Jump to content

Talk:2007 London car bombs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a news article

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper this article either needs to be merged with a broader encyclopedic topic ("Terrorist plots in London" or similar), or the efforts focused on this moved to Wikinews. --Monotonehell 10:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • COBRA was called in which means it is significant. Also as mentioned before there are many precedents on Wiki. It defiantly should not be merged until the full details become available but even after that I think it should stay. Tamatisk 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this article does not need to be merged with anything else. Wikipedia can be a good source of information if news reporting is a big 'sensationalised' SimonD 12:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to understand that wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopaedia, not a place for you to get information because most news reports are too sensationalised. The place for that would be wikinews Nil Einne 12:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with all of the above responses. In any case, the idea that there should be a centralised Terrorist plots in London seems predicated on the asusmption that they are so numerous and/or "similar" that they can be dealt with collectively. The reality is that they are thankfully rare events and most/all of the most recent are sufficiently different from each other than they merit separate treatment. Nick Cooper 12:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually on the contrary the primary reason why there should be a centralised article is because they're rare enough that they can be covered in sufficient detail in one article. Nil Einne 12:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense, not least because combining just 7 July 2005 London bombings and 21 July 2005 London bombings would result in an unmanagably large page, quite apart from the fact that both already have other spin-off pages. In addition, centralising - for example - totally unconnected subjects like David Copeland, 7 July 2005 London bombings, Wood Green ricin plot and this page makes no logical sense. We already have List of terrorist incidents in London as an adequate index, and that has sufficed until now. Nick Cooper 13:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me there are two issues here. Firstly, should this article have been started in the first place? IMHO, no, it not yet clear that an article is merited. However I don't think there is any point in merging it now that it has been started. As often happens, the problem appears to be that people don't quite understand how things are supposed to work. The idea is not to start an article and wait for more details to be available. Instead, properly sourced details should be added to the existing article and the article split if & when sufficient details emerge that it's clear a seperate article is needed Nil Einne 12:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is news, but regardless of the eventual outcome, it will also, sadly, become part of modern British history, along with 7/7 and similar events. It is notable event, and should be retained - although in a more finished form, once things become more clear. Regards, Lynbarn 12:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No way... Let it stay like this for a week or two, after the mess clears up, and the we'll see what to do. The article is changing to rapidly (multiple edit conflicts for me in about 7 minutes). --Evilclown93(talk) 12:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious if there is some strange connection to the William Blake poem, "Tiger tiger, burning bright..." --Anonymous
  • Far too early to deem such an article as unnotable on its own, for all we know (God forbid) there are 20 other car bombs out there as part of a large attack. Even if not the event is notable nevertheless, definite keep SGGH speak! 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Car Colour

[edit]

Is the car metallic green, as cited on sky news or silver (as cited by the BBC)? It looks metallic green to me. --Yini3 12:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely light green metallic, rather than silver - 've modified the article to suit. Regards, Lynbarn 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

The title seems a bit odd, like someone half-remembered the 1888 Haymarket bombing in Chicago. Also, the title seems to imply that the bomb was meant to be exploded at Haymarket, which doesn't actually seem clear. Any better suggestions?--Pharos 13:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

|...and strictly speaking, we don't know yet if it WAS a plot - although I'm not sure what else it might have been. The name will do for now, until more facts filter out, but how about The Haymarket car bomb incident? Regards, Lynbarn 13:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about 2007 London car bomb? --Evilclown93(talk) 13:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to 2007 Haymarket car bomb before I saw this discussion. I didn't realise there was a Haymarket in the USA. "London" feels a bit too vague to me, but might work. Carcharoth 14:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'm thinking now maybe 2007 Haymarket car bomb discovery. Because the 1888 Haymarket Riot and bombing was a highly notable historical event, it did strike me as a little odd at first, but now I don't feel there's anything really wrong with using "Haymarket". And "discovery" is maybe more precise than "incident" or just plain "car bomb".--Pharos 14:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as explained above, it's not 100% clear it's a "plot", and if it is considered a plot it's not at all certain that Haymarket was the target.--Pharos 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE can we just leave it where it is for a while? - I've been chasing all over trying to keep up with it! Thanks, Lynbarn 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the name, but I don't really see that "London, Uk" is necerserry. Why not just say "2007 London Car Bomb"? Also, see WP:MS or WP:NC can't remember which- didn't it advise not to put the country in, if there was no risk of ambiguity?81.152.98.35 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent move by Evilclown93 has resulted in a imprecise, messy and inappropriate name for this page. Putting "U.K." after London is entirely contrary to British practice and smacks of Amerocentrism. We have the established precedents of 1996 Manchester bombing, 7 July 2005 London bombings, 21 July 2005 London bombings, Wood Green ricin plot, etc. Since there was no concensus to make the change, I am reverting it to Carcharoth's version. Nick Cooper 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again - PLEASE can we just leave it where it is for a while? - I've been chasing all over trying to keep up with it! Thanks, Lynbarn 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2007 London Bombing Plot?--trey 15:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the page three times in one hour lead to the move function on the page being disabled by an administrator. Any move now will have to be done via a WP:RM --Philip Stevens 15:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it is not the "three times in one hour" that triggers the move protection, it is the admin (Steel359 in this case) noticing that a naming dispute is in progress and quite rightly protecting. In support of my proposed name, which in the spirit of m:the wrong version is where the page is now, I would say that bomb is distinct from bombing. Words like "incident" and "discovery" are vague. The key event here is the existence of a car bomb and its location. The year is a quasi-effective naming convention that some people like and some people hate. Carcharoth 15:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that a second bomb has been found near the first, would it be worth reconsidering the page title? 2007 London car bombs? Kaid100 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hope I didn't go against the spirit of the move-protect in updating it. I tried to be careful to retain the same form of the name.--Pharos 20:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raise notability

[edit]

Hi. I'm not an active contributor but I think this article raises notability. There's no explosion and no injuries. It can be perfectly merged with other articles. I think that with a brief comment in [failed or aborted attacks] fits perfectly. Darkcat21 14:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I don't think this qualifies as an "attack" - perhaps a "Failed car bomb", but feel title is misleading. In 20 years time, with this title, this event may pass in to the collective consciousness as a successful attack, which doesn't really do our culture justice. "Successful attacks" would have a number injured and killed, thanks luck this one does not!
Im not sure this is just a list of terrorist incidents --Yini3 14:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No explosion and no injuries - I think that is very notable, (as well as very lucky) especially as I work in London! Either way, at the moment, it is notable. If it proves not to be so in say a month's time, then we can always delete/merge/amend the article to suit. Regards, Lynbarn 14:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, having said that, and considering the effort gone into editing this article today, by way of comparison and contrast to this non-explosion - search wikipedia for Baghdad bombing - The results are quite sobering. regards, Lynbarn 15:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean all the bombing articles in Category:Iraqi insurgency? Or if you want the list, look at Terrorist attacks of the Iraq War, or for the template, look at Template:Campaignbox Iraq War terrorism. Reporting on this incident will be more than for most of those, I agree. Carcharoth 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actual car bombings where there were casualties are listed at List of mass car bombings and also have individual articles if enough people are killed, such as Al-Khilani Mosque bombing or 23 November 2006 Sadr City bombings . Time will tell if this is part of a larger terrorism incident or plot to which it could be merged. Edison 16:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I agree that in its current form it seems more like a news article. Was actually surprised to find a link on Wikinews. I do believe that this incident is interesting enough to have an article. This article can be written somewhat more encyclopedic when more informations are given by the police. --|EPO| da: 20:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London, U.K.

[edit]

Is the U.K. really nessasary? It's a major world city, people know where it is. Zazaban 14:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Southern Ontario, yes, in Australia or India for example, no. London, Ontario, is a quite big city as well, and Canada has been under terrorist threats for the past 3 years, at least. --Evilclown93(talk) 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are more Londons than you might think! - London (disambiguation) Regards, Lynbarn 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proves my point. The Ontario is biggest one (half million people), and I leave reasonably close to it, so that's why I automatically differentiate. : ) --Evilclown93(talk) 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But my point is, that if somebody says "London" on a site such as Wikipedia it is usually assumed to be the one in England.

"Biggest one"? Seven and a half million people live in Greater London. Vashti 21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biggest one after London, UK, that was my intended meaning. --Evilclown93(talk) 12:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightclub

[edit]

This is the nightclub's webxite. I'm not sure if anything useful can be done with it.--Pharos 15:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I see absolutely no reason to include the link in this article. Perhaps in an article about the club. Can't see any reason to place it anywhere else. --|EPO| da: 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

[edit]

Great work with the timeline; it is much clearer than anything I've seen in the media. One question though.

Eyewitnesses claim to have seen the car shortly before 02:00 a.m. (UTC+1), being driven "erratically" and then crashing into bins, after which, the driver got out and ran off

But our timeline begins at 1:25 am with the car already stopped. Is this a matter of our timeline being in UTC (as opposed to UTC +1) or is the article inconsistent? 199.172.246.196 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This just seems to be the usual fog of early reporting. Initial reports did vaguely say "before 02:00" but now it's clear that it was around 01:30. Nick Cooper 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the idea for the bare bones of the timeline from the BBC. I think that the statement with regard to crashing into the bins is incorrect in time. It needs a more accurate source as at the moment that statement is missleading--Yini3 00:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible second/third devices

[edit]

Police are investigationg at least two other "suspect vehicles" right now according to reports from RTE and the BBC

  • Looks like they might have found a second one - Telegraph.co.uk alexdeangelis86 19:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • UPDATE - Overrule what I said above. Police have said the second bomb was a false alarm CBC News alexdeangelis86 19:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
      • UPDATE2 - For F*** sake! Police are now saying that they have found a second device! Is that the end of the matter?!?! BBC NEWS. Haven't found the statement from the police though. Someone should look that up. alexdeangelis86 20:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous "limousine bomb" plot

[edit]

I previously added a sentence about a previous "limousine bomb" plot connected with Dhiren Barot, similarly involving an expensive car and gas cylinders. This was removed by someone else as speculative (which it is, and I noted the resemblance is superficial, biut it's still probably relevant). The other alleged plot has been mentioned in news reports of the incident.--Pharos 17:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This BBC story mentions this link now! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6252276.stm Do you want to re-create the section Pharos, with that as the source? (Hypnosadist) 18:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism

[edit]

This is no doubt and act of terrorism, the article needs to include this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.221.173 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 June 2007

Why, because only terrorists use bombs? 86.155.141.169 18:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is being described as such by all major news outlets as well as Government. Plus anyone who places a car bomb no matter what there affiliation is a terrorist see the general description on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism Tamatisk 19:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal" currently the article refers to the possibility of organised crime links, which may discount the "terrorism" theory, only time and investigation will tell, but 72.211.221.173 is incorrect with his above statement. SGGH speak! 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break, the bomb had nails in it and was clearly strategically placed to maximize civilian casualties. If you don't think it was intended to create fear then please explain your definition of what "intending to create fear" could possibly mean.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.221.173 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 June 2007

If you read what I said, you will see that I highlighted the comment "perpetrated for an ideological goal", organised crime doesn't tend to do that, thus if it is decided by the police that this is related to organised crime, then it is unlikely to be classed as terrorism. SGGH speak! 21:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wolf Blitzer is saying the nails could have maimed people.--trey 20:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what SSGH said? If organised crime was involved, it seems far more likely they weren't doing this for idealogical reasons even if the bombs were intended to maximise civilian casualties. BTW, I would say there is great doubt that this is an act of terrorism precisely because it failed. While even the threat may be considered terrorism to some, to me a bomb plot which failed is perhaps a failed/unsuccessful/foiled/planned/whatever act of terrorism but not actually an act of terrorism in itself Nil Einne 21:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's... intended terrorism... if it fact it is terrorism related and not organised crime. We will see when more news develops :) SGGH speak! 21:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though incidently, if the news people don't follow up with this organised crime theory the police might have, it will be difficult to guage for the article how important to the police it was, you know... if the sources don't say something like "the police have now discarded this theory" SGGH speak! 22:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd car

[edit]

Police have now confirmed the 2nd car bomb and say it was also found in the Haymarket area, not P{ark Lane. I'm sitting here hearing this on the radio, so we need a print source to source this properly.--Pharos 20:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defused vs. Detonated

[edit]

NPR is currently reporting that the first carbomb was DEFUSED (notable for preserving evidence), contrary to the reports (and this page) which say that it underwent a "controlled detonation"... Which is correct?

There is still some conjecture over that. The car was removed intact, so it may be that the trigger device was removed prior to that only being detonated, so it could be both. As an ex-army EOD officer, I can vouch for the fact that there is a big difference! Regards, Lynbarn 20:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe technicians secured the bomb on scene and was taken away for a closer look. Later medias reported that the police had made a controlled explosion. I do assume that this explosion was made some place safe. --|EPO| da: 20:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The car has been removed to Fort Halstead, an MoD facility not far from where I live! It may have been dealt with there. Regards Lynbarn 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


from what i've heared, the detonator was taken away and disabled it, leaving them with a full intact car full of evidence Joevsimp 21:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline Clarification?

[edit]

I don't know about anyone else, but one of the things I absolutely hate is sources that mention another source, but doesn't actually link to it. There is this: "A message appears on a widely used jihadist Internet forum, Al-Hesbah, saying: "Today I say: Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed." The message went on to mention the recently announced knighthood of Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie.[7]" << Now, can anyone try searching Al-Hesbah for this direct topic rather than having a news organisation mentioning it but not actually providing a link to it? (I personally think this seems like a totally random message that often crops up on silly websites like this, but surely a direct link is better?) Mikebloke 21:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling someone might declare a "jihadist Internet forum" as a poor unreliable source, but seeing as the comment relates directly to it I'm not so sure what should be done.... It is possible that wikipedia wouldn't put the same trust in such an unreliable source as a new agency would, therefore it's best to link to the "idea that people belive this forum quote is related" rather than to the forum quote itself, which implies that wikipedia says it is link? I guess? SGGH speak! 21:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should take it out of the timeline, most sources don't appear to consider it important. Possibly we could mention it somewhere else.--Pharos 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've done it, good stuff. SGGH speak! 22:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, perhaps it doesn't belong at all. I just watched CBS Evening News and they made no mention of it at all, despite this stuff originating from CBS in the first place.--Pharos 23:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Police

[edit]

How come the police found the bombs? I looked everywhere and didn't find anything about it.

I suggest you look in this article since it's been here for a long time Nil Einne 06:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cars were spotted by paramedics and passers by it seems SGGH speak! 11:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain relevance

[edit]

What makes this event worthy of an encyclopedic entry? There has been no significant outcome. After all, it's a foiled, thwarted-call it whatever you want- bombing attempt. Tomj 01:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean there has not been a significant outcome? The country is on high alert, a massive mahhunt has been launched, hundreds of people could have died. Please elaborate on your statement. DavidB601 07:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, will you be questioning the existence of 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, as well? Nick Cooper 09:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. And other news articles that appear in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. --Monotonehell 09:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The concensus at the top of this page disputes your interpretation. It's a notable event that has had and is having wide-ranging consequences. Nick Cooper 09:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has the front page of every single newspaper, is had the potential to kill hundreds of people, it has brought one of the worlds leading nations to the highest security alert and it closed down significant transport systems. It is most definitely notable, and will undoubtedly become notable still as the chase commences to catch those responsible. SGGH speak! 11:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that to say that there was no significant outcome was an exaggeration on my part. But still, I find unfortunate that a part of Wikipedia is becoming like a newspaper, with articles such as the aforementioned 2007 Fort Dix attack plot and 2007 London car bombs to name a few. Tomj 14:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{soapbox|on}} Tomj, One of the great aspects of Wikipedia is that a news-based article, such as this, can start off as a mixed, and random (even biased) set of facts, details, rumour, counter-rumour, supposition, and even idle gossip, but in a relatively short time, through world-wide collaboration, can develop into a detailed, well researched, verifiable encyclopedic entry. This is a unique feature of wikipedia and its ilk, and one that many appreciate. If any editor doesn't like it, there is no compulsion to participate, or even read the offending article. {{soapbox|off}} Regards, Lynbarn 14:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, wikipedia is an "Encyclopedia not a newspaper". By the wikipedia definition of Encyclopedia, there's nothing wrong with this article - it is an Encyclopedic Article about an event. What's wrong with that? Get with the times, this is the future, not some ancient printed volume with limited pages - wikipedia will not run out of space just because there are lots of articles!!!! Why not just condense all of wikipedia into one article, say universe, and just say that everything that ever is, was, wasn't or will be, is covered! --203.10.224.60 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb?

[edit]

Is the title of the article simply following the what the media has named it? The reason I ask is because I don't consider this a "bomb", per se. It's known that gasoline filled cars only explode in hollywood movies and videogames. Gasoline is only an explosive under very specific conditions that are usually only present in car engines. It's entirely unlikely these cars should be called "bombs". More accurately they are haphazard and poor attempts at bomb-making by idiot jihadi kids who watched die hard too many times and played too much grand theft auto.

Should we as Wikipedians follow the media's lead in summarizing this event as an attempted bombing? I don't think it's responsible of us to do so, just my 2 cents.--Jeff 01:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be forgeting the gas propane cylinders. In any case, who says the petrol was meant as a primary explosive? A standard Provisional IRA incendiary device was a one gallon oil can full of petrol with a small charge of Semtex on the side. The charge detonates, vapourising, dispersing and igniting the petrol at the same time, producing a massive fireball. Nick Cooper 09:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No high explosive such Semtex has been reported by any media outlet to have been part of this "bomb". On MSNBC's Countdown show Friday night a terrorist expert said that since the bomb was made up of 2 canisters of propane, boxes of nails, a half a tank of gasoline that and that it did not contain any high explosives. He stated it was an incendiary device rather than a traditional car bomb and that damage would have been minimal. As soon as the link to the transcript becomes available I will update the article accordingly. Buster 15:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The MSNBC clip is here [1], the guy is presented as ex-CIA expert. I don't understand why this article is so alarmist and sensational as the worst yellow newspaper. This is already categorised as "terrorism" and specifically "islamist". However, there is nothing very "islamist" in two German made cars filled with gasoline. If this was car bomb, how we must call those car bombs that go off in Baghdad? --Magabund 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would question whether anyone deserves to be described as an "expert" who seems so unaware of the explosive potential of propane or similar gas cylinders, e.g. [2], [3], [4], etc. In any case, reports are of up to six cylinders in each car in London (three are clearly visible next to the rewmains of the Glasgow car on news footage), and 60 litres of petrol in plastic containers, quite separate from the cars' tanks. Nick Cooper 12:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff if you are, as I suspect, an american you're possibly confusing what the rest of the World calls gas with what the rest of the World calls petrol. --Monotonehell 09:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not at all, thanks for the condescending attitude though. What I might have missed was what Nick said, gas canisters for propane tanks, which so far as I'm concerned is perfectly legitimate misunderstanding.
That said, most propane tanks gas cylinders have releases to allow for safe de-pressurization when they are under heat or contents under pressure. So in that way, this still calls into question whether this should really be called a "bomb".--Jeff 16:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that if that heat is from being in close contact with a fire, the venting gas will itself ignite. It's standard practice for firefighters to proceed with extreme caution when such cylinders are known to be at a fire site, precisely because of their explosive potential, e.g. [5] (which really ruined my journey into work that day!). Nick Cooper 12:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But are they not dangerous if rapidly ignited somehow? SGGH speak! 19:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a giant ball of fire is highly dangerous, because it can burn people to death and set buildings on fire. There is no reason to think it would be the kind of explosion that would have sent the nails flying out as shrapnel like high explosive would. Edison 20:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. An explosion is an explosion, whether it is caused by high explosive, low explosive, gas ignition, or dust ignition, for that matter. David Copeland killed three and injured more than a hundred with nail bombs made of gunpowder (a low explosive); this explosion of gas cylinders killed one and would have more, but for the time it occured. Nick Cooper 18:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reports of any explosives, high or low, having been in the two "car bombs" that failed to go off that the Police discovered.Buster 22:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which bit of "explosion of gas cylinders" above did you not understand, or are you being deliberately obtuse? Nick Cooper 07:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA. If the cylinders could have exploded with anything approaching their potential, the explosion would be enormous. However, the operative statement is 'if', and current info points at there being no realistic possibility that this could have happened.
I could witter on for ages about oxidisers etc.. Maybe there was a plan to create a stoichiometric mix in the car first before ignition (that's possible) or to allow the cars to burn for long enough to allow the cylinders to explode (again, possible). But with our current info it is quite easy to poke holes in arguments that these were viable mass casualty devices. They were viable mass hysteria devices though, we have good evidence of that just from the headlines.
Oh, and the link about the actual gas cylinder explosion refers to a civilian accident, in which one poor soul really did die. No terrorists involved, and no propane either. Oxygen and Acetylene were the ingredients there, understanding of why that explosion was so instant and violent brings understand of why these bombs were not. EasyTarget 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand this already cited (above) example was propane cylinders. Obviously the viability of the London car bombs can be questioned/debated, but various editors have been putting forward the viewpoint that propane cylinders inherently cannot explode either at all or in a manner which befits ascribing the description of "bombs," which is clearly nonsense. Nick Cooper 17:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-read this whole thread, and nobody is saying that propane cylinders inherently cannot explode, merely that they make 2nd class bombs without added oxidiser, since you need to persuade your victims to stand around watching the fire for some time before they explode. The link provided confirms this, propane cylinders had to be packed into a refuse container with other accelerants and allowed to burn unobserved (or at least unattended, lets assume the perpetrators were somewhere nearby) for a period before exploding.
So this discussion boils down to the word 'Bomb'; these devices do meet some definitions of it, but not all.. In particular they could not immediately detonate upon ignition. This may well help to explain the choice of targets; the emergency services and crowds of (intoxicated) youngsters from a nightclub thinking 'look , there's a expensive car on fire! lets check it out..'. EasyTarget 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COBRA vs. COBR

[edit]

It's always refer to as Cobra, not COBR. There may not be consistent choice in all caps vs. only initial caps, but the 'A' is always there. (http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&ie=UTF-8&q=bomb+cobra&btnG=Search (326 results) vs. http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&ie=UTF-8&q=bomb+cobr&btnG=Search (0 result)) -- KTC 03:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms makes it clear that COBR is the primary/proper name, although the "A" on the end is legitimate. However, "COBR" is used extensively in official publications, such as Hansard, e.g. [6], [7], [8], etc. As to the widespread use of "Cobra" in the media, we should not mistake lazy journalism for accuracy. Nick Cooper 08:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not lazy journalism, it is Cabinet Office Briefing Room A that is used by the PM, there is a COBRB etc. (Hypnosadist) 12:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show us a reference to "COBRB"! Until then, we'll call it COBR. And anyway, if there was a room B then how do you know WHICH meeting room was used - A or B! By definition if there were rooms A, B and so on then the overall facility would just be called COBR - Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms!! Use some logic will you - and read the COBR article itself. Jeez..... 86.17.211.191 00:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Hypnosadist, but if you Google "Cabinet Office Briefing Room" (with or without the "s" on the end) on .gov.uk domains, the results come back overwhelmingly with "COBR" as the acronym; "COBRA" largely only appears as its pronounciation. Nick Cooper 12:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is from the BBC:
...and this is from Direct.gov.uk, HMGs official public information website:


I'm not quite sure which side of the argument this helps though! Regards, Lynbarn 12:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, within official usage, "COBR" is applied overwhelmingly. "COBRA" or "Cobra" is used predominently as a pronounciation of "COBR" or in more "public-directed" contexts, either erroneously or - I suspect - pandering to the widespread erroneous use of "COBRA" in the media. I think the bottom line is that as Hansard almost exclusively uses "COBR" then that should be taken as the official acronym. Nick Cooper 13:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may (and my (admittedly only on-line) research suggests that may not be the case, There is plenty of evidence to suggest that MPs, Ministers and Lords regularly refer to Cobra, as reported in Hansard (which strives to be a more-or-less verbatim record of what is said in Parliament), as per the following:
The latter quotes:

"Since Friday morning, the Government have held four meetings of Cobra, which were chaired by the Prime Minister and me and attended by ministerial colleagues from key Government Departments, and the police and intelligence agencies. Our priority has been to co-ordinate the necessary responses to protect the public."}}

From the above, if it is good enough for the Mother of Parliaments, then it should be good enough for Wikipedia, and I suggest that either usage is perfectly acceptable, and that both should be allowed, interchangably, where the context allows. Regards, Lynbarn 15:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the Civil Contingencies Committee (known as COBR)"
"The things we directly deliver, like COBR services, are quite small because the Cabinet Office being a department of only 1,500 does not directly deliver very much."
"The unit will also have a number of other duties, including advising Ministers, senior officials, COBR and other government departments during a major emergency ..."
"I also ran something called NIOBR, which is the Northern Ireland equivalent of COBR here..."
"Options to counter these threats will be dictated invariably through COBR, for Ministerial sanction on actions to be taken, or not taken."
"We set up, on 7 July, almost immediately, a 24-hour news co-ordination centre which operated on behalf of COBR..."
Etc. Nick Cooper 16:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cobra bythe BBC
  2. ^ Direct.gov.uk

Al Qaeda?

[edit]

I wonder if it's safe to say that this was Al Qaeda.... if so, Al Qaeda got guyfawked again.... that is.... the plot was spoiled! 204.52.215.107 04:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "safe" to say anything of the kind. This could have been done by one disaffected individual not in contact with anyone else. Nick Cooper 08:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus there are many terrorist organisations other than Al Qaeda SGGH speak! 11:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When the sources say its Al Qaeda then we will. (Hypnosadist) 12:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NBC News is reporting police are seeking three suspects from Birmingham area one might have an association with a high level al Qaeda operative so I will add that. Also will add U.S. precautions.Edkollin 16:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Express also mentions al Qaeda, however due to the media's tendency to name al Qaeda as the suspect whenever there is a terrorism related event, no matter who it could be, makes me wonder... SGGH speak! 19:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Al Qaeda seem to be named for sensationalist reasons and because people recognise it, not necessarily because they were involved. RustyBadger 00:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think Al-Qaeda would perform better than those responsible for the incidents of the past few days. I mean, what is it now? Two bombs that did not explode, two terrorists running around aflame at an airport? Muad 06:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetent bombers

[edit]

As per "bomb?" above, we might want to note that the terrorism expert who was on Keith Olberman's program tonight (don't remember his name off the top of my head) essentially said that these were very poorly constructed "bombs" and, had they somehow been able to detonate them at all (no functional means of detonation was found) they would not have done very much damage. Essentially, he argued, this was all much ado about nothing. Isaac Benaron 04:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is an "expert" several thousand miles away in America in a position to make such a sweeping judgement, within 24 hours, and presumably not privy to the results of the Metropolitan Police and British intelligence services' findings thus far? Nothing in the UK media supports the above claim, quite the opposite in fact. Nick Cooper 08:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly Nick. (Hypnosadist) 12:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think it's way to early to say anything either way. Keith Oblerman may very well be right, the 'media' may very well be right. However past history and simple common sense says it's usually a bad idea to trust either at this stage. So far, all we have are some statements allegedly from forensic experts who examined the bomb at an early stage which seem to suggest had it gone off it may have caused significant damage. However this doesn't mean that there was actually a resonable chance they might have gone off and such early statements whose veracity is usually impossible to verify are often wrong. Let's not forget it took a long time for it to be clear how the 7/7 bombs were detonated Nil Einne 16:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with all of these news article style currently unfolding events, we need to hold off on every little piece of speculation and half arsed analysis in the media. They always get it wrong at first. As I keep harping on, this is an encyclopedia, we have the luxury (and responsibility) to wait for correct verified information before adding it to the article. --Monotonehell 09:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetent? maybe, or maybe they were just unlucky. Please remember though, that they only need to be lucky once to create a great deal of damage, injury and death. Lynbarn 10:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm not necessarily endorsing his position. Just passing along what I heardIsaac Benaron 01:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

The article name should have the word "plot" in it, for a better description, so I propose the name 2007 London car bombs plot --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes i suppose that without the word plot it implies they went off 172.141.202.193 11:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I would say that it is too early for such a move, as we have little to no information about the actual plot, just of the bombs themselves and their discovery. If this move is to go ahead I think it should at least wait until we know something about the plot.
It was certainly a plot as the bomb was wired and people do not certainly park car bombs for hobby --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't deny for a moment that there wasn't a plot, obviously there was, if you read what I said you will see that I opposed as information on the plot is unknown at the moment, we only have information on the bombs themselves and their discovery! SGGH speak! 19:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose It's not yet been proven that they were linked (even though it may be obvious). Also, the word 'plot' suggests that it was heavily orchestrated and planned. It's too sensationalist a word to be used so frivolously. Current title is far more factually accurate.Slydevil 16:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. --trey 16:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is in a way (although FEARgod probably should have used the requested move survey template, {{RMtalk}}). -- tariqabjotu 16:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly a request to gain a concensus, no move can be undertaken without concensus. SGGH speak! 19:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They were car bombs. Just because the bombs didn't go off, doesn't mean they weren't car bombs. There is no need to add the word 'plot'. Abc30 16:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They were car bombs, however inneffective they were in this instance. They were unlucky, we were lucky this time, but they were still a serious terrorist attack on Britain. I agree There is no need to add the word 'plot'.

Foiled?

[edit]

Was this plot really "foiled"? The use of the word "foiled" in the articles (and by all the media outlets) would indicate something proactive was done to prevent this bombing. By all accounts the the first bomb was "stumbled" upon by an ambulance crew who had been called to the scene to see to an injured night club patron and they noticed that the car was smoking. Buster 16:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it was foiled. Whether the discovery was by 'accident' is IMHO immaterial to whether it was foiled. No one said it was foiled by the MI5 or good detective work, simply that it was foiled. If it wasn't foiled then it could either have been a success or a failed plot. The second bomb may have been a failed plot since the car was towed after quite a while and before the bomb was discovered suggesting the bomb was not likely to go off. In this case, it appears to have been foiled because alert people notice something odd with the car and then notified the police who realised it may be a bomb and called in experts who defused the device. Had it not been foiled for this reason, it may have very well been a failed plot as well i.e. the bomb might never have gone off. However since something active was done (the bomb was defused) regardless of whether it was discovered by accident it is still a foiled plot Nil Einne 16:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'Foiled' comes from the activity of fighting with pointy bits of metal, and implies a one on one organised engagement. It doesn't really fit the situation properly and is almost POV-y. I'd suggest a less poetic term like discovered, defused, or made safe. --Monotonehell 16:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, going by modern usage of the terms, the bombs were discovered by accident, at least one was made safe by being defused and so the plot was foiled. Therefore, thanks to a mixture of serendipity and bomber incompetence both plots failed. Since the article doesn't currently use the word foiled anyway it doesn't seem to matter to me. The current wording is clear enoughNil Einne 16:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia's front page under the "In the news" section the word "foiled" is used in the headline that links to this article. Buster 17:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I didn't agree with that on the main page, foiled does suggest successful efforts to prevent the attack rather than just stumbling across them, maybe "prevented" would have been better? SGGH speak! 19:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe... but this is the problem I am having, the 1st car was stumbled upon because the bombers were incompetent so the bomb never ignited, it smoked, alerting the ambulance driver to trouble and then was discovered. The 2nd car completely failed to go off and was towed hours later after the 1st car was discovered due to a parking violation. So neither attempt was foiled. I'm thinking maybe the headline should read "Police Discover Failed Car Bombs in London". Buster 21:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's now accepted that what was seen was petrol vapour, not smoke. It's also being reported that both devices were intended to be triggered by mobile phones, but the first was soon disabled, while the second had been quickly removed (unintentionally) and placed in an underground structure where it would not have been possible for the trigger phone to get a signal. It may very well be that the perpetrator/s may not have even attempted to activate the devices remotely until after both these events had happened. Nick Cooper 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very suspicious that the three car bombs didn't go off at all. If these "terrorists" had the motive to take as many lives as possible, then wouldn't they have detonated as soon as police approached the cars? It appears that the terrorists weren't watching. They were also stupid enough to park them illegally. CNN reported that the designs were very similar to that one man's design of limosine bombs. It had enough fuel and nails lined throughout the car. Maybe they just wanted to scare the population?209.91.61.223 22:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General article? - Moving/renaming?

[edit]

Many people keep complaining about the 'newsyness' of this article.

Well, how about moving it to 'Terrorism in the UK in 2007' or something along those lines, and include today's Glasgow airport incident. I personally don't think it merits moving, but... to each his own. J.P.Lon 17:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thought that occurs to me is that we might end up with an article for terrorism in the uk for each year. Personally I think we are all discussing moves and things far too early, the event was only a couple of days ago and most of the information isn't even available yet. SGGH speak! 19:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I add that naming conventions call for this to be, at best, London car bombs (2007). I'll never understand why people always put the year first. Have they never used a real encyclopedia? -- 146.115.58.152 20:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States

[edit]

In the United States White House press secretary Tony Snow said...

I'm not sure how relevent this paragraph is to a bomb attack in London, England... Anybody have a view on this? Regards, Lynbarn 17:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As said above I put this in the aftermath section in a paragraph describing U.S. reactions,precautions etc. Edkollin 17:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow incident

[edit]

Should be treated as separate event and not be in here unless reputable,notable cite for a linkage between the two incidents is found Edkollin 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is reporting the incidents are linked pending a news conference.--trey 18:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what? Do you have a link we could read? SGGH speak! 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Security sources told The Guardian Unlimited they believe they are so I will add that [9] Edkollin 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no merge —METS501 (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


They just said during a press conference that the town bombings are connected. Do you think these 2 articles should be merged?Samaster1991 20:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe... the plot might not have been completely guyfawked after all.... oh well. 204.52.215.107 21:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hasn't there been an official announcement that said that they were linked?69.40.174.133 21:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there has been a official announcement that they are connected Samaster1991 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they should be merged, since they're both relatively small incidents, and the police now officially consider them to be closely connected.--Pharos 00:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we better wait till tomorrow, tomorrow we should know more.--Farshad Bashir 00:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, The police say they are linked, the Glasgow event, while highly publicized, is just another piece of a larger connected series of events. It should be merged into this article, in my opinion. --SXT40 02:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose merger - at the moment at least. Police advice may change as investigations continue. Also, although there were similarities in timing, and the use of cars, the detail is substantially different. In particular, unlike the Glasgow attackers, the London effort was NOT a failed suicide bombing.
IMO, That difference alone is enough to keep the two as separate items. Regards, Lynbarn 00:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — for a period of time at least. Give it a week or so to properly pan out. We're a day after the first attack attempt and hours after the second. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 00:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - character of attacks is very different, and while I can just about speculate how there may have been a link, in reality second is either pure coincidence, or a very tenuous copy-cat. The police have two suspects, so it's unlikely to remain a mystery for long. Nick Cooper 00:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No confirmed link, and articles are too unstable if you see what I mean. GDonato (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - For the reasons others have stated. --ukexpat 00:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the character of the attacks being different, and both articles and investigations are still in heavy flux TransUtopian 01:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - for reasons previously stated and because it is yet to be known that these two incidents are directly connected. Doodoobutter 01:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reason not to wait atleast another day or 2 to merge, if there is a need to, which remains to be seen. In my opinion, we should wait until next Saturday to merge/not merge when much more information will have been presented. Pepsidrinka 01:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - They may be linked but that does not mean that they should be merged. They are similar attacks but in different areas of the UK anyway. Though I would support a merger, for as long as the title would be something like "June 2007 terrorist attempts on the UK" or similar!. Amlder20 01:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unregistered, so I don't think I can vote. I'm just pointing something out: the car in London could've been planned to have been used in a suicide bombing akin to the one in Glasgow. The suicide-bomber-to-be might've parked the car somewhere on his way to the bombings to do something else (Urinate? Grab a bite to eat? Enjoy a nightclub one last time?) or just have hidden the bombs in the car he was going to use them with before it was planned. In scenario one, the bombs were lit and that was why smoke was coming out, and he saw the emergency vehicles there when he was headed back and aborted his plan, figuring to let it explode there. In scenario two, they malfunctioned and started going off early while he was driving around, and he just happened to park his car for something. All that said, I would vote oppose if I could, because there's no reason (even if there turn out to be a dozen other attacks, God forbid) why each one can't have its own article. 75.110.158.43 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is not so much about voting as about reasoning. That's detailing a good point. They could be intended to be the same type of attack, but we have insufficient data yet. Best to wait until we know more, and can better gauge the level of their interconnectedness. TransUtopian 02:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This (Glasgow bombing attempt) should NOT be merged with the London car bombings article until a definite link at the organisational level is found between the two. Even then, this attack would seem to be of a different nature as well as being located in a seperate nation. Also bear in mind that this attack was not foiled by authorities, and to an extent was a successful attack on Glasgow airport. Yeanold Viskersenn 02:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Let's let it settle down with more facts known before doing anything like merging it. While the police have stated they are treating the two incidents as linked at this current point of their investigation, that does not mean it will necessarily stay that way as more are known. Even if I might support a merge in the future, it would have to be to a more neutral title as Amlder20 stated. The two incidents happened at opposite sides of the country, with the Glasgow incident actually doing some (physical) damage compare to the London one.... -- KTC 03:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (for now), however it seems clear the London and Glasgow events are strictly linked each other. I would propose to seriously consider a merger in case the link turns out to be true, in a joint article such as "United Kingdom attack attempts of 2006" or a reasonable similar title. --Angelo 03:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a good idea for all the reasons listed above. Moncrief 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Reasons stated above, obvesly linked, but i odnt see why this means they should be on the same page, this is an important event in its own right. --Viva43 06:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is not a vote, I suggest the request be removed, as the community has come to a conclusion that it should not be merged.--trey 04:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Illegally parked?

[edit]

If I were to plant a car bomb, I would try to make sure it is discovered when it goes off and not before. So why did they not find a better place to park the car? Is it deliberate? Do we have any info that can go into the article? F 07:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to get entirely behind the thinking of any individual, it could be that the driver simply decided that, when it came down to it, he couldn't bring himself to go through with it and abandoned the bomb... Maybe the no parking signs were obstructed, or not understood, maybe he had run out petrol in the tank (that would be ironic)... Maybe he had to top up the phone he was going to use to detonate the device... but all this can only be conjecture, not suitable for inclusion. Regards, Lynbarn 09:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Haymarket car was parked in front of a crowded nightclub. Perhaps the perpetrator thought he could maximize casualties by parking in the most crowded place he could find and detonating quickly before being towed. Weregerbil 09:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be that the perpetrator had insufficient local knowledge to appreciate, a) how difficult it is to park legally in central London, and b) how quicky violations draw attention and are dealt with. Nick Cooper 11:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also it is possible that the plan went off half cocked, and the driver panicked and just parked it anywhere, the night club may not have been the target. Though as said above this is just users speculating SGGH speak! 15:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, I see a lot of speculation, not just by users but in the media about stuff like how the bombers were targetting people they regard as immoral like nightclubbers or homosexuals but all that can be said at the moment is their planning doesn't seem to have been particular good which may suggest they didn't really get that complex in their thinking. As such, excessive speculation about the motives seems harmful Nil Einne 11:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the parking of the second car was accidental. Where would hundreds of people fleeing the first car bomb go if it had gone off succcessfully? Wiki-Ed 12:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

280E

[edit]

Earlier it was stated that the 280E is a W123, the reference had been removed and now stated again. Do you have any evidence for this? The only picture of the dark Benz I've seen didn't allow for an identification of the model. I understand that the coppers informed about this being a 280E. This however doesn't mean that this is a W123. 280E was also a model of the "stroke 8" (W114 to be precise) and the W124. Perhaps others, although I couldn't say now, off the top of my head. So please, before you identify this 280E as a W123, please give some clear pictorial evidence.

Forgot to sign my entry. Here goes: Assimilateur 12:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0 injuries

[edit]

Doesnt the terrorst who was found on fire count as 1 person injured?--86.6.9.151 15:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he was in Glasgow! Lynbarn 15:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (July 3)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no merge. I am closing this now, since it is clear that there will be no consensus on a merge at this time. We had a similar discussion a few days ago, and even with information linking these attacks, a fair argument has been made that the two incidents are individually notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article be merged with 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack? The British police says the incidents are related [10]. Intangible2.0 13:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, for various reasons previously discussed, both here and on the Glasgow page. Regards Lynbarn 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The media is reporting arrest totals based on both incidents. The government reactions are based on that theory. To write about these topics Wiki editors in order to separate one incident from another may have to do some Original Research. It would not surprise me that both the Al Qaeda connections and the linkages are over hype or just plane false. If my POV proves to be correct then the articles can be reseperated but for now we have to go by what the reputable,notable sources are saying. That is the problem with reporting on a current event Edkollin 16:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account the existing discussion on this above, which had a clear outcome, I would suggest we revisit a possible merge after some time has passed, or at least when established authorities make a clear reference to these incidents being connected. They definitely are connected in the public eye - if at the very least only temporally - and this is widely viewed as a single, larger plot. So I would definitely vote in favour of a future merge, if only to avoid the current (apparent) compromise (2007 UK terrorism threat) which seems a sub-par solution. -- Goodnewsfortheinsane 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, now we are learning that according to various sources the Glasgow and London events are not only very probably connected, but that all suspects have links to the NHS I would strongly suggest we hold another vote for (speedy) merge. Also, the suspect-NHS angle should be emphasized in the article. -- Goodnewsfortheinsane 14:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I'd say wait a couple of more weeks. Then there is under what name to put it under that is relevant to both both incidents. yes, they're connected. The people all know each other, but how to hook this all together? Until all persons are caught, it would be premature to just merge them right off the bat. I'm also hesitating putting it under an Al Qeada related category or even list the individuals as such.
  • Oppose but alternative suggestion - Each incident is notable in its own right and putting them together would create an article that would be far too big. Also, they are being investigated under separate legal systems. However, 2007 UK terrorist incidents deals with the linkages and responses and allows an overview. I suggest that this latter article is extended to include a summary of each incident and deals with the investigation and responses whilst the two existing articles remain, but with general material removed, as subsidiary articles dealing with their respective incidents and the local consequences of those incidents. TerriersFan 17:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TerriersFan. I'd support an effective merger into "2007 UK terrorist incidents" with a mind to eventually getting rid of the separate pages after this all dies down. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste
  • Comment. There is news now that the Glasgow attackers were also behind the London attempt. [11] Intangible2.0 18:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Both are notable incidents on their own accord Taprobanus 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even a second-grader knows that London and Glasgow are two distinct cities, lying fairly apart. --AVM 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Police now believe that the same two people [12] caused both the incidents in London and Glasgow. I see no reason we couldn't have a merged article under the title 2007 United Kingdom car bombs.--Pharos 20:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no problem with there existing separate articles for both incidents, I just feel it's awkward that there isn't a "front end" article where the casual visitor can find info on these obviously connected events. And AVM's argument seems beside the point, as the same can be said about the 9/11 attacks, which although incomparable in scope and impact are to my mind very much comparable in the sense "strongly related incidents in geographically disparate places". --Goodnewsfortheinsane 21:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This was a silly request the first time. The strongest argument offered, namely that the people involved in both incidents may or may not have known each other, no more argues for a merger than common American involvement argues for a merger of Iraq War and War in Afghanistan (2001–present). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A lot depends how much overlap there will be. If its basically one group, one investigation, one set of facts, and one trial and aftermath (eventually) with the sole difference being that some bombs by the group were in place #1 and some in place #2 (as it seems to be), then I'd say merge. I would not consider "different cities" to be a reason for 2 articles. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The police believe the two incidents are related because of contiguity. The only evidence that they haven't revealed was a "suspicious device found inside the vehicle" at the airport. It could very well be a cell phone detonator. The first incident had the motive to kill hundreds of people, but it was poorly executed. The second incident may have the same motive, but there may also be another reason. There could have been someone or a group of people the "terrorists" tried to prevent from leaving the airport. If they wanted to shut down the airport, then they may not be related to the first incident.

I really don't like how the media reported the two men as being "Asian".209.91.61.223 23:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - sure the events are linked; sure they may be carried out by the same guys; but that doesn't mean we need them to be in the same article. Any trials would be under different legal systems - Scotland and England have very different legal structures, the Home Office has control in England not Scotland, both articles have regional aspects that need developing separately etc. TerriersFan 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, the entirely speculative possibility of trials in more than one jurisdiction merits two articles? There probably won't even be a trial for many months. And the articles are about the attacks themselves, not trials which have yet to materialise. September 11, 2001 attacks has one basic article, and it included attacks in three jurisdictions of the US (New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia). I could see a justification for separate articles on the three cars (as we have with the four 2001 planes) if they were each major successful attacks, but they were not, and dividing the two in London from the one in Glasgow seems fairly arbitrary.--Pharos 04:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
AN IP DELETED MY VOTE AND IT HASN'T BEEN REVERTED!! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz saloon?

[edit]

From the intro section, the second bomb was found in a "Mercedes-Benz saloon"... I'm not sure if this is a Britishism or maybe a typo/misunderstanding, but as an American native English speaker, I've never once heard an automobile referred to as a "saloon". That phrase links to an article about a particular Mercedes-Benz model, but no mention of "saloon" there either. Over here, "saloon" is a slightly archaic term for a bar, a drinking establishment with a kinda Western/cowboy connotation. Maybe I'm alone, but if not, perhaps we might want to use a term more familiar to all readers.75.139.35.32 14:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saloon car is standard British English terminology for the car body shape which the Americans refer to as a sedan (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=saloon%20car) --Lost tourist (Talk) 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the opening of sedan, it clearly states the British-American distinction. --Philip Stevens 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a page about a British subject, so British English spelling and language usage has primacy. "Saloon" on the page links to "sedan" and has done since I did it myself several days ago. Nick Cooper 21:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if we just use a culture-neutral name, like four-door car? "Saloon" is utterly confusing to a large proportion of our readers, and the description of the automobile type is really ancillary to this topic anyway.--Pharos 21:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very good point, I grant you, but it is not a cultural, but a linguistic difference we are trying to deal with here. There is plenty of capacity within wikipedia for editors to include hyperlinks to explain any differences of language, As Nick Cooper has in this case. Wikipedia is a world-wide facility, and should be used in a way that doesn't discriminate against the minority of users for whom American English isn't their native tongue. One of the Wiki guidelines is that articles should be consistent in their use of the American/British/any other form of the language, and where an article, such as this, is based predominantly in a UK context, it seems sensible to stick with the British flavour (flavor} throughout. As the French say, Vive la difference! Regards, Lynbarn 21:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between flavour/flavor and saloon/sedan is that the meaning of flavour/flavor is obvious to any semi-educated English speaker, while the saloon/sedan terms are just completely unrelated, and very few on either side of the Atlantic are likely to be aware of the other term. I just think it might be unnecessarily confusing to put the understanding of a term for an everyday object a hyperlink away.--Pharos 22:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should be viewed as an opportunity for Americans to learn something new, just as British people must do when reading about Lincoln Town Cars. I do think however that it should say saloon car to reduce the confusion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but we should stick with saloon, just as in US-related articles you say 'put something in the trunk' which sounds to us like a separate piece of luggage when you mean boot or you fill it with gas, which sounds very dangerous since we use petrol :-) TerriersFan 00:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Wikipidea should use the expressions of the area where the incidents occurred another example is "fag" which means cigarette in the UK and is an antihomosexual slur in the US Edkollin 18:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an anti-homosexual slur in the UK too SGGH speak! 10:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, putting luggage in the boot....sounds a bit erotic if you ask me...:-) 204.52.215.107 03:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good thing it wasn't trucks or lorries that were involved in this! 204.52.215.107 03:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that due to the large number of American readers who will be reading this, saloon with sedan in parentheses should be used. The usage will be mysterious to many readers as it is.--Gloriamarie 01:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary, as "saloon" already wikilinks to "sedan". Do you think American readers won't be able to work that out? One would presume that any sensible person seeing a linked term they're unfamiliar with would click on it for an explanation. We don't have to hold readers' hands for them in the way you suggest. Nick Cooper 08:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nick here: A key feature (perhaps THE key feature) with online encyclopediae such as this, is that by using hyperlinks, a writer can impart knowledge to others fairly well versed in the subject, in a relatively short-hand form using, for example, technical terms, but that can be understood by those less expert, simply through the explanations provided by the hyperlinked articles. The saloon car example is an excellent example - the American meaning is clear just by moving the mouse, or cursor over the word - there isn't even a need to follow the link. Regards, Lynbarn 09:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Telegraph1" :
    • {{cite news|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/29/nbomb1029.xml | title=Second car bomb found in London's West End|date=[[2007-06-29]]| work =[[Telegraph]]}}
    • {{cite news|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/29/nbomb1029.xml | author=Duncan Gardham and Sally Peck | title=Second car bomb found in London's West End|date=[[2007-06-29]]| work =[[Telegraph]]}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, and disambiguated Telegraph to The Daily Telegraph. David Underdown (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on 2007 London car bombs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2007 London car bombs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_London_car_bombs&oldid=1252581677"