Talk:2007 plot to behead a British Muslim soldier

Merger
This article is much more comprehensive except for the criticism of the raid, BUT 2007 Plot to Behead a British Muslim Soldier is a much more descriptive title. Hypnosadist 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree completely AndrewRT(Talk) 18:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Now we have guilty verdicts can we change the title to 2007 Plot to Behead a British Muslim Soldier. ( Hypnosadist ) 13:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree lets do it! AndrewRT(Talk) 21:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The plot
The article stated as if it was fact that "the plot involved kidnapping a British Muslim soldier" etc. Although these claims have appeared in the public domain, there is a good chance they will be disputed (ie, if the defendants plead not guilty). Although it is arguably not disputed yet, as they haven't had a chance to plead, with a court case coming up we can't assume that it won't be disputed either. What is a fact is that newspapers reported there was a plot to behead someone, not that the plot existed. I have edited the article to reflect this. It may seem overly fussy, but now that proceedings are "active", this is an article about a forthcoming court case. We can't say "The group spent months to compile a hit list of 25 potential targets" as if it is a fact, especially as "the group" clearly refers to the defendants in this case. Under English law at least, they are not guilty of compiling a hit list or anything else unless a court finds otherwise. Also - although I have edited the section rather than removing it, I feel it should be removed per WP:BLP. At this point, the men named in this article have been "Charged with failing to disclose information" and "Charged with supplying terrorists", as the article correctly states, and that is all. Police and prosecutors have NOT alleged that there was a plot to behead anyone. We might perhaps suppose that they will do so when the case is heard next year, but they have not done so. I realise there are sources for these claims and therefore have not removed them, as I imagine other editors might object. But I hope other editors will consider the issues I have raised and perhaps respond. Hobson 18:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe these newspaper claims should be in the article, but as you have done with your edit correctly shown to be newspaper reports not facts. Hypnosadist 00:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Current status
The article does not say if these guys are currently detained or not, nor does it mention if a court case is forthcoming. It only says people have been charged. If anybody has this info, it would be nice... --Commking 02:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Heres the BBC reports on the trial http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7250697.stm . ( Hypnosadist )  13:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Heres the secretly taped recordings. ( Hypnosadist )  13:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7242891.stm

Odd title
What an unusual title. Looking at the history it seems to have been decided to call it this. But shouldn't the Plot not have a capital P? --➨♀♂ Candlewicke STundefined 19:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)