Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Please delete the implied speculation

'The 7 July attacks occurred the day after London had won its bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games, which had highlighted the city's multicultural reputation.'

Meaning what? That the white supremacist suicide bombings were planned to disrupt any celebration, should London have won its 'multicultural' Olympic bid??? Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally bizarre interpretation. Text reinstated. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I NEVER TOUCHED, the text.

Should we also include ... the number of shopping days there were left before Christmas? Which would be about as relevant as the inconsequential statement. Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, London's multicultural nature was highlighted in the bid, the irony of which in light of the bombing was subsequently highlighted. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There was not a HINT of cultural chauvinism in my writing, Labour's Olympic pitch had no obvious connection to the statements attributed to Tanweer and Khan, which are seemingly in protest of the British government and those who support them. Therefore there is no such irony nor any good reason to defend the mention of these nearly coinciding events. Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph - Islamists

I have looked at the revision history and see that for years the killers were described as, 'Islamist home-grown terrorists' (March 2014, March 2013 and March 2012. The March 2014 change is a challenge to the term, 'homegrown' but the editor also removed 'terrorist'. This appears inadvertent but went unchallenged at the time and has remained unchallenged, as far as I can tell. I am challenging this now as the killers and their murderous spree was not solely the outcome of them being Islamists but, more concisely, the outcome of them being Islamist, Islamic extremist - terminology which according to the Wiki lead includes, "the use of extreme tactics such as bombing and assassinations for achieving perceived Islamic goals". That is precisely what these killers did. I think to revert to the previous, longstanding 'terrorist' is insufficient as it still leaves 'Islamist' standing as the primary descriptor of the killers (it almost goes without saying that they were terrorist, after all). Just as there's a world of difference between Christians and Christian extremists... And that important difference (it's not minor) is made all the more important in a record of such a barbarous event.

Far from editing a description that has stood for years, I am correcting an edit from last year that to all intents looks inadvertent or superfluous.Selector99 (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

'(it almost goes without saying that they were terrorist, after all)'

Indeed, a mere 42 such mentions, contradicted by this: ' Alleged militants in the War on Terror who have lived in the United Kingdom ...7 July 2005 London bombings Hasib Hussain Mohammad Sidique Khan Germaine Lindsay Shehzad Tanweer Haroon Aswat' Beingsshepherd (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. It's been batting backwards and forwards so much over the last few days that I thought it had ended up as "four Islamist Islamic extremists..." Nick Cooper (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank-Q.Selector99 (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

List of victims

We should not include the detailed list of victims here: it doesn't add anything to our understanding of the bombings, and goes against WP:NOTMEMORIAL. -- The Anome (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, which clearly states:

"Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements."

WP:NOTMEMORIAL prohibits the creation of pages to specifically memorialise non-notable individuals, which is clearly completely different from victims of a terrorist incident being detailed on the page about that incident. The subject of this page is the incident, and the victims are information therein. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with The Anome. For all sorts of reasons, we should not do this. --John (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Tough. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is about creating memorial pages to non-notable individuals. The names of the victims are 7/7 are detail on the page, not the subject of the page itself,a nd there is nothing at WP:NOTMEMORIAL that justifies their removal. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant detail. I am removing it as I see no consensus here for its retention. If you continue to edit war, it's likely you will be blocked. --John (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Nick, there are many free and cheap web hosts out there if you want to create a memorial page to those who died. Here on Wikipedia we don't do that kind of thing. Take care. --John (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear what WP:NOTMEMORIAL is about, i.e. creating pages specifically to memorialise individuals, which is clearly not the case here. I'm sorry that you have such contempt for the victims of terrorism that them being named winds you up so much. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

From my reading of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, I do not think it is directly relevant here. It is about refraining from including non-notable information, and although I do feel that it should be interpreted broadly enough to cover not only the subjects of articles (per a literalistic reading) but also information about people that is contained within other articles, it is hard to argue that information that has been reported in multiple quality media sources (e.g. [1][2][3]) is not notable. If there had been only a small number of victims, I would say that they should unquestionably be named. However, an entirely separate consideration from that of notability is that a long list of names would add a lot of text to the article for relatively little extra understanding. I would therefore support adding the list of names if it is inside one of those show/hide boxes with the default being hide. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No comment on this? If it remains silent here for another week, then I will tentatively re-add the names inside a show/hide box (provided I can work out how to do so). I also note that there are names listed at Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)