaMargherita 06:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes that makes about 4 or 5 of these events by my count so far! I think they are becomeing a notable side affect of this particular terrorism case, most notably within the aircrew. As everyone blames the passengers for these events it should be noted the the Crew have control over the plane not the passengers. Air marshals particularly should know better as well. Hypnosadist 13:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Need FIXs

The are too many ^{[citation needed]} tags and also it needs to written in more neutral terms, than just as newspapers. --yousaf465' 18:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been through and added refs to previously unreffed parts. I am out of time at the moment but it is a fairly easy task and there are now eleven left to do. Seven of these relate to the US security procedures which are hardly a contentious point of the article. I haven't checked for POV pushing in the article but the bits which I added refs to seemed OK to me - Dumelow (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for it. I wasn't exactly saying that there is pov-pushing but the tone is bit over. --yousaf465' 02:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing the remaining tags from article

First, I just want to note that I removed the "Article needs citations" tag since I went through and added the remaining sources where they were needed. As I was doing this, I got to wondering what exactly the "Neutrality" tag was referring to, since there isn't really any discussion about the article being biased... Especially now that everything is sourced. Before I remove the "Neutrality" tag, I just want to make sure there are no objections, and if there are, to what part of the article are these objections raised? ---Debollweevil (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the above discussion, and also the fact that everything is now sourced, I am going to remove the "neutrality" tag. ---Debollweevil (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Six of the eight men who were tried (Ahmed Abdullah Ali, Tanvir Hussain, Ibrahim Savant, Arafat Khan, Waheed Zaman, and Umar Islam) are the subjects of Wikipedia articles. But their articles include little information about anything other than the plot, the subsequent charges, and the trial. As a result, I think it's common sense that all seven articles should be merged into the "Trial" section of this article. Thoughts? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Since no objections have been raised in the period of almost two months since I made this proposal, I'm going to carry it out. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)