Talk:2007 Glasgow Airport attack/Archive 1

Inconsistency with London Car Bomb story?
Am I missing something here? This story claims:

"The two men involved in the airport attack are believed to be the same men who had parked two car bombs in London on Friday, June 29."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_London_car_bombs claims:

"The BBC reported that a mobile phone found after the arrest of the Glasgow suspects contained the numbers of those involved in the London bombing attempts. The Metropolitan Police say this is the first evidence they have linking the events."

These two terms obviously don't match up. You can't have the numbers of the bombers if you are the bombers, unless each suspect had the number of the other suspect, which Police would certainly not report as significant. So which term is correct?--StoneColdCrazy 03:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion
Wait until we know more!! Abc30 15:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Only just happenned and is sourced as per RS. (Hypnosadist ) 15:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Only delete this article if it turns out to be a small accident. I say Keep for now and ad more information as it happens. Once things calm down and it turns out to be an accident, then delete it. Samaster1991 15:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree.

-i dont- police are reporting this isn't an accident - 86.151.229.18 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Asian
Very important, the British definition of "Asian" means South Asia, the areas once colonized by Britain, including Nepal, India, Pakistan, Iran, Bangledesh, and Sri Lanka. This needs to be clarified as most Americans view Asian to mean those of Far East, Northeast, and Southeast Asia (China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam). This is a fact that needs no citation.Ghettodude
 * 1)'Asian' can mean either, but certainly does not include Middle Eastern.

2) All facts on Wikipedia require a citation. Verifiability, not truth.  Geoff B 22:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Asian' often does mean Middle Eastern. And in any case, many Brits can't tell the difference between Arabs and Indians. But I agree with the second point. 142.167.189.154 00:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well thats a sack of bull. I can easily tell the difference between people from the Arabian region and those from the Indian sub-continent, as can most people. How patronising and racist a comment do you wanna make? --90.192.92.21 16:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ABC News is reporting that they were "described by witnesses as South Asian a term used to refer to people from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries in the region" . -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Middle east is in Asia anyways, so it doesn;t make a difference.


 * It does make a difference, when you say Asian to a Brit, they think of people from the sub continent not the middle East or the Far East. The reason is not patronising or racist, but a case of Political Correctness. Although it is easy to tell an Arab from some one from the sub continent, its next to impossible to tell if someone is from India, Bangladesh or Pakistan, to avoid causing offense by calling someone from India a Pakistani, or someone from Pakistan an Indian or someone from Bangladesh a Pakistani, and all the other permutations (makes no difference to us, but they get upset about it) the term "Asian" has been adopted in the UK to describe everyone whose ethnicity is from the sub-continent. (and we use sub-continent rather than Indian sub-continent to avoid opening up another can of worms.)Koonan the almost civilised 09:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary's definition Asian covers all the bases, which might make it less then ideal as a valid citation. My 1996 copy of the Concise Oxford dictionarysays this:
 * " Usage 'Asian'...In Britain it is the usual term for people who come from (or whose parents come from) the Indian subcontinent, while in North America it commonly also includes people from the Far East."
 * If a witness in the UK says someone is of Asian appearance he would mean someone of "Indian" appearance. I hope this helps.Koonan the almost civilised 12:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you claim to identify wether someone is Arab or Desi just by looking at them? I live in Australia, and often people ask me if I'm Arab or Lebanese. Then I have to tell them that I'm actually Indian. Tri400 19:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The pattern of immigration is different, most people in the UK to a greater or lesser extent have grown up with Indian,Bangladeshi and Pakistani people, they and their culture is an integral part of modern UK identity. As to the question of what do Brits call people from the Far East, "Oriental" seems to be the prefered option.Koonan the almost civilised 22:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

News vs Encyclopaedic Value
People need to remember that this is wikipedia, not wikinews. Abc30 15:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion? are you mad? Matt-thepie 15:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sky News have now had 3 witnesses say that they saw one man reach for a gas canister!!! Samaster1991 15:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no way that this is an accident surely? Matt-thepie 15:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's an accident or not it is still significant.


 * This is too insignificant to have its own article. The standards are getting lower and lower so that the smallest news event get coverage. Christopher Connor 15:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think once it has been established that this is indeed a terrorist attack, it will be merged into the 2007 London car bombs article (which will then of course be renamed to something like "June 2007 UK terrorist incidents"). Abc30 15:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * However, this is an encyclopedia, not a news source.Even the aforementioned June 2007 UK terrorist incidents entry would be questionable Tomj 15:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Wiki is not paper, and if the two incidents are merged then the article will definitely be a worthy encyclopedia topic.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's just a shame that this page is more up to date than the page on the wikinews site! Matt-thepie 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Even the aforementioned June 2007 UK terrorist incidents entry would be questionable Really?  2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot?  Or this suggest otherwise.  Let things develop then a measured approach can be taken once things have settled down. As for wikinews - bring in single logon and ensure fuller integration with WP and it would be used, at the moment it feels like a site for citizen journalists.  80.2.218.186 16:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The JFK plot article is certainly questionable. As to the Bojinka Plot, it was a"planned large-scale terrorist attack", to cite the intro. This has yet to be proven for both the 2007 London car bombs and the 2007 Glasgow International Airport incident. Once done, let's keep the two articles.Tomj 16:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Wikinews?
Speaking of which, why is this here, rather than Wikinews? It seems much more appropriate for a news-style site than an encyclopedia, as there's no indication yet that this will be of lasting or historic significance. I can get started on transwiki. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * probably because wikipedia is a more well known site. And more people think to use it as a source of information on anything Matt-thepie 16:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What people's misconceptions may be is irrelevant. News stories belongs on Wikinews, encyclopedia articles belong on Wikipedia. This is a news story, and as is now (finally) explicitly covered, Wikipedia is not the newspaper. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * fair enough, I didn't create the article! Matt-thepie 16:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is clear comunity concensus for the creation of this article, and all articles of this type. (Hypnosadist )  16:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Somehow, from the comment below, the speedy tag I saw earlier (and was about to decline, this is not speedyable, though it is also not appropriate), and the other discussion, not to mention the consensus behind the addition to WP:NOT, I see anything but a consensus for such here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? In both recent cases there has clearly been quite a number of established editors who have disagreed with the creation Nil Einne 16:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The speedy tag met with 5 keeps in 5 mins. (Hypnosadist )  16:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Uuuhhh Ummm... for all you wannabe journalists on Wikipedia, go to WIKINEWS!! This is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to practice your often less-than-impressive, biased, bandwagon-jumping and speculative journalistic skills. What's next? "2007 Old Lady Farts At Bus Stop Incident - Could be TERRORISM!! OMFG!!! HYPE HYPE!!" Dreamweaver30 16:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we all know who to blame for this: User:3.14_etc. There is nothing wrong with the existence of this article, but the point is it was created too soon. Abc30 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it should be kept for now (It'll just be recreated if speedied anyway). Plus, information might appear here that's not in the wikinews article. J o s h  16:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason why information should appear in here that doesn't appear in wikinews. This is an encyclopaedia not a news service and if the information on a current event is not worthy of coverage in a news service then it clearly should not be in an encyclopaedia Nil Einne 16:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "information on a current event is not worthy of coverage in a news service" its the only story running on BBC News 24. (Hypnosadist )  16:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right that this was create to soon but the point is much more important that that IMHO. As this is not a news service, instead of creating a bunch of articles which shouldn't exist and then worrying later whether to merge them, what a number of editors feel is the correct way to handle things is to keep this encylopaedic and minimise sensationalism. This means that until and unless it's clear a separate article is needed, one should not be created. Of course, when an article is created it's not necessarily a good idea to delete it when it's receive significant updates & things are still in a state of flux. But this doesn't mean the article should have been created in the first place. Oh & when an article is created, it's not an excuse to turn it into a news report. It has to remain an encylopaedia article which means up to the minute news updates are not warranted. Nil Einne 16:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Or you could spend your time CREATING an encyclopedia not constantly trying to delete it! (Hypnosadist )  16:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

For those who cite Wikipedia is not the newspaper to delete articles about current events remember that the guideline is not a blanket call to avoid current events but to judge them by long-term notability:
 * "Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article."

Obviously a terror attack ranks as a long-term notable event. I tire of people slapping speedy delete tags on new articles without even giving them a chance.--Wowaconia 02:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn’t this notable for being the only terrorist attack on Scotland (as distinct from second countries attacking third countries aircraft overflying Scotland)?Zagubov 01:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A difference between wikinews and here, is that I'd expect they have totally diffent rules governing original research. Probably is allowed, and called "journalism" instead I suspect..... ;)  Mathmo Talk 07:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Notice To All
Listen, this article is going to be staying for the time being. It only happened an hour or two ago and information is still coming out. And before you say "THIS IS TEH INSIGNIFICANT!!!1!", look around Wikipedia; there are plenty of instances of incidents which have their own page (e.g. the 21/7 attempted bombings of London in 2005).

Stop complaining that this should be on Wikinews. It is. It is also here. It is here due to the fact that this is not only a terrorist attack, one of the first (if not the only )attacks to take place in Scotland in the new century. As has been mentioned, this may be merged with the car bombs article from yesterday in the future, but for now it has a seperate article and it should stay this way. If it turns out this was an accident it can be deleted. If not it should stay.

So everyone cool down!!!

Ixistant 16:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, it looks half-encyclopaedic and half-news article. Should be kept wholly encyclopaedic and the news stuff removed/edited user:Sevenplusone 16:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For now, it can't be written as an encyclopedia entry, because the event itself is not worth of an entry on Wikipedia. Tomj


 * Yes, but right now that would be kind of pointless. As this is a current event it is going to be edited repeatedly, and that is going to muck up the article. I say we leave the article for a few hours until the edits settle down, at which point we can make it more encyclopedic. Ixistant 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think 'ickle kiddies should be banned from editing/creating articles on Wikipedia. This website is not a playground for the ill-informed and cerebrally-challenged. Dreamweaver30 16:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The wonderful thing about wikipedia is that articles grow, and change and mature, yes at the moment is that this article reads like a news bulletin, but give it a month, give it a year, when the facts become known, when the two apprehended suspects come to trial e.t.c. this community will create over time the encyclopedia article some lament that this should be now. See for example to 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel and have a look at its history, that article started off as three or four terse sentences, but has grown into a useful article.


 * When asking "whats the use of this article?". Remember the answer used for anything new "Of what use is a baby?"Koonan the almost civilised 16:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the same argument that comes up with all breaking news articles; 7 July 2005 London bombings, Virginia Tech massacre, etc. The article should be written with the facts currently known; if those facts change, then the article can change accordingly. --Hojimachong<sup style="color:#00FFAA;">talk 18:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I heard yesterday the latest theory was that this attack happened later than the attacks in London due to the terrorists (please don't use 'Jihadists' because it gives them a veil of rationale) realising that there bombs weren't gonna go off so they went back and tried to make them work, changed plans and attacked the airport. So maybe they were trying to attack maybe somewhere busy with nightclubs like Sauciehall Street in Glasgow, then changed there plans and decided to attack another busy place. But this is just my conjuncture. --Madkaffir 10:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger
If, in the near future, this event can't be realted to any other broader plot and/or network, this article should be merged with Glasgow International Airport because it will only be related to this place. If not, deletion should be proposed as per Wikipedia is not the newspaper Tomj 16:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * CNN is calling it a terrorist attack. If an AfD is opened, it will be speedily closed. -- trey  16:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, if it becomes clear that this is a terrorist attack (ie. a firm statement from the police saing it was not an accident), I think it should be merged into a section in the 2007 London car bombs article (which should then be renamed to something like "June 2007 UK terrorist incidents"). the very fact that the incidents occurred in such a close time frame is enough of a link for them to be in the same article. Abc30 16:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They can't be merged until we have sources saying they are linked, your OR is not enough. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  16:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why I said we should wait for a statement from the police. Abc30 16:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Something like June 2007 UK Terrorist Attacks.-- trey  17:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why they have to be linked to be merged. If they both turn out to be too minor for a single article then then mentioning them in the same article would okay even if not linked given they were within a day of each other. It may never be clear if these are linked such as in the 7/7 and 21/7 cases. Nil Einne 17:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. We don't need to prove it was the same terrorist cell. Purely the time frame is enough of a link for the purpose of deciding how to arrange the wikipedia articles. Abc30 17:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

BBC News 24 has said that there is almost certainly a link between the incidents. With this is mind a future merger between the articles makes sense. However there is no urgency and it is better to let this expand for now and merge once the article is more settled in a week or so. Davewild 17:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that "almost certainly a link" is enough to justify a merger between these two articles. I would wait until a United Kingdom police service (in Scotland or London) and/or the PM confirm there is a definate connection. Although wikipedia is not a newspaper, we are a documentation of history and these two articles need to be separated until they are linked together by authorities. Z1720 01:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As per my comments above, I still don't see why we need a definte link. I do agree, it's impossible to say there is one at the moment but also note as I said above it may never be clear, even in a week. Having said that, I'm not so sure a merger would be wise anymore. This incident is definitely the much more significant one and the two combined may end up outgrowing a single article Nil Einne 09:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Links seem to be emerging on BBC Radio News: London police were following-up phone calls made (to &) by the bombers. They rang the owner of a house in Houston, Paisley before the Glasgow Airport incident happened ... a house rented by suspects for the Glasgow incident 195.137.93.171 21:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Number arrested
BBC News : eight arrested - so far (probably includes London ....) 195.137.93.171 21:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation of terrorist attack
I just thought I should start a section to discuss the assertation that this is a terrorist attack. It is plain to everyone that this was no accident, and Sky News are reporting that their 'sources' say this is "being treated as a terrorist attack". Abc30 17:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So is CNN and MSNBC.-- trey  17:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We are now awaiting the confirmation that this article can (and has to if possible) be written like an encyclopedia article.Tomj 17:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah thanks for that... Abc30 17:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For the moment, at least, let's just hold off a bit. We're not the breaking-news wire, we can certainly wait for things to settle down and facts to be investigated before we get to throwing them in. In the meantime, there is a story on this at Wikinews here, and I'm sure they would be most appreciative of any breaking issues you can bring to their attention. We don't need things as they're in flux, it'll still be done by the deadline. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename
It look like one person has decided the article had to be renamed. Perhaps in future people should discuss renamings on the talk page before taking such unilateral action. It's just polite. Abc30 17:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

When seven people, clearly trying to beat each other to facts heard on BBC / Sky News 24, are arguing over points it's hardly worthwhile putting something on the discussion. Nobody was reading the discussion. Also, previously news mediums and websites alike have been taken to court over the use of Glasgow Airport as an official title as both Glasgow Preswick International Airport and Glasgow International Airport are known as Glasgow Airport by locals. Dannerz 03:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

While I think it's right to use the official, full name of the airport in the article title, I don't think I've ever heard anyone in Glasgow refer to Glasgow Prestwick as "Glasgow Airport". It is usually abbreviated to "Prestwick Airport", and the term "Glasgow Airport" refers to Glasgow International. (Mabuzzer 10:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

Name Change
Do you think this article should have a name change now since there are reports of "incidents" and both Blackpool Airport and Royal Alexandra Hospital. Samaster1991 17:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Change it to what, and why? We barely know anything about Blackpool yet. Abc30 18:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean change if it turns out to be something serious. Maybe a name change to something like "June 30 Attacks" or if they are connected to yesterdays car bomb attempts something like "2007 British car Bombs"Samaster1991 18:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We'll see. There are reports of 'security alerts' in Edinburgh and Newcastle as well. This article should stay where it is for now as Glasgow Airport is the only place where anything concrete has actually happened so far. The 'Merger' section above deals with merging with the London car bomb article if it becomes appropriate. Abc30 18:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Most other things mentioned are merely security precautions. <font style="background:#0000FF;"><font style="color:red;font-size:100%">WATP (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hospital
MSNBC reports that Royal Alexandra hospital, where the injured suspect is being treated, has been evacuated; SkyNews confirms. Trying to find a citation. --76.22.8.23 18:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm watching Sky News right now and they're not saying any such thing. Abc30 18:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok yes now they are saying the hospital is being evacuated. Abc30 18:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you cite a TV source? --<b style="color:#0000CC; font-family:Comic Sans MS;">Hojimachong</b><sup style="color:#00FFAA;">talk 18:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Check their website. Then use --  trey  18:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Allah
Channel 5 news has just reported that the man on fire, was repeating the word 'Allah' while he was in flames. After he was extinguished, he attempted to open the boot of the car - Hope you can use some of this 86.21.26.22 18:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (Ethnic slur removed per WP:BLP) 24.60.163.16 06:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While applied mathematics are indeed fascinating, I have to ask you to stick to discussing the state of, and improvements to, this article. --Kizor 09:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Are they sure he wasn't screaming AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGHHHHHHHH? Because that's what I'd be doing if I was on fire. On a more serious note, this recent wave of attacks in England seems to be the work of the most incompetent terrorists of all time. GrotesqueOldParty 19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The airport attack was in Scotland. :) A few witnesses hae asserted that it was Allah that he was screaming, although I agree that it is perfectly possible to have been Arrrrgh! :P GiollaUidir 19:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The attack was indeed in Scotland. To avoid further confusion Click here ;-) Matt-thepie 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect if I were on fire, I'd be likely to be screaming variants on "aaaaargh" and "oh god, oh god". I'm glad the media haven't made too much of this one, and I don't think we should. Vashti 19:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If there where Asian, 'oh god,Oh god' would sound like?. Although I thought Moslems were not supposed to blaspheme? ShakespeareFan00 20:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind, the guy wanted to die - he was pouring petrol on himself and the car - it did cross my mind that it may have been a 'what the witnesses/media wanted to hear' situation and he could've just been screaming but we've gotta go with the reports :P. And yes, terrorists need to pass the UK driving test before trying to commit an atrocity - my advice to them ;) 86.21.26.22 20:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was listening to the radio and two witnesses claimed he was shouting Allah over and over. I think it was BBC Scotland, and it was probably between 7.00 and 7.30.--Andy mci 20:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Couldn't he have been yelling 'Allah' as a kind of war cry?--Andy mci 21:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't they usually use the Takbir as the war cry? Also I think he might be saying AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGHHHHHHHH per GrotesqueOldParty.F 07:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The driving hasn't been that big an issue has it? Simply the plans appear to have been piss poor to start with Nil Einne 09:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Christians are not supposed to blaspheme, but still, they do. I think this information should be minimised, as it is not reliable (understand what a burning man shout, not quite easy.) Kromsson 11:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Christianity is a different religion with different rules. Fvdham 12:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is this rule they both have in common : blaspheme is bad. (My precedent comment was in response to Andy mci's.)Kromsson 22:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A muslim trying to commit suicide for religious motives would probably try to die with the words 'Allah u Akbar' ('Allah is great/the greatest') on his lips. I'd guess this is what was heard. ChrisRed 08:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Light tanks
I am curious. What kind of vehicles are these light tanks? Fvdham 19:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fictional most likely. Or a creation amidst the hype.GiollaUidir 19:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If real and durring other critical alert periods armour has been deployed to protect airports, they would be FV101 Scorpions. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The army was previously deployed at Heathrow in 2003, with these light tanks - RHB - Talk 20:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to the Scorpion and its derivatives, (the FV107 Scimitar could also be deployed in this role) the British Army has the Challenger 2 Main Battle tank, although these are not generally encouraged on British roads. Regards, Lynbarn 12:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Deployment of Armed Police at Prestwick
I'm not really sure that this is really worthy of inclusion. I flew from and back to Prestwick two summers ago and there were armed police deployed both times. Admittedly I left during the G8 and returned a few days after the 7th July bombings but I'm pretty sure that they are on patrol constantly. Anyone able to clarify?GiollaUidir 19:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I live in Prestwick, and I can say that armed police are not usually deployed at the airport under normal circumstances.86.151.243.234 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I flew into Prestwick about two weeks ago and there weren't any armed police. However I don't think it really merits an inclusion in the article. I mean, you have to ask yourself whether the fact that armed police were in place at other airports is encyclopedia worthy.


 * The only time I've ever seen highly visible armed guards at an airport has been at Changi where I believe National Servicemen are always on patrol Nil Einne 09:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fatality
According the currently-ongoing Strathclyde police news briefing, there has not yet been a fatality. One is in police custody, the other detained and in a critical condition in medical care. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 20:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, someone got there. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 20:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Should it be noted that the death toll (out of three bombs) is: terrorists 1 (possibly 2, another body inside the SUV), Brits 0? --76.22.8.23 23:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There have been no fatalities. <font style="background:#0000FF;"><font style="color:red;font-size:100%">WATP (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to assume the terrorists aren't British. All 4 of the 7/7 perpetrators were Nil Einne 09:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But they were, it seems, not, from the latest reports I've heard. Lynbarn 12:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * BBC News are reporting alternately that various suspects are not Scottish and not British. The latter obvious requires the former. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 12:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Connection to Yesterday / merged
The press conference just said that todays attack is connected to yesterdays London car bomb attempt. Do you think these 2 rticles should be merged. Samaster1991 20:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's wait a while and see how this all plays out. --- RockMFR 20:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I say keep it. Besides it happened in a different country on a different day.  If it was a typical coordinated attack happening at the same time, I'd be inclined to agree. But the precedent is set by the 9/11 attacks in America in which all three attacks have their own articles.
 * We should avoid drastic changes while both articles are highly unstable and we don't know how things will play out. It's no big deal. --Kizor 07:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a court of law. We do not work on precedent, rather we work on consensus. --Monotonehell 01:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Press conference main points
These are the main points from the recent press conference.

80.189.83.202 21:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The vehicle in question caught fire on impact.
 * Two men were arrested on the scene, within a number of minutes.
 * One of the men is in a critical condition in a nearby hospital, with severe burns over his body. A suspect device was found on his body, causing the hospital to be evacuated temporarily, but it is now back to normal
 * The other man is being detained by police.
 * The vehicle is still in the original location, in a highly unstable condition. Forensic experts are unable to go near it.
 * After the airport was shut down and evacuated, a number of passengers on aeroplanes on the tarmac and runway were stranded for a period of time.
 * It is unknown if anyone else was in the vehicle.
 * It is unclear when the airport will be declared safe.
 * The incidence was linked to the discovery of two car bombs in London yesterday.
 * It is being treated as a terrorist incident.
 * All forces throughout the country have increased their presence. Counter-terrorist units have increased their activity.
 * The threat level across the country has been raised to CRITICAL.
 * Any suspicious activity should be reported to the police authorities immediately.
 * Between 20 and 30 people were outside the Terminal during the time of the impact. One member of the public was injured. He or she is being treated for a leg injury. There are no other casualties.

Police Investigation section
We should probably create a seperate section on the police investigation which can cover the suspected connection with the London bomb discoveries and will stop the events section from becoming too large. Davewild 21:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ID of civilian....
While the man who held down one of the terrorist is named, should he be removed from the article so that the Samaritan might not be a victim of some sort of "revenge"? While it's already public knowledge, might be prudent to remove the name from this site?--Hourick 02:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a case to be made for secreting sensitive identities after the naming of pedophiles in the UK resulted in lynch mobs and other acts of questionable sanity. However, if it's all over the media already, removing it from here wouldn't do any good. --Kizor 06:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but just because it's all over the rest of the media (which will be eventually forgotten), this is more of a permanent record and easily researched then your typical paper. There has also been cases where names posted in one paper were NOT posted even though other papers/media outlets have. Just because you could, doesn't mean you should. --Hourick 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It could be said that it is too late now, and that the damage has already been done, but apart from anything else, he is a living person, and there are strong guidelines in wiki policy concerning this. Also, names have been known to be incorrectly given in the media, and could lead to mistaken identification. I would say it is better omitting names in such circumstances. Regards, Lynbarn 14:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While it's easy to discuss this in a theoretical and academic matter, it has also been shown that the terrorists have been shown to take revenge on people. It isn't too late to edit his name, it IS WIKIPEDIA afterall.  I still stand by my previous statements. --Hourick 14:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He's the one who wanted his '15 minutes of fame', perhaps he should deal with the 'consequences' of that. Christopher Connor 20:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Christopher Connor, That is neither relevent to whether his name should appear in Wikipedia, nor fair on an ordinary member of the public suddenly finding himself in unexpected and unreal situation - unless you have been in a similar situation (as I have), you will never know how you might react to such circumstances - it is normally an instinctive reaction. Please reconsider that comment. Regards, Lynbarn 23:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I recommend removal of his name since it's really nto that relevant and be important for his safety, whether or not he wants it.--Hourick 01:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant his interview about his actions. I myself would have quietly told the police (after the heroic action) and asked them to keep my identity from view. Christopher Connor 11:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess the cat is out of the bag, he's practically yelling it from the rooftops. I guess there is no point in keeping his ID suppressed. Any wagers on if he'll see Christmas '09?--Hourick 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tense
Doesn't the article need to be written in past tense as the event has happened and it will need to be retyped later. So please don't revert back to a prsent tense edit. Thanks DJminisite 08:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Attempted Car Bomb?
According to Police and news sources there is currently NO evidence pointing to any explosive device in the car and no explosion happened at any point during the incident. Police have only said that the Jeep was set on fire before being driven into the terminal. I think saying it's an attempted car bomb without any mention of an device by officials is not helpful in an article and is just due it's link to the London attacks.
 * There were reports of gas canisters in the vehicle. --Breadandcheese 10:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The prime ministers interview made a clear distinction between the attempted car bombs and this incident. Also the reports of gas cainsters where from a witness, witnesses are unreliable and there has been no official mention of anything more than petrol. Tamatisk 10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would then question the use of the phrase 'attackers' in the article. We're they attacking with the car? If not or if so, how should the neutrality of their reference be maintained? JoeSmack Talk 14:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Very clearly was an attack, something that can only be carried out by attacker. Very clearly gas canisters were used (pic & story). It looks like they thought it would explode, but their Keystone cops routine in trying to attack the terminal led to them not getting into the building and not getting the vehicle to explode. SFC9394 20:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-Scottish Terrorists
According to Alex Salmond neither of the two terrorists in the cars were Scottish. They may well have been Brits though. Interesting headlines await: "Hate-filled English terrorists fail in attempt to murder hundreds of Scots"... 86.10.102.62 13:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * His actual words were that they "Haven't been in Scotland for any significant amount of time". 90.197.38.130 15:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Makes it highly unlikely they were Scottish then. 86.10.102.62 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * being British and not Scottish doesn't necessarily make them English! A bit like being American and not a Mississippian doesn't necessarily make somebody a Californian! ;) Regards Lynbarn 16:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * my apologies to any Welsh or Irish who were offended that I didn't suggest the terrorists could be from their countries :-) 86.10.102.62 16:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Being that they might be british, certainly hope this doesn't restart the British/Scottish war :D--Hourick 16:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OR they could be EU nationals OR asylum seekers. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  16:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * are you stupid mate, there cant be a 'British/Scottish' war because Scotland is part of Britain, don't bother commenting if you haven't a clue about Britain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lesdennis123 (talk • contribs).


 * It'll make me sick to my guts if that arrogant nutjob Salmond tries to make this an 'English issue'... --Madkaffir 19:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They didn't do anything of the sort. All that Kenny MacAskill said (and Alex Salmond repeated) was that, although there was evidence that the perpetrators had lived in Scotland prior to the attacks, they were not 'Scottish born and bred' (direct quote from the BBC). In other words, he was contrasting this attack with the 7/7 London bombers, who were all brought up in England. I don't believe that Alex Salmond said they were English (give me a source that proves me wrong, I'll apologise), he just said that they weren't Scottish. Had Salmond tried to make this an 'independence issue'/'English issue' or whatever, then it would be wrong. So far he hasn't, to his credit. Cynical 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think he's quite entitled to point out that these were not Scottish terrorists. England does produce these sorts of people, and that contributed to serious racist attacks/problems after 7/7. Hopefully the fact that Scots were not involved will calm down any similar "nutjobs" in Scotland (of which Salmond is not one). 86.10.102.62 03:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are for helping to improve the quality of articles, not label people as "arrogant nutjob"s - also given your previous edits (e.g.) you should probably read NPOV very carefully and understand what wikipedia is about - it is an online encyclopaedia built co-operatively and under guiding principles that includes Consensus, it is not a forum to sound off your personal views. Thanks. SFC9394 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

FOREIGN BORN I've just heard on News 24 that all suspects are NON-BRITISH and are apparently from various states in the Middle-East --Madkaffir 20:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the point that First Minister Salmond was making was that the attackers were not from the local Scottish Asian community. It is important to publicise this in order to reduce the potential for a backlash against that community.--Oscar Bravo 07:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

rigged as a car bomb ?
Was the jeep actually rigged, or was just used as a transport for the perpetrators and their petrol bombs? Asubtle difference, I know, but it is significant as a difference between this and the London incident. Lynbarn 15:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The police are saying that the devices were very similar to the ones in London. I'd presume that it was _supposed_ to be a bomb, but when the bomb wouldn't go off (as happened to the London ones - they just started smoking) they decided to torch it instead. The petrol bombs were probably there to add to the damage caused by the bomb (ie fire as well as explosion). Cynical 20:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. ABC News showed several canisters that were pulled out of the SUV at the scene. It was obviously a carbomb that didn't detonate for some reason or another. --Hourick 12:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tabloid pic?
Could we use a better picture? The Daily Mail is not exactly the epitome of responsible journalism in the UK. Borisblue 20:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of anyone's opinion on the paper, the image on the front is a very good illustration of the events. The size could do with fixing, and I don't know if it has a valid fair use rationale however. <font style="background:#0000FF;"><font style="color:red;font-size:100%">WATP (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the best size it could be, without using the real paper. Fair use was copied from The Herald article's picture. Cs-wolves 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the fair use is valid for anything other than the Sunday Mail (Scotland) itself, and besides that, I disagree that it is a very good illustration of events. The depiction is very sensationalistic, and being a UK tabloid I don't think "digitally enhancing" the photo would be beneath them . I think the sky news picture on now is good enough for our purposes. Borisblue 21:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Vehicle registration no.
I've removed the registration number from the article - true, this was gleaned from a photograph linked to the reference, but I don't believe it is suitably notable for inclusion in a wikipedia article, and may also be a false number, which could lead to mistaken identity. If the police want to publicise the number, they will. Regards, Lynbarn 20:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The VRM has been already widely publicised today, as there is a request for information from the public specifically related to this number. It is of significance. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah the reg. number has been scrolling across BBC and Sky News all day. Abc30 23:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am putting this into the lead - the source says the police want to know from people who have seen this vehicle so it is very notable. TerriersFan 01:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Carfireterro.jpg
I have replaced the image with this original one which clearly illustrates the subject of the article. I produced a detailed rationale which was removed for no good reason and can be re-established. TerriersFan 21:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, one thing missing from the "detailed rationale" is the source. You need to specify who owns the copyright. BBC? Sky? Borisblue 22:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Gah, sorry, I missed it-it's there. I hate those new rationale templates. :( Borisblue 22:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

K it is from CNN because its mine!(Sparrowman980 01:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

Security responses
Am I missing something? How is the police presence in London connected to an attack in Glasgow? What is the relevance of this information? 84.9.234.246 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "According to London police, extra officers were deployed at landmarks, airports, train stations and bus terminals across London on Sunday, and have been ordered to increase the use of stop and search powers, while armed police were patrolling major rail stations. They also said that there would be at least 450 officers monitoring a concert at Wembley Stadium on Sunday to mark the tenth anniversary of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales."
 * Because London would be the most likely target of a follow-up attack? Borisblue 04:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

World's stupidest terrorists?
Heard about the woman who tried to rob a bank with an electric chainsaw that is not plugged in? These are the terrorist equivalent. Lets hope any future attempts will be equally incompetent. F 06:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One can still bleed to death or contract a nasty disease from a chainsaw blade, even if it is not running, and the terrorists, however incompetent they may seem, only need to be lucky once. Lynbarn 10:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Given their incompetence, it seems likely in 100 tries they won't be 'lucky' once... Nil Einne 11:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's possibly because they're not terrorists, just performance artists and pranksters. Christopher Connor 13:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, performance artists are always crashing cars into buildings and setting themselves on fire.Rolf Mayo 18:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe they're incompetent performance artists and pranksters! 213.83.125.109 14:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Look. From what I've been hearing from friends and what has been said in the media, it's very likely they just didn't connect all the wires properly. I'm ready to declare this a full Al Qaeda operation and believe we haven't caught one or two people that actually set up and gave the "Go" code.  Remember that there was a message on a radical Islamic website saying that a major explosion was coming soon at about the same time (within 4 hrs) of the attack.  It isn't a very far stretch to realize that others within that radical community knew about it.  It's just going to depend on whether another connections are made and where the investigation leads. --Hourick 14:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

mph or km/h (see below)
Surely the speed the jeep was travelling at when it crashed into the airport should be in mph first then km/h as it is most likely a right hand drive vehicle, even though motor vehicles sold in the u.k. have dual speedometers, nearly everyone still talks about mph not km/h. Neil 08:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mph is apparently the unit in use on UK roads and I'm not aware of any WP convention that mandates the use of kilometers over miles, so yeah, sure. --Kizor 08:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what is common in the UK and especially not what the speedometer says. What matters is what the witness reported. If the witness reported mph then that should be the primary unit. If the witness reported km/h then that should be the primary unit Nil Einne 09:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. BURNED! --Kizor 05:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we still use miles here in Britain for distances. On our motorways, there are countdown markers before each off-ramp, measured in 100, 200 and 300 yards, (a yard is 36 inches) but when approaching a railway crossing, the countdown markers are spaced at 100, 200 and 300 metres! Good ole' British compromise! (and we've just won back the right to buy and sell products by the pound and ounce, as well as grammes and kilogrammes!) Regards, Lynbarn 10:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

mph appropriate for this page? (see above)
Did the witnesses really use miles per hour in their estimates? I don't see it in the source proceeding it, so I'm going to be BOLD and remove it.--Flamgirlant 06:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * from the 10th reference - this is from the second page http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/world/europe/01britain.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=europe


 * so I think it should go back in. Neil 07:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done already. It originates in the AP report and has been syndicated all over the World. Jooler 07:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well, but I still see something wrong with the conversion. Shouldn't it be ~50kph, since the mph isn't exact? And of course 50 is a much more rounded number than 48.--Flamgirlant 07:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That would only increase the potential margin of error. Jooler 08:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I put my trust in the witness, he would notice when it was being driven at around 30mph because the majority of roads in the uk have a speed limit of 30mph, its sort of like a baseline speed. Neil 08:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * the 50km/h error in the bracketed conversion was mine - sorry 'bout that! The witness did say 30 mph, as has been mentioned, but, even though most of us in the UK are familiar with 30mph, the impression of one witness can be very innacurate, even among trained observers such as police officers. It depends how close they were, and at what angle to the vehicle, what they were doing at the time, etc. so any approximation of speed should be afforded a great deal of lattitude. Regards, Lynbarn 10:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 50km/h is goog enough for a conversion. It is rather unlikely that the witness can tell the difference between 48km/h and 50km/h as such 48km/h is unnecessary precision IMHO. Still at least no one put 48.28km/h Nil Einne 11:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To the Americans editing this page - in Britain we use MILES for speeds and distances. It would be about as likely for the witness to use kph here as in the US - i.e. pretty unusual.


 * Americans use mph as well, the uk and the usa are the only major countries using mph - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mph just be glad someone (probably me) changing it to a scots mile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile_%28Scots%29 Neil 17:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember that it is an international airport so many of the people there (passengers as well as aircrew) are probably not British or American. Also, it's ORiy and bad practice to simply assume that mph was used, what matters is what was used not whether the witness used an uncommon unit. If the witness uses ms-1 that's what we should report based on reliable sources rather then assuming that no one would use ms-1 when referring to car speed. Having said that, from what I gather the best evidence is that the witness used mph so there doesn't appear to be a problem. Nil Einne 19:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember that this is Glasgow Airport so is actually a fairly small regional airport (I'll claim 50% Glaswegian parentage and hope the Glaswegians will forgive me for this characterisation by an Englishman). The vast majority of passengers are Scottish, the majority of the remainder, British. Just to be absolutely clear, in the UK it simply would not happen that witness statements would be expressed in anything other than mph - and we don't have the Euro-dollar either. You are working on the OR that mph is an uncommon usage, it is absolutely not. As the witness at the time was a Scotsman (you can find the interview on the BBC website somewhere still I think) it would be inconceivable to think that he would suggest the speed as anything other than mph. Spenny 19:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I say just cite your source. If it states mph, make it "X mph (approx. Y km/h)", if vice versa then vice versa. --Goodnewsfortheinsane 23:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Gas canisters
"During the subsequent investigation gas canisters were removed from the car."

What does this mean? Is this the American usage of "gas", added by someone who wasn't aware that this should have British usage? Or is it a reference to some sort of gaseous substance? Either way it needs to be sourced. Nyttend 13:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It was reported that the canisters contained propane gas. I have tweaked the article to reflect this. VTSPOWER 13:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's bottled gas, like patio gas / propane see -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * see gas cylinder Regards, Lynbarn 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my
This page went up rather quickly. You guys are good =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NastalgicCam (talk • contribs)

airport attack
July 2nd, 2007

The attack on the airport was outragious. I mean who would do something so stupid as to set fire to a car? 71.86.32.186 20:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

US forewarned?
"United States law enforcement officials were allegedly informed two weeks prior to the Glasgow incident of possible attacks on "airport infrastructure or aircraft" in Glasgow and in the Czech Republic, leading to the placement of Federal Air Marshals on flights into and out of Glasgow and Prague.[39]"

I followed the link and, reading through the comments, there seems to be much debate on whether ABC had a reliable source for this claim; they certainly didn't cite one. The story doesn't seem to appaear anywhere else on the internet except links to that article, copies of that article, or blogs etc that are very obviously close copies of that article.

I know the word 'allegedly' is in there, but that makes the claim sound more certain that it is. I'm changing the sentence to:

An article on the website of ABC News alleged that United States law enforcement officials were informed two weeks prior to the Glasgow incident of possible attacks on "airport infrastructure or aircraft" in Glasgow and in the Czech Republic, leading to the placement of Federal Air Marshals on flights into and out of Glasgow and Prague.

--Uberisaac 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlikely, the united states whould had declared an official "The apocalypse is coming" if they were informed - Flubeca Talk 01:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)