Will anyone be arrested for explosions placed on Canadian natural gas pipeline this month?

Here's the article:
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=5d5dc509-96e9-48b7-b943-253343bb9ecc

Why doesnt a href work?

Should the title read arrested for "explosives" place on the pipeline? It does change the question's meaning: if arrests have to be made for actual explosions, then this is asking us to predict something that hasn't happened yet. If "explosives" is correct, then it just means an arrest in connection with the failed charges placed on the pipeline.

Good point. Can we get someone to fix this?

The charges did not fail. Both instances of explosives being placed on the pipeline resulted in explosions.

Where do you get the idea that the explosions haven't happened yet. The question as worded states that they have and the headline of the news article is: "Second bomb explodes near natural-gas pipeline"

Sorry...Annoyed.

If you really do think there is a problem with the way a question, Please, Flag For Review and state your case. Leaving a comment here does not provide any assurance that the problem will be addressed.

My mistake. I guess i misunderstood the question.

The question does have gramatical errors. I can see why dragonfangxl questioned it. The word "explosions" cannot be used in conjunction with "placed". Explosions are not placed. Explosives are place. The explosions did indeed occur and therefore the word "placed' should not have been used within the sentence. I'm not concerned that this be corrected at this late date, only bringing all parties to the understanding as to why the initial confusion, hence I'll not flag this for review.

Hee hee... nice catch dragon01... I didn't notice that... placing an explosion somewhere like handling a hot potato :-D

I misread it. The title should probably amended for grammar, though.

To remove the word "placed" would take away the clarity that these explosions were not the result of a problem with the pipeline.
To change "explosions" to "explosives" would take away from the clarity that they did explode.

There is no clarity with the current sentence structure. It is still misleading and grammatically incorrect. Hence the continued confusion of other Hubdubers. Mork, I understand your intent to signify that there was an explosion not orginating with any pipeline malfunction. This was a sabotage clearly, as evidenced by the continued police investigation. The provided links were sufficient to indicate that there was no malfunction. In addition, your amplifiying comment "Since then two bombs have exploded on the pipeline. Thankfully they were unsuccessful in disrupting the pipeline and nobody has been hurt", already provided the desired clarity. ;-)

I disagree that it's misleading and if it is misleading I would like to know what other conclusions could be made by the way it is worded.
I can acknowledge that this is a word combination that you don't see everyday but am not convinced that it is grammatically incorrect. I could be wrong though, I'm no scholar.

Believe me it is grammically incorrect. An item can be "placed" ie explosive; but an event cannot be "placed" ie explosion. The vast majority of difficulties that Hubdubbers have with understanding questions here, are a result of grammatical errors. This is simply another case.