Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great work Ecki and 82.82, thanks for this.Hypnosadist 23:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to be consistent with main article

[edit]

"alleged" was removed from the main article. I moved this article and fixed the redirects (except for talk page redirects).--Tbeatty 04:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back. Please refrain from further disrupting Wikipedia to prove your point, which has been proven wrong over and over again in the main talk page. PizzaMargherita 10:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been moved again by StuffOfInterest. I would argue that it's the main article that needs to be made consistent to the original title of this article, which correctly included "alleged". See the main talk page for details. StuffOfInterest is invited to join the debate, together with the many who stacked their vote and disappeared without leaving a reason or discussing the matter. PizzaMargherita 14:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PizzaMargherita, your claim above that Tbeatty was disrupting is rather suspect. Any debate should, and likely will, be carried out on the main article. If a change is instituted on the main article then subsidiary articles can be updated to reflect that change. As to your vote stacking allegation above, what evidence of vote stacking do you present? Page moves draw attention. When people see them on their watch list they are more likely to come by and see if it appears appropriate. Once the name was settled they are not likely to keep arguing unless they were on the loosing side of the name change discussion.
You have been beating this drum for over a week now. Broad concensus was established for the existing name as compared to any alternative offered. If you don't think the will and best interest of the project is being carried by that name then perhaps you should start a RfC to bring the discussion to a larger community in a formalized manner. It will also provide an opportunity to look at some of the claims and allegations you have been throwing around at various editors and administrators. Thank you. --StuffOfInterest 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The change on the main article has been instituted in an unfair way. No consensus was estabilished, yet an admin pushed for a hasty change to the version that he/she preferred, and subsequently locked the title.
About vote stacking, I may have used the expression incorrectly, if so I apologise. What I meant was "relying on a poll not as a way to gauge opinions and discuss the matter, but a way to make decisions". I don't know how this is called in Wikipedia, but I understand that this is not the way consensus works here.
As for the "claims and allegations you have been throwing around at various editors and administrators", please be more specific. My accusations are rarely "thrown around". PizzaMargherita 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Against Tbeatty, disruption[1]. Against Mets501, admin abuse[2]. --StuffOfInterest 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so it's two then. I thought it was "various editors and administrators"...
Tbeatty has been arguing (unsuccessfully) against my case in a way that is bordering trolling. Please refer to the main talk page. This may not justify, but could well explain why my patience with that user is running thin. If page moves are disrupting, I can't see why it was so essential to move this one in the first place, since there is a dispute pending. Would a move of the main article by myself have been judged under a similar fair light?
As for Mets501, I stand by my comments. He acted unfairly and in conflict of interest. PizzaMargherita 17:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fact that I've been beating the drum for 1 week (or 1 year, for that matter) is not a strong argument against the case that I presented. If people (including yourself) are unwilling to discuss the dispute, then maybe you are right, I should go for a RfC—actually, I think I'll go for an RFArbitration. PizzaMargherita 16:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to try going to WP:RfAr, but if you haven't gone through the preceeding steps, such as WP:RfC, then it is very likely your filing will be rejected. --StuffOfInterest 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will do, thanks. PizzaMargherita 17:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! My English is not good enough to add the following: BBC News: Pakistani judge has ruled there is not enough evidence to try Rashid Rauf in the airline bomb plot on terrorism charges [[3]]

Out of date and out of balance

[edit]

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

Any meaningful timeline would start at least 6 months before the arrest, (the beginning of surveillance), and would involve subjects such as the arrest of Rauf in Pakistan, what prompted that arrest and what the consequences were to the UK operation.

A considerable amount of detail is credited to unnamed sources, many US, (ie distant from the actual investigation). Much of that detail has since been discredited, or at least not substantiated, in court or elsewhere. There is general admission that in the initial response, there was a great deal of 'talking up' (number of planes, state of readiness, number of 'martyr tapes', etc.). Also, a great deal of detail has since emerged about, for example, the role of the US, (aided by Pakistan), in 'forcing the UK's hand' and about also about how UK initially became suspicious and concluded airlines were the probable targets (which they found difficult to prove in court, even though they were able to prove some kind of conspiracy). Whilst initial claims are part of the story, a timeline which fails to indicate which claims were later substantiated and which not, is not doing the reader a service. Pincrete (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot&oldid=1135012348"