Talk:2010 transatlantic aircraft bomb plot

Could someone add this to the article? Here are the sources necessary: CNN BBC (2230 & 2228 are the relevant ones) Al-Jazeera AP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.99.101.135 (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi ... shouldn't the title be changed to refer to "cargo planes" (plural)? Or do people think it will suggest there were over 2,000 planes?--Epeefleche (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

not sure if cargo plane belongs in the title at all. it has to be clarified if the planes were at all targeted or only the synagogues. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The latest out of the Brits and Yanks is that they are exploring both possibilities, but believe that the planes were the targets (see the NYT article in the wiki article).--Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

While they still are saying that planes were the targets, it now appears that they may have not limited the targets to non-passenger cargo planes.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The BBC News yesterday mentioned that what had seemed to have been an accident involving the loss of two crew in a (UPS - I think) cargo jet crashing just after take-off is being linked as a possible trial for this attack. I didn't get the details of date or place, but is any thing more known about this incident? Regards Lynbarn (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think it was this one: UPS Airlines Flight 6 Lynbarn (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

From what I've seen that appears to be a non-notable dead end.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Now mentioned, with a link to the Flight 6 article, as while the U.S and UAE say it is a dead end, AQ claimed responsibility.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I thought UAE had banned/blocked Yemen packages as well? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you give me a link to a newspaper article mentioning this, I'd be happy to add it to the article. – Novem Lingvae (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is now reflected.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

CNN ran an article with a "law enforcement image" of the bomb's circuit board. This should be public domain if someone tracks it down... As for the board, can anyone confirm that the board doesn't have GPS capability? Which the Bird D736 (identified in this article) lacks. Wnt (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The phone dosent have GPS capability, they were (or atleast, it is suggested) tracked using the couriers own online system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.78.158 (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

[1] also mentions reinvestiges of UPS flight 6. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. From what I've seen that appears to be a non-notable dead end.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Now mentioned, as while the U.S and UAE say it is a dead end, AQ claimed responsibility.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The paragraph "British Prime Minister David Cameron and officials in the U.S..." appears high up in the article and then is repeated again in the closing paragraph... Bensheard (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re 2010_cargo_plane_bomb_plot#Tracking

I seems that this section is fairly speculative and hence a breach of WP:SPECULATION. I motion it be deleted. NickCT (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, "The Daily Mail" is a quasi reliable source. NickCT (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It seems insignificant to me. You can't tell exactly where your package is, just when it certain point. At the very least, the two lines can be added elsewhere. Grsz¹¹ 15:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree, I think it should be removed entirely. SmartSE (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's verifiable, and not a breach of wp:speculation (to understand that guideline, as with others, it is helpful to read past the name of the guideline), but it is no longer relevant in that section. Only in the preparation section.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

currently the article states "On November 4, France's Interior Minister, Brice Hortefeux, said that one of the bombs was defused just 17 minutes before it was set to explode. A British counter-terrorism source indicated that the bomb in question was the one in England." referencing this article. According to this the claim is not accurate. Considering it is based on a few words spoken by a French minister in passing, I think it should probably be removed, until it is confirmed by someone else. SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

 Y Agree. Done. WP is smarter than this sensationalist nonsense. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, given that our job is verifiability -- not truth -- and that multiple papers verify that he said it, we should reflect it. Also, note that more than one person have indicated as much -- not just the minister. Just look at the ref deleted by Smartse.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agree with Epeechflee. How much weight is given to this claim is an open question, but the question of whether to include it in the article at all is a closed question because it meets our Verifiability policy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it was once reported by RSs that someone said aliens landed in the White House. We don't need add it to White House b/c it's just plain stupid. Who cares if the French Minister of Interior erroneously/mistakenly stated the thing would detonate in 17 minutes. It ain't notable. NickCT (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Of course its notable. Just look at the coverage. (And his access to information. Let alone that he was not the only one who said it.). There's not even a legitimate question here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Kudos to Fletcher -- fantastic work adding the pix!--Epeefleche (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll leave it up to others to do the actual editing, but it may be worth including a section on UPS Airlines Flight 6 here, if it is confirmed to be an AQ act. Because if it is confirmed, it is certainly part of the same over "cargo plane bomb plot", and worthy of mentioning here. Grsz¹¹ 02:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is now mentioned in the article. As to whether it deserves a section I think depends on whether it is confirmed. For the moment, the reaction appears to have been the opposite of confirmation, however.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article cites Sam Kharoba, "founder of the Florida-based Counter Terrorism Operations Center". Given conclusive proof that Kharoba plagiarised a large proportion of his manual A Law Enforcement Guide to Understanding Islamist Terrorism from Wikipedia (see [2]), I have to suggest that he cannot be considered a reliable source, and will remove his statement accordingly - it adds little to the article anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/world/02terror.html and other online sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101108181059/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCwXPQcY73G1Ntwf9C4_W81f0Hnw?docId=59d3765c4b054108827ac808eee6ca1e to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCwXPQcY73G1Ntwf9C4_W81f0Hnw?docId=59d3765c4b054108827ac808eee6ca1e
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101123164121/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iKBf9VRXk-Zt4XhxNxtkbWVUWdgA?docId=CNG.ddf95513d7f93a11d7f4e20ef88663b1.751 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iKBf9VRXk-Zt4XhxNxtkbWVUWdgA?docId=CNG.ddf95513d7f93a11d7f4e20ef88663b1.751

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cargo planes bomb 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-1103-yemen-bombs-20101102%2C0%2C6222299.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707031209/http://world.globaltimes.cn/mid-east/2010-11/596921.html to http://world.globaltimes.cn/mid-east/2010-11/596921.html

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) 21:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

"They said his tip appeared to be based on more recent information than al-Faifi could access, and that the information must have come from a Saudi double agent in AQAP."

The source does use the term "double agent": "Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief with longstanding ties with Gulf spy agencies, said Saudi intelligence had succeeded in placing a number of double agents within Aqap."

However, there is no reason given for the term, which is not given in a direct quote. If the Saudi intelligence service has infiltrated operatives into an Al Qaeda cell, posing as genuine recruits, then those people are just agents - not "double agents". Unless there's any reason for keeping the term, I'd suggest changing it to something slightly more general such as "operatives" or just "agents".

190.235.229.126 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply