Wikipedia:Requests for comment/London bombing

I want to add this to the article: roi344 is an idiot.
 * === Visor Consultants simultaneous exercise ===


 * Peter Power, managing director of Visor Consultants, said in a BBC interview that his company had been running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed. According to Power the exercise had coincided with the time and place of the actual events. (ref [ 1], [ 2], [ 3])


 * A terrorist attack on the London Underground had been widely expected, particularly after the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, and indeed a very large-scale exercise was conducted by the Metropolitan Police, London Fire Brigade, London Ambulance Service and the Army in 2003 which was predicated on an attack on Bank Station in the morning rush hour; the success of the rescue and first-aid activities on July 7th was attributed to the experience learned from this exercise. Visor Consultants themselves, in replies to email queries, said that theirs was only an exercise for a small number of managers at their client firm.

My arguments:
 * Its factual

TV, mainstream media

Since its
 * Its relevant
 * 1)related
 * 2)Notable, since many people react to it

The link being a conspiracy site is irrelevant since the video clip is authintic.
 * Its well sourced

The response of the company is represented
 * Its NPOV

--Striver 15:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

roi344 is an idiot.

Comments

 * Include in the article. I get angry that some people refuse other people to include that fact. The simple fact that manny want to add it, equally many wants to remove it makes it a notable evet. Its factual. Its well sourced.

--Striver 15:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Some questions: Why do you think people have a problem with including this material in the article? What specific connection do you see between the preparation for (a hypothetical) bombing and the actual bombing that took place at the station? Why is this not something we can mention in a few words, rather than several paragraphs? BrandonYusufToropov 16:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment People have a problem since i used all my three reverts, plus two other people using their reverts, and it still censured from the article. I have also hade a lenghty discution in the talk page, with several people giving good arguments to include it, but its still being censored.

I did not imply any connection, neither am i intending to imply any connection. anybody seeing any connection are doing so by their own conclusion.

--Striver 17:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: It seems that Peter Power, who is in the public relations profession, cited an exercise for an unnamed company, but apparently, the over 1000 other people who must have been involved have not corroborated the story. It may be true, or it may be a publicity stunt or an unfounded conspiracy theory. Is there any evidence besides just an interview with one person? Peter Grey 17:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For such a high-profile event, I think the standard of evidence needs to be more than just one person making a claim, especially a claim that in theory should not be hard to verify. Peter Grey 02:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Based on Peter Power's statements quoted on the discussion page under the heading, "Visor Consultants 'foreknowledge' Claim - Response from company to info request", the "1000 other people" were only on paper; it was just "a few people as crisis managers actually responding". Furthermore, Power said in interviews and repeated in that quoted email response, that the project which included these exercises, and the name of the company which commissioned it, remain confidential. So that could easily explain why we only have one source for this claim, and why it is indeed "hard to verify" -- like so many other matters involving national security. --anon 09:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Regardless of why, one source is not sufficient. Peter Grey 15:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment Does it matter? Whe could refrase it to "he reported". --Striver 18:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It certainly does matter! If it's a bogus publicity stunt it has no relevance whatsoever to the article. If it's a factual event, in my opinion, it may perhaps be worth mentioning briefly as context. However, the fact that people appear to be circulating this item as part of a (dubious) explanation for the bombings themselves would lead me to exclude it from the piece. No more Internet fig leaves, please, over terrorist perversions of the faith of Islam. BrandonYusufToropov 18:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it intresting in this contex?:


 * Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, regional Mission Crew Chief for the VIGILANT GUARDIAN exercise, said that everyone at the North East Air Defense Sector (NEADS), part of NORAD, initially thought the first call she received about the real 9/11 hijackings was part of the wargames scenario


 * Nope. BrandonYusufToropov 20:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems quite unsubstancial to me but since wikipedia is not paper it could get a breif mention, as long as it does not come accross as being important due to its relation to rest of artcle (i.e so long as it doesn't apear that we are implying its import by its placing in the artcle)--JK the unwise 17:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Full disclosure: I have removed references to this interview and I have argued against it on the Talk page. My vote, obviously, is for delete. There is a vast difference between a consultant saying that in a meeting someplace he was running a scenario involving the London Underground -- which, of course, nobody ever would have thought to run a terrorist scenario around, right? -- and a person with a documented role inside the military stating that they had confusion between a military exercise taking place at the same time. There is nothing to suggest that anyone with any authority -- let alone access to the Underground or responsibility over any part of it -- had any involvement in this. It's only slightly more significant than quoting a survivor of a plane crash who says "I had a premonition about this one ..." At best, it's an odd coincidence.
 * There may be an argument for including it because people are discussing it on conspiracy websites, but a proper NPOV handling would require more than one source for the claim Powers made about "exact stations and times", or counterclaims against the importance of the word "exercise", which is precisely what is being wildly misinterpreted by those with a will to misinterpret. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You've convinced me.Delete--JK the unwise 08:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that someone in the business of planning for terrorist attacks happened to be planning for terrorist attacks at the (gasp!) very moment a terrorist attack took place is about as significant as a busdriver driving a bus at the very instant another bus was attacked. What would be unusual would be if the bus driver was planning for a terrorist attack or the planner was driving a bus. The fact that someone was doing their normal job at the time something/anything happened is about as insignificant and irrelevant as it can possibly be. --Lee Hunter 12:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

http://www.visorconsultants.com/teamvisor_peter-power.html - Peter has a senior Scotland Yard background which includes setting up the multi agency operational management structure at the Kings Cross fire, secondment to the Anti Terrorist Branch, deputy forward control coordinator at the Libyan People Bureau siege and leading the team behind the existing police street philosophy for dealing with terrorist bombs. - ''this guy has some pretty serious credentials, deleting it because you think he's self promoting and that it's irrelevant seems a little biased to say the least. He mentions that he was involved in the management of the situation once the real attacks occured. I have yet to see any counter evidence to disprove his claims.''

If it's true that a) The company exists, b) Mr. Powers' credentials are genuine, c) Him and, later, his company was considered suitable to organise responses to national security related incidents including terrorist bombs (i.e. surprisingly high security clearance for a civilian, related to his previous experiences), d) At the time of the attacks they were conducting an exercise invloving simultaneous attacks at the stations that were attacked e) This exercise involved people who were able to respond and be involved in the management of the situation

Then its highly relevant, as it relates to London Transport's initial response to the attacks, run by a guy who according to his own website is responsible for 'the philosophy' of police response to terrorist bombs. This man is in a very responsible position, it would seem highly irresponsible to misrepresent facts relating to this incident, let alone flat out lie. That suggestion would seem to me the one that requires evidence, otherwise it should be in the response section of this article.