Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 00:25, 22 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2007 Glasgow Airport attack article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2014.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Scotland: Transport in Scotland High‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as Mid-importance).

Merge (July 3)

A merge with 2007 London car bombs has been suggested, please discuss here. -- Goodnewsfortheinsane 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to get complete coverage is to merge them. All of the news outlets that I have seen (all television) are indicating that this was a single "cell" or group and that the attacks were all part of a single chain of events. The suspects are the same, the investigations beind conducted are the same. Dalf | Talk 13:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a merger to an article with the title akin to the “2007 Islamist Attacks in Britain”. Another option is to use the Scotland Yard case name that they refer to in the investigation. 216.174.52.64 13:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The same people from the samebackground using the same petrol and propane concoction.Koonan the almost civilised 22:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave for the time being. There are different flavours to come out of this. Whilst the activities are related, the Scottish perspective and reactions are important. The events are distinct, even if the perpetrators are linked. Over time, the events may become less notable and deserve merging, a perspective on this will only become clear in a few weeks at the earliest. An alternative solution might be to have a merged overview document, which can embrace the long term aftermath and keep the detail of the two events and immediate (local) aftermath. Spenny 22:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this thread is redundant since it has been decided against a merger Talk:2007 London car bombs#Merge (July 3). TerriersFan 03:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave for the time being.I agree with this poster,TerriersFan.Over time more details are likely to emerge,There is likely hood of these events to be result of racial attack on unarmed Late Kafeel and Dr. Abdulla. Commentry from Sky News editor Tim Marshall has mentioned in his analysis it could have been an act of crime, it can't be a sucide attack due to the fact that there were two people in Jeep, further reading on Tim Marshall's article.

REDIRECT " Was This Meant To Be A Suicide Bombing?" http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-1273108,00.html (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack&action=edit&section=1#)Hector, Toronto 206.210.113.200 09:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who maintains this tag embedded in this talk page?

{{WikiProject Scotland|class=B|importance=Low}}
- Bevo 16:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...WikiProject Scotland, if that's what you mean. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am curious about the "Low-importance Scotland articles" category association that seems to go along with the current content of that tag's parameters. - Bevo 17:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here for details. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've requested a reassessment using that link. - Bevo 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Asha merger

Seeing as the person who nominated that the article should be merged did not create section for discussion, or provide any reasoning, I've started this section as a placeholder. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(mild) Don't merge It was only a few hours ago that this article was hived off from here in the first place! I don't see the need for the separate page at the moment, but now it is here it may as well stay - it will no doubt grow as more information about this individual comes to light, and if and when charges are made, a trial gets underway, etc. Regards, Lynbarn 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect and do it quickly before it becomes a larger problem. The individual is only notable within the context of this event. No technical reason to fork it, the article is still small. Having a separate place to edit means any contributions will be split between the two articles, leading to two differing accounts. I've seen this happen with other articles. It just means more cleanup work later, which often doesn't get done. --Monotonehell 23:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect as above --Dannerz 01:48, 3 July 2007

Don't Merge (for now) I think we should wait until more information comes to him. There might be enough information on him to have his own article. If a merge and purge should be done, a passing reference should be made, he should have his own section, or join a list of major(?) terrorists that have been captured and killed. I'm sure there has GOT to be an article of this alone.

Merge if Cleared Only merge it if the suspect is cleared from the accusations. Osama bin Laden has an article about him. -Flubeca^Talk 01:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC) --Hourick 00:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I didn't write anything because it's pretty obvious that this guy isn't notable enough to have his own article. - PatrikR 02:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, just being arrested in a terrorism case surely doesn't make you notable. There aren't articles for all the Guantánamo detainees, and they definitely are in there because of alleged terrorism. Nyttend 04:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge. Articles were created for the 2005 London bombers very shortly after the attacks. The people arrested a few days ago are notable.--Damac 10:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge. Leave for now and consider in the future. Rather than vice versa, it's best to write about an article while it is a current event. Christopher Connor 11:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge - actual articles on the people involved should remain seperate and it very rediculous to keep merging all the time. This is getting rather silly. Amlder20 14:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge - He is notable. --Bill.matthews 16:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge - Since he's the supposed ringleader, he should be kept for now unless evidence proves otherwise. Along the same lines, would Mohamed Haneef be notable enough to maintain an article for? -- Permafrost 07:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then follow normal procedures about breaking out large sections from articles if it ever becomes a large section. At present we have no indication that we will ever have enough verifiable/noteable (or otherwise) information about this man to ever have mroe than a stub. Dalf | Talk 13:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect - only notable in context of event --Zr2d2 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as users above --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as for same reasons as Dalf. - .:Alex:. 20:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge - A) Each of the 7/7 bombers has a page. B) They're not just some people whose names came up in a terrorism investigation: these men are the actual perpetrators of terrorist acts... (allegedly)... far from being incidental characters in a larger investigation, they will go on trail, and more about their lives will come out in the process. DiggyG 04:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

make that a mild Don't merge... I too share Monotonehell's concern that contributions will be divided between the 2 pages. For example: The Bilal Abdullah page notes that a suicide note was found... this should be on the main GIA Attack page. (And it will be in just a moment.)DiggyG 05:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't merge! - Merging would then ask for every other article to be merged in to this page. No need. G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 01:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge - normally I am a fan of merging otherwise non-notable people into the article whose subject is the only reason they are notable - but there will be a lengthy trial and various interesting facts will emerge and if we merge now, we'll just have to break him out into his own article later. Tempshill 03:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not noteable. It's unclear what, if any facts will emerge from the trial and it's unlikely they will make him noteable enough for an article IMHO. Even if they do, we should split then not keep unmerged and hope that there will be enough to warrant an article in the future Nil Einne 06:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The article will be stronger merged with the alleged attacker's article. If he later requires his own article, there's no reason he can't be split off at that time. For now, his is just a stub and serves no purpose.--Gloriamarie 18:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge—this person is notable only due to his participation in the attacks. He doesn't merit an article of his own.--Srleffler 04:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Merge It is highly likely that in the future we could see a trial for Asha which would create a lot more content for him, i think it would over inflate the article with information that isnt directly linked to the airport attack. (Pi 13:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I can see that nothing has happened to this discussion since August last year. As there is no clear consensus above I am removing the proposed merge tag from the article. -- role^player 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed Guilt/Libel

"One of the surviving attackers has been identified as Bilal Abdullah, an Iraqi Muslim doctor working at the Royal Alexandra Hospital.[11][12] Another attacker, Kafeel Ahmed..."

While I appreciate that it's pretty evident that they are guilty, does treating it as fact that the two arrested at the scene and those arrested afterwards are all guilty not breach libel or slander guidelines??GiollaUidir 22:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close. GrotesqueOldParty 22:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slander is spoken so if anything, libel would apply. However, common prudence indicates that we should use terms such as 'suspects', 'those arrested' etc rather than 'attackers'. TerriersFan 22:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! That's what I was getting at. :)GiollaUidir 23:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Abdullah was pulled from the burning vehicle: thus I think it fair to use the term "attacker". In any case "attacker" is not a legal term (as far as I know), so I don't see how "presumed guilt" has anything to do with it. DiggyG 04:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are writing an encyclopaedia not a tabloid so we keep to value-neutral wording. TerriersFan 21:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's any Wikipedia policy about this specific question. If there is then someone please provide a link. I don't agree that always using the term "suspect" for someone is "value-neutral wording". To violate Godwin's Law, I'll offer the example that ~~Hitler was never tried and convicted by a court for war crimes,~~ but it's fine to describe him as a war criminal on Wikipedia. Tempshill 03:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is relevant. TerriersFan 15:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Hitler was tried and convicted at Nuremberg in absentia, according to List of war criminals. Well, pretend he wasn't when reading my example above and the idea is the same. Tempshill 03:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's dead, so we don't actually care as much. We can't be going around claiming all these people attacked Glasgow airport when they have not been convicted as such, that can do an awful lot of damage to them, and it is not something we are in a position to decide or have any right to do. We are neither judge, jury, nor executioner- we are someone who sits at the back, watches, and writes about what happens. J Milburn 12:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A libel law breach doesnt' really apply here, it would probably only occur if the suspects were cleared of the charges against them, they would have a good case for being libelled. In England, the main legal problem here with designating them as attackers would be falling foul of contempt of court laws, i.e the serious risk of prejudicing any jury trial by presuming them guilty. Their defence could claim it was impossible to have a fair hearing if jurors had read this article. It's a strict liability offence, not indending to derail the legal process is not a defence. As far as I am aware, Scottish law has a tougher line then English and Welsh law (although it has been decided any charges brought will be tried in England).Kijog 17:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a matter of law, rather a matter of doing what is right. Emotive words are neither necessary nor responsible. TerriersFan 17:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with TerriersFan, but what does Californian law say on the matter? I believe that is the jurisdiction that applies to Wikipedia Lynbarn 17:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Law as that is where the servers are and the NFP Corp is incorperated. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also i think niether Attacker or Suspect are appropriate, how about just using their names or perpitrators. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect is fine once they have been arrested since it describes their status but it will need to be changed if they are not charged. Perpetrators is not satisfactory though 'alleged perpetrators' would be. TerriersFan 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs to conform to academic standards, not legal ones: whether or not these men carried out the attacks is not in question: they were pulled from the burning vehicle and they left a suicide note. It would be wrong to use "guilty" or "convicted", but we should not have to avoid use of "attackers" and "perpetrators", when very clearly that is what they are: well respected newspapers, magazines and academic publications refer to them in this way even without the benefit of a trail. DiggyG 20:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit late to this discussion but in fact both British law and Florida law apply here. Precident has been set that accusations appearing on the internet are in fact covered by the laws govering defamation where the person lives (see the end of Libel#Australian law in particular). Also individual editors are also governed by the laws where they live. More importantly BLP is only 1/10 about doing what is legal right, it is 9/10 about doing what is morally right. I'm not going to comment on this specific case, but it is important editors understand BLP and libel and a lot of what has been said here is rather confused Nil Einne 07:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see the point in having a trial if Wikipedia has the right to state the facts of the case against a living person. It is surely self-evident that until a living person has been tried under due process and guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt by a properly constituted jury, all that can be said with certainty is that there are allegations against that person. However strong the allegations may appear, testing their substance is the responsibility of the courts and not of an encyclopaedia. ReggyRaccoon 18:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American vs. British spelling differences

The embedded warning in the beginning of the article is a bit extreme. I work with many different British and American articles and generally leave the spelling as it is, no matter whether the article is British or American, as long as it is a generally accepted spelling in either vernacular. But the harsh admonition "DO NOT" is tacky, off-putting to editing, and seems unnecessary, since the article is very new, and it doesn't even really matter whether British or American spelling is used. Unless a large problem has occurred wherein Brits can't understand the article because American editors have been consistently using American spellings, I believe the warning should be removed.--Gloriamarie 19:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It tends to be used, in such strong terms, in articles where the spelling is constantly being changed due to uninformed editors. When this page was a hive of activity the spellings were no doubt being changed every hour and that required someone to revert and try to keep on top of things while differentiating from useful edits. The 'Strong' wording tends only to be used in these circumstances, perhaps it can be toned down now that this is off the main page, but if all the spellings start changing again then it might need to go back up. Long term problems on other articles necessitate the tags staying permanently - it may be a bit harsh, but I think that is preferable to someone spending 40 minutes changing 10's of spellings in an article only for them to be reverted 5 minutes later because of the spelling conventions. SFC9394 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or worse, when it's missed for a while and someone then has to manually revert all the changes. Or even worse IMHO, when an article started in one form and is spuriously changed into another form by an editor but this is missed and it ends up staying in the new form which is against policy Nil Einne 07:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please, lets be fair... it IS a UK article, it should have British English. If I have time I will go through the article and remove/change American spellings if there is any. It is generally considered orthodox to have a British article with British spellings. But yes, a warning is going a bit too far when everyone knows that American articles generally should have American English and British with British English. Scarian ^Talk 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my apologies, I jumped the gun a bit. I should've checked your nationalities before making an assumption. Sorry! Scarian ^Talk 15:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged suicide note

Please note that the entry contains a statement implying an allegation is an established fact.

The entry currently states: "A suicide note indicated that the two had intended to die in the attack.[14]" The link is to a recycled Times of London article which appeared in The Australian.

This was published by the Glasgow Evening Times:

"Scotland Yard refused to comment on a report last night by American TV news network CNN that police had found a suicide note written by one of the Glasgow Airport attackers."

Source: http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.1521658.0.taxis_back_at_airport_as_terror_level_is_cut.php

Publication date 05/07/07

The entry should be updated to reflect what is known. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.46.86.154 (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding how notable this is , is this the first ever terrorist attack on Scottish soil (rather than one which happened to be in Scottish airspace)?Zagubov 11:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on the definition of attack. In the post war timeline there have been malcontent attacks in the past (various Scottish independence related) that could be quantified as "terrorists" (though the wording is always going to be pejorative). Going back into history though (1745 and before) everything is littered with plots and, what would be defined today as, attacks. This is probably one of the first in a long long time on Scottish soil to be solely defined by foreign elements rather than home-grown malcontent though. SFC9394 13:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the alleged attackers are British though, are they not? Nil Einne 07:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouting "Allah"

I have added the eye witness report that one of the attackers was shouting "Allah" back into the article. Previously there was a discussion about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack/Archive_1#Allah. I have taken care to provide three references from mainstream credible news organizations. The former discussion engaged in original research (see Wikipedia:No original research) about why they didn't believe the news reports. If you follow the link to Wikipedia:No original research readers will see that this is not how the Wikipedia works. I cannot find any credible sources which back up the original research discussion, but if there are any then it would be fine to put in something like "Although one eyewitness said that the man was throwing punches and repeatedly shouting "Allah"[refs here], some commentators have called the reliability of this report into question[more refs here]". However, assuming that no such references exist, then it is my view that a well-referenced report of what one of the attackers was shouting at the times of the attack needs to stay. Greenshed 19:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, The comment should stay - The three references, although one is third-hand, should be credible enough to stand - the criteria here is surely that the sources reported it, even if it may not have been exactly as it occurred. Regards, Lynbarn 20:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smeaton (baggage handler) merger

John Smeaton
John Smeaton
Born	1978; Bishopton
Occupation	Senior Ramp Assistant
Employer	Airway Handling (BAA)
Known for	Being one of the citizens to assist police during the apprehension of suspects on the 30th of June 2007 terrorist attack at Glasgow International Airport
Spouse	Single

The John Smeaton (baggage handler) article is being merged here, per the second AfD for the article on the basis of his lack of notability outside of the event itself - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smeaton (baggage handler) (2nd nomination) for more details. Following is the final content from that page before it was set to redirect to this article. Interested editors are invited to merge the materials in an appropriate manner.

John Smeaton (born 1978, Bishopton, Renfrewshire) is a Scottish baggage handler at Glasgow International Airport. He became involved in thwarting the 2007 Glasgow International Airport Attack. Smeaton lives in Erskine, Renfrewshire,^[2] a town outside the city and near the airport. Brought up in Erskine, he was educated at Park Mains High School.

Smeaton was a general bystander when he first witnessed the incident. He later recalled his first thoughts on being confronted by the two desperate suspects in a burning car as he smoked a cigarette during his break: "What's the score? I've got to get this sorted."

He added "I thought 'that's not right' and ran over to assist. All that was going through my mind was I've got to help the policeman, I'm not letting these guys get away with this."^[3]

During the incident Smeaton also helped drag Michael Kerr to safety after Kerr, another person to intervene in the event, had been left lying with a broken leg beside the bomb-laden jeep. ^[2]

The incident has been described as inspiring others to take the law into their own hands. Newsagent and former policeman Mohammed Afzah cited Smeaton as inspiration for his facing down and repelling a would-be armed robber. ^[4]

In late July, Smeaton returned to his old job as a baggage handler at the airport.^[5]

Television interviews

Following the attack, Smeaton gave television interviews to the BBC, ITV and CNN which were broadcast worldwide.^[6] There were numerous heroes on that day, but Smeaton's energy and personality given in his interviews as well as his behaviour and attitude towards the attack seem to have reflected that of most people from Glasgow and around the world and as a result he has gained a fanbase of admirers.

The television interviews which brought him to the attention of the world, were based around his own reaction to the attack.

After he saw the police grappling with one of the attackers, he thought:

"You're nae hitting the Polis mate, there's nae chance."^[6]

Describing his own actions:

"So I ran straight towards the guy, we're all trying to get a kick-in at him, take a boot to subdue the guy."^[6]

Asked by ITV News what his message to terrorists was, he said:

"Glasgae doesnae accept this. This is Glasgae; we'll set aboot ye."^[7]^[2]

(Try the pronunciation as "GLESGA". It seems unlikely that a West Coaster would pronounce it as "GLASGAE")81.171.235.115 (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Lance Tyrell[reply]

In his News of the World interview, he said:

"If any more extremists are still wanting to rise up and start trouble, know this: We’ll rise right back up against you. New York, Madrid, London, Paisley … we’re all in this together and make no mistake, none of us will hold back from putting the boot in."^[8]

The Sun interviewed him for their July 12 edition. One of his more telling quotes reads:

"Would you stop it with all this hero worship? Anyone else would have done exactly the same as me."

From an interview with Scotland Today:

"If you see the law going down then you have to step up to the plate. I mean, at the end of the day, when the law falls, we fall."

Tribute website and media attention

A tribute website^[9] was set up in Smeaton's honour, which received 500,000 hits in its first 48 hours.^[10]^[3] The website urges visitors to buy a pint of beer for him; over 1000 pints were donated within two days.^[7] The BBC reported on the 18th July 2007 that John Smeaton has pledged half of the money donated for pints of beer to the veteran's charity Erskine, which cares for former servicemen and women at five homes throughout Scotland. The balance of the money will be used to fund a night out for those who also assisted at the incident at Glasgow Airport. ^[11]

The website also called for Smeaton to make an appearance at the popular Scottish music festival, T in the Park.^[12] The website's creator said:

“

I watched the footage of John Smeaton and I just thought it was fantastic. He had the kind of unthinking, selfless heroism that most people wished they had.^[12]

”

A Bebo group was also set up in dedication to Smeaton, called the John Smeaton Fan Club.^[13] Over 550 Bebo members had joined the club within 48 hours, and this page also received exposure in the Daily Record^[14]

A Facebook group called the John Smeaton Appreciation Society was also established with over 4,000 members; this refers to John as: Glasgow's Jack Bauer.^[10]

Smeaton was also the subject of a front-page article in The Wall Street Journal.^[15]

In the weeks after the attack, Smeaton made a variety of public appearances and interviews including appearing on the pitch at Ibrox Stadium before a football match^[16] and meeting Prime Minister Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street.^[5]

References

^ Meet John Smeaton: One Kick and He is the Hero of Glasgow, The Wall Street Journal, Vol CCL, No. 5, July 7-8. 2007, p. A6
^ ^a ^b ^c 'This is Glasgow. We'll just set aboot ye', The Guardian 5 July 2007 {retrieved 25 July 2007) Cite error: The named reference "guardian" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b "Baggage handler becomes web hero". BBC News. 2007-07-02. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
^ "Newsagent 'karate chops' robber". BBC. 2007-07-17. Retrieved 2007-07-18.
^ ^a ^b "PM applauds hero airport worker". BBC News. August 3, 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c Simon Crerar (2007-07-02). "The baggage handler who tackled terrorists". The Times. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
^ ^a ^b Matthew Coutts (2007-07-02). "Raising a pint (or 1000) for Glasgow's 'Jack Bauer'". National Post. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
^ [1]
^ http://www.johnsmeaton.com/
^ ^a ^b Richard Edwards (2007-07-03). "The making of a legend on the internet". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
^ "Airport 'hero' in charity pledge". BBC News. 2007-07-18. Retrieved 2007-07-18.
^ ^a ^b "Airport hero festival spot call". BBC News. 2007-07-03. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
^ http://www.bebo.com/JohnSmeatonHero
^ Karen Bale (2007-07-03). "John Smeaton: Our Hero". Daily Record. Retrieved 2007-07-03.
^ "Meet John Smeaton: One Kick and He Is The Hero of Glasgow", Alistair MacDonald and Ian McDonald, The Wall Street Journal, page A1, 2007-07-07
^ "JOHN SMEATON: I CAN HANDLE IT". Daily Record (Scotland). July 31, 2007. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

External links

sco:John Smeaton

I've just merged John Smeaton here

Just to let you know. Don't remove the section entirely but feel free to trim or change it as you think appropriate, or discuss it here. I also added a reference about Smeaton's appearance at the Edinburgh Fringe.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He will also apparently be appearing at Ground Zero in New York City on September 11th, 2007 for a ceremony.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smeaton merge on deletion review

Please see here.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged back into a bio for Smeaton by community consensus--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Reaction

I changed the reference to Glasgow as "a city with an exceptionally violent reputation in the UK" to "a city whose citizens are considered by the rest of the UK to be amongst the last with whom one would pick a fight." There are no objective grounds for calling Glasgow an exceptionally violent city in comparison with London, Belfast, Manchester, Liverpool or several other British cities. The "violent Glaswegian" is, I feel, a pejorative prejudice which should not be reinforced any more than other derogatory and unfair cliches such as the "stupid Irish", the "lazy black," the "shifty Asian," etc., etc. ReggyRaccoon 18:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Smeaton

In the Events section of the article, it says that one terroritst was held down by "a member of the public," rather than by John Smeaton, and there is a hidden note which reads "EDITORS: citizen's name removed as per talk page discussion PLEASE DO NOT REVERT". There is no such discussion here. Why isn't he named? He is mentioned only once, in the last sentence of the article, under the heading Public Reaction, and it makes no mention of the fact that he got the Queen's Mallantry Medal for ... helping to arrest a terrorist. I'm going to give it a couple of days and then put his name in. Richard75 (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Richard75 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits

Do we really need a heading for EVERY SINGLE paragraph??GiollaUidir (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion / Duplication / erroneous info?

The article states, "The attack occurred three days after the appointment of Glasgow-born Scottish MP Gordon Brown as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but Downing Street dismissed suggestions of a connection,[5] although a close link was quickly established to the foiled attack on London the previous day." Yet the article to the 'foiled attack on London' states, "Although this event coincided with the appointment of Gordon Brown as Prime Minister two days earlier, Downing Street dismissed suggestions of a connection[4], although a close link was quickly established to the attack at Glasgow Airport the following day."

Which event was actually, if any, tied to the new PM? Swya (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC2":

From War in Somalia (2006–2009): "Ethiopia warns Somali Islamists". BBC. 2006-12-22. Retrieved 2007-01-05.
From 2007 London car bombs: "London car bombs timeline". BBC News. 2007-06-30.

Reference named "Telegraph1":

From 2007 UK terrorist incidents: Duncan Gardham and Sally Peck (2007-06-29). "Second car bomb found in London's West End". Telegraph.
From 2007 London car bombs: Duncan Gardham and Sally Peck (2007-06-29). "Second car bomb found in London's West End". The Daily Telegraph.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is now fixed. - Salamurai (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]