Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about 7 July 2005 London bombings. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Archival

Previous threads archived in "Archive 4" on the talk page --HappyCamper 8 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)

Unverified info

Could an admin around here block 24.168.174.209 from editing the content page? Keeps adding unverified & marginal info without justification, and even violated 3RR with it seemingly. KissL 8 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)

I have already warned him about the three revert rule and will block him if he keeps it up. If he wants this stuff in he should come and discuss it here. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)

Thanks. KissL 8 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)

Not logged in, but wanted to respond. I did not break the three-revert rule. After the text [see below] disappeared the first time, I reposted it once, and when it disappeared again I stopped. Please don't make accusations like that, KissL, even "seemingly." Second, while I understand that posting "unconfirmed rumors" is questionable, I think my text handled it well and added relevant breaking data to this Wiki current events article. At the least, I'd like to see an explanation for why info from a Stratfor link (found at Cursor this morning) is more "marginal" and less worthy of posting than info quoting an Israeli newspaper that itself quotes "Army Radio quoting unconfirmed reliable sources." Thanks.

That said, I'm willing to wait and see what comes of the story before posting further. Here's the deleted text, which I placed at the end of the current "Issues" section:

Stratfor Consulting reports "unconfirmed rumors in intelligence circles" that the Israeli government "actually warned London of the attacks 'a couple of days' previous," implying a failure on the part of the British government, which, Stratfor suggests, "sat on this information for days and failed to respond" because a) it didn't want to disrupt the 31st G8 summit and b) "Israel has apparently given other warnings about possible attacks that turned out to be aborted operations." [1]

is 24.168.174.209 the same guy who posted the VERY long article, followed by POV and soapbox text regarding the UK gov. planting the bombs themselves? The wikipedia troll faq mentions that we should restrict discussion on talk pages to article improvement, rather than merits of various competing views. Just a reminder :) Adidas 8 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

Checking once again (which I didn't have enough time to do - that's why I said "seemingly"), I can see the addition [2] and two (pretty distinct) reverts [3] [4] from the same IP, so I admit 3RR wasn't broken. All the same: this info is 1) unverified because the link does not point to a site directly identifiable with Stratfor, and 2) marginal because it contains "unconfirmed rumors", no matter how brilliantly they are "handled" afterwards.

I surely have nothing against anyone removing the entire Issues section as similarly irrelevant, I just didn't want to do it because I wasn't sure it would meet consensus; that part at least quotes verifiable sources. KissL 8 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

In my view the argument against the stratfor para is pretty strong: Kissl's two points are on the nail. Unless and until there is better sourcing, I wouldn't think it belongs on the main page. Can't see a case for removing the whole section though: whether there is truth in the report or not, it merits attention. In what sense can you say it is irrelevant?Bengalski 8 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)

Point taken on the sourcing issue, which is enough for removal, but I don't quite see the clear distinction folks seem to be drawing between a link quoting "unconfirmed rumors" and the link in the previous sentence quoting "unconfirmed reliable sources." Does calling the source of the unconfirmed info "reliable" really make that much of a difference? And, Adidas, no, the other article you mention was not posted by me.

Map of the Underground Network

I removed the map because it shows an inexistant attack in Old Street. Please do not re-insert it, exept if you can edit a new page, without Old Street. thanks--Revas 8 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)

New York Times and Newsday

Used this article as a source. lots of issues | leave me a message 8 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)

the links section, again, and again, and again...

The nowpublic link is back on the article. It contains only 6 pictures, 4 related to the bombings. In comparison all major media outlet carry 50+ pics each. Whoever keeps reposting the link is doing a good job at looking like they are advertising their site. This is getting really, really old. Adidas 8 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)

Maximum casulties?

The article suggests the intention of the terrorist was to cause maximum casulties. This does not agree with quite a number of analysts I've heard on BBC World etc who've said compared to the September 11th attacks and the Madrid bombings, the primary concern of the terrorists appears to have been for maximum effect then maximum casulties. I believe the bombing of the bus which occured quite a while after the tube bombings, after the tube had been shut down in fact is seen as part of this. The tube had already been shut down and with the bus bombing they ensured the London public transport system was completely shut down. Of course, one can expect that perhaps they also did their best to ensure maximum casulties while ensuring maximum effect. Of course, we will probably never know precisely what they considered in their planning but I do think the maximum effect bit needs to be mentioned given that it has been said by a number of analysts.

My personal POV is maximum disruption - there are better ways to inflict mass casualties than to attack the transport infrastructure. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)

50 plus people dead at Yahoo! News. --Wimtennis2005 8 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

unverified and possibly troll additions

"Airplane attack - The attack involved hijacking of one private aircraft. Hijacked plane crashed into the north side of the Piccadilly Circus at (09:11:13 UTC)." - this is completely fictitious, I'm removing. Also evidently an addition from a US user as in the UK we say 'aeroplane'.
The image of the bus: "Few seconds before the crash, image taken by anonymus tourist". I don't believe this, the image is a generic picture of a London bus. Removing as it's misleading.

--Air 8 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

It was just vandalism - you could have removed although I have now. The picture is clearly photoshopped as it has an plane in it as well as the iconic bus. I guess the picture is from something like B3ta although the name of the guy Internets makes me think of the Something Awful crowd. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

This doesn't require a section on the talk page. Just remove vandalism from the article when you see it. End of story. Moncrief July 8, 2005 16:10 (UTC)

MSNBC Translator Claim

This bit seems a little flakey:

One translator from U.S. cable news network MSNBC expressed scepticism at the legitimacy of this claim, claiming there are grammatical mistakes in the anouncement, as well as a "mistake" in the quoted verse from the Qur'an. [13] The verse, as quoted in the letter, is missing the beginning of the original Qur'anic verse, which begins with "Ya ayyuhal Lathee" ("O you who believe!"). The verse is quoted only partially, which may or may not be a mistake.

Is Al Qaeda known for their perfect grammar? --Lee Hunter 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

See also this earlier discussion. I'm not sure why this is still in the article. It seems to be just someone on MSNBC speculating and no one has come along to substantiate it or get rid of it. I don't know enough about it though. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)

Ok I've taken it out. --Lee Hunter 8 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

Condolences from upstate New York

I just want to send my condolances and offer my sympathy to my fellow Wikipedians in London and throughout Great Britain from an American who was indirectly impacted by the attacks of September 11, 2001. May God be with you. JB82 t 8 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)

Here's a site where you can write your condolences to the people of London: [5] Moncrief July 8, 2005 16:22 (UTC)

I signed just after you put up the link. JB82 00:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Photos

I see that some flickr photos are available under a creative commons license that seems wikipedia compatible. For example

--Nantonos 8 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

the image you have given as an example was stolen from the BBC --83.168.32.111 8 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)

Abu Hamza al-Masri

Early on, someone had noted that the trial of Abu Hamza al-Masri had begun in London this week. I took this out because the WP article on Masri (incorrectly as I later learned) said the trial didn't start till December. Now I'm wondering if it shouldn't be put back in, since it actually did start a few days ago. Any thoughts? --Lee Hunter 8 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)

I think we should add it in. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place for this, it's interesting but IMHO there's not sufficient evidence that this is significant to the main point of this article to justify inclusion. Nick Fraser 8 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Well it's probably more significant than the Olympics - he is one of the UK's leading islamicists. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

The case for the including the Olympics link isn't particularly strong, but it could be significant in the development of the article - e.g. discussion of psychological impact (e.g. the high of Olympics decision followed by the low of the bombing). I don't think Abu Hamza link takes us anywhere, of course this could change, if for example an Islamic website mentions the bombing as a protest against the treatment of AH, etc. Nick Fraser 8 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

Pictures in the article

One user in particular is trying to remove all pictures from the article. He has placed comments in the article asking for there to be no pictures. However he seems to have decided this unilaterally. I think there should be some pictures, as long as people don't go overboard. What do others think? Secretlondon 8 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)

More pictures are good. I think we should try ot limit ourselves to two pictures per section though. Klonimus 8 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

I'm not sure at all why that user thinks there should be NO photos in the article. That would be a first for a Wikipedia article. Has he/she given any rationale for the photo removal? Moncrief July 8, 2005 18:36 (UTC)

One of the comments they added in mentioned speed of loading. They've not put anything on a talk page as far as I know - but I've not checked all of them. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)

Re Speedloading - If someone wants no-image speed loading they need to adjust their browser settings or ask wikipedia for RSS support. --Mitrebox 8 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

I agree that we should scrap this mysterious "no images" policy. As long as we don't go overboard with huge photos everywhere it won't cause much of a problem for the readers, and as Mitrebox says, people should turn off image loading if they want pages to load more quickly. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)

Can we establish a concensus that pictures should be restored back to the article and trying to limit pictures to 2-3 per section. Klonimus 8 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

No objections to pictures myself but feel that this is something that can wait. Let's wait a day or so longer for the article to stabilise before adding lots of pics. It does slow the loading of the page a little and this is a very popular page. Others agree? Nick Fraser 8 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

No I don't. Why wait until the page's traffic has subsided? That makes no sense. As only user:Pigsonthewing seems to have a problem, and he hasn't discussed first then I'm minded to treat this page like every other. Images should clearly add to the article - so a map is fine, the picture of the damaged train is fine - a random picture of a tube station or of the Queen probably doesn't add enough. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

I think a visit of the Queen, is very notable and worthy of inclusion Klonimus 8 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)

I disagree - it tells the reader nothing. If it is important that the article mentions the Queen visiting people in hospital then add it - we don't need to see that as well. We don't learn any more than we do from the text. To be honest I don't think it's notable as text - I'd expect the Queen to visit them. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)

Totally disagree. There isn't any reason not to have photos, for the reasons given above. Appropriate photos are part of Wikipedia, at any stage in an article's development. Moncrief July 9, 2005 00:41 (UTC)

I agree with Klonimus. There is no reason for that no photo policy.--Revas 8 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)

Percentages

I changed numerical values of 'per cent' to '%' in accordance with the Wikipedia manual of style. It was then reverted. Was my edit and hence the Manual of Style guidance totally unacceptable? Bobblewik (talk) 8 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)

Due to the duplication bug, this article gets reverted a lot. It was probably just lost in the shuffle. --Dhartung | Talk 8 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

Allah

I'm keeping references to Allah in the translated statement as Allah, because that is the closest translation to the original text. The Allah article is the best reference of understanding muslim idea's about thier god. Klonimus 8 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

Allah is not the "closest translation to the original text", it is no translation at all! As you'll see from the article, Allah is the Arabic word for God, also used by Arabic-speaking Christians etc. If we're to translate the statement into English we should translate Allah to God along with it. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 20:38 (UTC)

Yes it is, Allah refers to the god of the muslims, not everyone else who beleives in a monotheistic god beleives in Allah. Anyways the statement starts with the "Bismallah" statement which is "In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate" and so it should be.Klonimus 8 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Allah does not refer only to the God of the Muslims, it is an Arabic word referring to any monotheistic deity, used in Arabic translations of the Christian Bible, amongst other things. Your second sentence is fauly logic. "Bismillah" is "Bismillah" in Arabic, "in the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate" in English, and "in the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate" in English with an Arabic word left untranslated. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

Agreed. "Allah" is the Arabic name for "God". Non-Arabic speaking Muslim countries such as Iran do not use the name "Allah", but rather the name appropriate to their language.--69.156.204.111 00:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

claim of responsibility in first section

Nickfraser removed the following NPOV passage in the first section:

A group called "Secret Organisation - al-Qaeda in Europe" has claimed that it carried out the attacks in response to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, making the 7 July death toll in London of 50 dead equivalent to between half to twice the average number of civilians killed every day in the invasion and occupation of Iraq since 2003, in which British military participated and continue to participate.

Nickfraser: please justify what you think is POV if you want to claim it is POV. i don't understand what is POV. Boud 8 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)

It's POV because it's conflating the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan with the bombings.It is considdered bad taste to compare war casualties with victems of terror attacks. Klonimus 8 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

I don't think taste comes into it - and saying that the two can't be compared is POV. The paragraph is POV as it implies a link between the two - that one caused the other. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)

The "Secret Organisation - al-Qaeda in Europe" states very clearly itself that the reason it carried out the attacks was in response to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The link exists. As for bad taste, if there is any aspect of bad taste, then ignoring the relevant facts would be in bad taste. 25-100 Iraqi civilians being killed per day are real people being killed: ignoring the claimed connection with the London attack would be bad taste. Boud 8 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

# 20:35, 8 July 2005 Nickfraser (rm POV passage - this is not the place to make political points about the merits of British involvement in Iraq)

The organisation claiming responsibility states that the British involvement in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is the reason for the attack: this is not making political points about the merits of either the US/British killings of civilians nor the killings of civilians in London yesterday: it is neutral to both. Boud 8 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

Hi Boud - I deleted your paragraph for a number of reasons. Firstly, stylistically the opening paragraph should deal in hard known facts - it should be tightly focused rather than dealing in speculation about linked foreign policy issues and historical context (these can be expanded upon later in the article provided they don't digress too much from the main point of the article). Secondly, the claim by 'Al-Qaeda Europe' is not sufficiently verified yet - it's going out on a limb a little as the Al-Qaeda Europe connection could well be a hoax, is there sufficient independent verification yet? Thirdly, I just feel that the majority of wikipedians would interpret the general tone of your paragraph as one that implies some kind of moral equivalence between the act of terrorism in London and the events you mention elsewhere in the world. That's contentious to say the least. Do others agree? Nick Fraser 8 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

I think we can go too far the other way and see acts of violence committed by state and non-state actors as entirely separate things. If one supported the war on Iraq one wouldn't want there to be any connection, if one opposed one might want to highlight the connection - I don't think we should ignore it. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

I agree with Nick Fraser. It is not the place to speak about people killed by British troops in Afghanistan or Iraq. Did we said in the page about September 11 that it was only less than 1/10 of Hiroshima ? No. It would have been totally indecent. Thi article is not a place to discuss your POV about british involment in Iraq, dear Boud. --Revas 8 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)

# 20:35, 8 July 2005 Nickfraser (rm POV passage - this is not the place to make political points about the merits of British involvement in Iraq)

The organisation claiming responsibility states that the British involvement in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is the reason for the attack: this is not making political points about the merits of either the US/British killings of civilians nor the killings of civilians in London yesterday: it is neutral to both. Boud 8 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

Hi Nick, (1)...it should be tightly focused rather than dealing in speculation about linked foreign policy issues and historical context (these can be expanded upon later in the article provided they don't digress too much from the main point of the article).

In that case The bombings came while the UK hosted the first full day of the 31st G8 summit at Gleneagles Hotel in Perthshire, and a day after London was cchosen to host the 2012 Summer Olympics should be removed - it is more of a digression than what is (so far) the most likely cause of the attack: what the claimed attacks state very overtly.Boud 8 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

(2)...the Al-Qaeda Europe connection could well be a hoax, is there sufficient independent verification yet?

Hmmm. Well, i trust the other people working on that part of the article have checked that it's a claim so far considered credible. Boud 8 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

(3) Thirdly, I just feel that the majority of wikipedians would interpret the general tone of your paragraph as one that implies some kind of moral equivalence between the act of terrorism in London and the events you mention elsewhere in the world. That's contentious to say the least.

i agree that statements about moral equivalence would be POV - but that's just your interpretation - the NPOV facts are just facts: a group has claimed responsibility, it claims responsibility as a response (illegal under international law) to attacks which have been and continue to kill about the same number of people every day in Iraq alone. You may not like the facts, but respect for all the victims - those in London and those in Iraq - is to neutrally report the facts.Boud 8 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

Thi article is not a place to discuss your POV about british involment in Iraq, dear Boud. --Revas 8 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)

It is not my point of view, it is the claim of responsibility from the full wikipedia article, adding objective numerical estimates of how many killed (as best summarised from wikipedia articles) in order to be as neutral as possible.Boud

Can you answer in one single paragraph ? It's unreadable. Thank you.--Revas 8 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)

What's wrong with what you have done Boud is that while they are true facts they are true facts about the occupation of Iraq. This is an article about the London bombings in the context of the London bombings. --Ebz 8 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)

Ebz: the London bombings did not happen due to asteroids landing by chance from outer space. They were certainly carried out by some well organised group of people. The group of people that claims responsibility says that it is due to the invasion and occupation of Iraq (and Afghanistan). Who did the London bombings and their own statements of why they did them and numerical, independent facts (as opposed to just emotion-laden words) are central to the London bombings. (Revas: Nick Fraser made 3 points and i thought answering them point by point would be the clearest way of responding. Sorry if it was confusing.)Boud 8 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We are on wikipedia, Boud, not Indymedia. You may think that the London bombing are a consequence of the British involvment in Iraq. You can write it on Indymedia. But that is an opinion, not facts. The facts about that article are that terrorists (not British troops) put bombs in London undergound, and that killed 49 (at least) civilians. Any reflexion about how bad is Tony Blair or how British are naughty in Iraq have nothing to do with this article.--Revas 8 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

I agree with Revas. The article isn't the place to push POVs, and this pushes the opinion that (a) civilians casualties in Iraq and victims in London are equivalent in circumstance and so morality, (b) the attack would not have happened without Iraq and (c) withdrawal would lead to a positive conclusion to the 'war on terror'. --84.67.152.253 8 July 2005 22:49 (UTC) (Fangz not logged in)

Revas: Please read my response just a few lines above to Ebz - to which you say I strongly disagree. It is not so much I who think that the London bombing is a consequence of the British involvement in Iraq: it is the statement by the people who claim to have done the attack. That is a fact, not an opinion. Please try reading the section of the wikipedia article: 7_July_2005_London_bombings#Claim_of_responsibility where the claim is made and the translated statement. Your comments about comparing wikipedia and indymedia are irrelevant here: the NPOV is to refer to the group claiming responsibility, and to add some numbers from NPOV wikipedia articles in order to add some (minimal) objectivity. (Incidentally, your I strongly disagree statement is rather confusing: i cannot seriously believe that you disagree with the statement that the London bombings were not due to asteroids landing from outer space; i don't see how anyone can seriously claim they were not carried out by some well organised group of people - non-human animals did not do the bombings, an individual could not have done them all, and any badly organised group could not have coordinated them to happen at nearly the same time. My guess is you are only disagreeing on whether or not who did the bombings is relevant, and whether or not why they claim they did them and numerical facts of the essence of their claim are relevant.) Boud 8 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

Well, I'm (voluntay) going direcly to the Godwin Point in order to shorter my answer : You say : the London bombing is a consequence of the British involvement in Iraq: it is the statement by the people who claim to have done the attack. That is a fact, not an opinion. Please try reading the section of the wikipedia article: 7_July_2005_London_bombings#Claim_of_responsibility where the claim is made and the translated statement.

As a consequence, maybe we should add in the article about the Holocaust a section : Number of german victims of the jewish conspiracy, as the nazis (who are responsible for the Holocaust, as far as I'm concerned), claimed they did it becauseof the actions of the jews. Have the jews been killed because of some bad beahaviour of some of them ? I don't think so. They have been killed because the nazis hated them. That's why there is nothing (thanks to God and vigilant wikipedians) about jewish crimes in the article about the Holocaust. Same thing here. Best Regards,--Revas 8 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)

Revas: You are the person who refers to nazis, not me. i simply refer to the numbers of civilians killed and the content of the main sections of the wikipedia article. Anyway, let me quote from Godwin's law: whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Boud 9 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)

Well, I know the Godwin Law and refered to it voluntarily, read my message carefuly ;-). But you did not answer to my argument : it's not because the autor of a crime justify it by some crimes that would have been commited by the victims that we should speak about this alleged crimes and their victims. Revas (proud owner of a Godwin point ;-) 14:21 9 July 2005

Fangz: (a) The civilian casualties in Iraq are cited as a major reason for the attack by the claimed authors of the attack - whether you like it or not, it is a fact. Claiming that the two killings are equivalent or that one is more moral than the other would be POV - i agree - but stating the numbers is not stating that one or the other is morally better nor that the two are equivalent. It is a fact that the likely authors of the attack claim that the two are strongly linked, in fact it is one of the two main reasons they cite. The numbers are facts from which readers can make whatever inferences they wish. Many people might be uncomfortable with inferences that they make from the facts, however, wikipedia policy is to be NPOV, even if the facts are unpleasant. (b) and (c) are your own inferences. They are not in the paragraph i proposed. Maybe the two inferences (modified as probabilities rather than certainties) are correct, maybe they are wrong. i agree that they are POV. They are not in the proposed paragraph. You may not like NPOV, but we claim that in the wikipedia we want NPOV. Boud 8 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Boud that these statements are important, and do fit with our NPOV policy, and I think he's doing a good job of explaining why. However, Boud, you might consider waiting another day or so before putting this into the lead section -- until one of the investigating agencies has accepted that the forum posting claiming responsibility is legitimate. For the moment, I think we do fine to stick to the raw facts of the bombing in the lead paragraph, and the thorough "Responsibility" section below. Add it again when the facts of the claim are a little clearer, and I support you completely. — Catherine\^talk 8 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)

Catherine: thanks for the NPOV support. :) OK, i agree that for having this in the lead section, we could wait until there's more evidence, e.g. from authorities etc. Boud 9 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)

True, right. Hell, I'd even agree wih most of the statements I mentioned. But the statement is still POV because even though it is a recitation of facts, it is a selection of facts which support the POVs which I mentioned. Placing it this close to the start of the article, in the context which is given, is bad. It's alright to mention the claim of responsibility, but the following sentences should be put later. To a person of the opposite perspective who feel that (a) the deaths are not comparable, (b) the terrorists would have attacked anyway, using a different excuse, and (c) pullout is impossible, the facts mentioned are completely irrelevant to the issue. By all means, link to the Iraq war article, but don't put too much weight on justifying the attacks.--80.43.52.163 9 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)

As it happens I believe that these bombings are related to the invasion of Iraq so leave your patronising tone out of this, however I don't believe Wikipedia's job is to keep a macabre scoreboard of the kind you were suggesting.--83.148.182.26 22:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Is 1,000 words of argument really necessary on this one? You're using a Wikipedia article to push your political point. I'm not overly keen on the Union Carbide corporation, so I'll go stick a passage in there about how the fatalities were ONLY X per cent of the victims of the Bophal disaster. 83.67.4.159 23:39, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Return Wikinews back to top

Could we please put Wikinews back at the top. I'll do it if no-one disagrees. --Celestianpower 8 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

I think that any current event that has at least one corresponding wikinews story should have it at the top.--Mitrebox 8 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)

4 kilograms of explosives?

"Each explosion was caused by a bomb containing up to 4 kg (10 pounds) of high explosive, placed on the floors of the train carriages and on the top deck of the bus." Where did this info come from? Has anyone any proof of this? --Quadraxis 8 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)

They said at the press conference this morning that the evidence suggested bombs of 10 pounds or less (note not 4 pounds as in your heading). I don't recall whether it was Ian Blair or the other guy who said this, or whether this referred to the tube trains only or the bus as well. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I changed it to kgs. Thanks, Trilobite, I just wanted to make sure it was fact --Quadraxis

Thanks for pointing this out, as it wasn't referenced in the text. I found this page which mentions it. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)

Template:Jul7Bom

I have created this new template, which is based on Template:Sep11. Here is the template, which now appears on the main page; it provides a great deal of room for expansions as the effects from the attacks occur.

Thanks for noticing! (oh, and do edit as you see fit - but no vandalism, por favor.) — Rickyrab | Talk 9 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)

I just added the second article to the template. CanadianCaesar 9 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)

One comment I have on this template (other than the fact that it doesn't seem to be in use on the main page anyway) is the bombing locations. Why does the "Edgware Road/Paddington tube station" bit have "tube station" when the others don't? I thought this might be to distinguish Paddington tube station from Paddington mainline station, but that would also apply to King's Cross and Liverpool Street. Carcharoth 9 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)

Also, just "Edgware Road/Paddington" can mean four things! You can travel from Edgware Road to Paddington on both the Hammersmith and City Line, the Circle Line, the Bakerloo Line, and the District Line. At Edgware Road the platforms and tracks for the Circle/District and H+C lines are next to each other or shared, though the Circle/District line track splits off from the H+C line track at some point. The Bakerloo line track is completely separate. At Paddington, the Circle/District line still share the track and platforms, but the Bakerloo line track is again separate. The Bakerloo and Circle/District platforms are at one end of Paddington mainline station, while the H+C platforms and tracks are at the other end, quite a long walk between them. The best way to remove this ambiguity would be to say "Edgware Road/Paddington (Circle Line)", but it would probably also be acceptable to say just "Edgware Road", as it seems that the train was only just leaving Edgware Road. Looking at the reports, it seems that the passengers were evacuated to Edgware Road, none to Paddington. Unlike with the deep-level tube (Piccadilly Line) where passengers were evacuated to the stations either side (only room for the train in the tunnel), the subsurface trains of the Circle Line (and similar lines) have more room in the tunnels, allowing passengers from both sides of the blast to be evacuated in one direction. Carcharoth 9 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of unnecessary links in the template. This, of course, is a big event. However, I doubt it's going to have the long drawn out effects felt after 9|11. In that instance nearly 3000 people died. Two of the world's tallest and most famous skyscrapers were brought down in hours. On the other hand, only fifty or so people died (I don't say that to diminish their importance, but to show the relatively small scale). It won't take months to count the dead and reopen the affected tube lines. Although this event successfuly instilled terror in average commuters, you will eventually need to get rid of links to articles that will never materialize (like slogans and terms). joturner 05:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

- Give us a few days and weeks, we will make all of the links blue. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need all of those blue? We don't need to blow this out of proportion. This is my city, and 70 deaths (or whatever it turns out to be) cannot be taken lightly - but we should have some perspective. For example, today there are reports of 200 deaths from a ferry sinking in Indonesia. London will get back to normal, just as it did after IRA atrocities - and whilst this will not be forgotten (just as the IRA bombs, the nail-bomber, King Cross or Bowbelle disasters, etc), London will recover and quickly, jguk 10:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Many of the articles will be small compared to other incidents. Wait a few weeks and then see which links need articles, and which can be merged with other articles, and which do not need articles at all. Carcharoth 11:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Claim of responsibility: list of attack elements too vague to point

The list of four characteristics of the attack claiming to be pattern of activity that points to Al-Qaeda is too vague to point to any particular terrorist organization. I would remove it, but I feel too much a newb at this venue to step on the toes of those who added that material. The list is not adding to our understanding of this attack; it could be improved, but as it stands, I suggest removal.

Unfortunately, although Al-Qaeda has been implicated in a number of appalling terrorist attacks, and some patterns may be evident across those attacks, none of the listed characteristics of the attack was invented by Al-Qaeda, and it is emminently possible that any non-Al-Qaeda terrorists might recognize the points offered as 'worst practices' to mimic.

Simultaneity speaks to planning and perhaps numbers of people invovled rather than to Al-Qaeda in particular. The lack of warnings might be stretched to rule out an IRA splinter, but there have also been non-Al-Qaeda attacks that have been without warning, e.g., the US Oklahoma City bombing. The time of day and transportation-focused locations are consistent with all too many non-Al-Qaeda bombings (recall for example the IRA's disruption of UK motorway traffic in 1997).

In response: There is no credible suspect for this attack other than al-Qaida or an Islamist group imitating al-Qaida (which amounts to the same thing). If it was anyone else (eg, an IRA splinter group), they would have claimed responsibility, since otherwise the exercise has no point. The comparison with Oklahoma City is not very relevant, since the UK has no equivalent to the domestic terrorist underground from which McVeigh emerged. The only important terrorist network in the UK are the Islamists. Adam 9 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. My impression is that this attack can reasonably be attributed to Al-Qaeda inspired criminals. However, the particular points listed are not what make the case. Your argument that we currently know of no other credible suspect is the one that convinces me. This list of elements of the attack seems largely irrelevant. We could also show a list of differences between this attack and others that are chalked up to Al-Qaeda (e.g., these bombs were timer-based where those in Spain were mobile-phone-triggered; these targets were civilians headed to work rather than military at work as in the attack on the USS Cole). Those differences fail to vindicate Al-Qaeda, and vague similarities fail to implicate.

(Also, when I lived in London a decade ago, the IRA was still very active, and I did not realise that they are now considered a problem of the past and thus so fully out of consideration now--glad to hear it, as that was a very serious problem back then.) --70.24.253.222 9 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)

The mainstream IRA is officially observing a ceasefire while Adams tries to persuade them to accept defeat and disarm. The various IRA splinters (INLA, "Real IRA") have not been active lately and an attack of this scale is probably beyond them. I agree with the points in the above response. Adam 9 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)

Wikinews table

On wikinews, there is an infobox containing all of the articles found on wikinews to do with the bombings. Could we use that? --Celestianpower 9 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)

New Timings

I don't know the specific times, but it is thought that all tube bombs detonated within a minute of each other, and hence timers are believed to be used. This was announced in the recent press briefing. Anyone got the corrected times to update the article / timeline? - Aslate

The press briefing indicated all tube bombings occurred within 50 seconds of each other in the sequence Aldgate->Edgware Road->Russell Square/KX. This was collated from London Transport train movement network management data. Timings should be modified to coincide with the first Aldgate incident - Sully

No, it could be a suicide bomber as well, which then coordinate themselves. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)

Yes, that is also a possibility, but that is what the police belive is most likely at the present time. Thoy also say that the blast on the bus indicates that it was likely to be in a bag.--Aslate 9 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Older Generation "doubly injured"?

Also, the older generation is doubly injured owing to the Blitz during World War II.

I'm not sure about this line. Can anyone point me to a source it? On the BBC, they even showed one elderly gentleman who was confident that we had been through it once. Sonic Mew July 9, 2005 12:54 (UTC)

That's "doubly inured" not "doubly injured"!. -- Arwel 9 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)

I think the whole "public reaction" section is weak. Some of the sources conflate the reaction of the public as a whole, and the reaction of those directly involved. I've seen some sources say that some of those injured in the bombings reacted calmly. That could be no more than a combination of professional training and victims being mentally numbed and shocked.

The comparison to attitudes in the Blitz are, in my opinion, also unwarranted. Which hasn't stopped many commentators making the comparison. But media reaction of this sort, particularly as this was just before a weekend of WWII commemoration celebrations, does not seem that noteworthy. Carcharoth 9 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)

I also think the section is weak, and I don't like the reference to the "older generation." It's really the oldest generation of Londoners who have any memory of the Blitz (which was, to be sure, far more horrific than this event). You'd be 75 now if you were even 10 years old in 1940. "Older generation" to me sounds like the older of just two or maybe three options, when in fact it's a tiny percentage of Londoners who were in the city for the Blitz. I changed it to "oldest generation" but someone changed it back. More broadly, I think the comparisons with the Blitz are a bit off anyway and would be happy to see them taken out. Moncrief 18:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Naming?

Surely someone has a more appropriate name for the attacks than "7 July 2005 London bombings". Maybe just "2005 London Bombings" or "London Public Transport Bombings"? They still provide enough info to tell readers what is being referred to. joturner 8 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

Well, we can create redirection from your titles. but I don't think it's a good idea to change the name of this article. Are we only sure it's the last bombing in London this year ? We all hope so, but we don't know, unfortunately.--Revas 8 July 2005 23:13 (UTC)

It was named to be in line with articles on other terrorist attacks, and I think it should stay here -- see the entries in the "See Also" section. It definitely should not be moved without consensus here on the talk page, because many media articles and websites are pointing to and reporting on our coverage right now. You may create redirects from other titles people are likely to enter into search engines, though. — Catherine\^talk 8 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)

I don't see what is inappropriate about the name, which is factual and unambiguous. Given other precedents this is becoming the Wikipedia style for such events. --Dhartung | Talk 9 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

This has just been moved to 7 July 2005 London transport system bombings. I think we should move it back. Sonic Mew July 9, 2005 12:58 (UTC)

Just done so. --Celestianpower 9 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)

I agree. That was a bad move made without discussion. 7 July 2005 London bombings is fine. — Trilobite (Talk) 9 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)

Relief fund

I thought the section on the relief fund was awkward and didn't tell the reader much beyond what an external link would, in which case I thought it belonged in the external links section. TigerShark moved it back here. What do people think? — Trilobite (Talk) 9 July 2005 14:02 (UTC)

Hi. I do think that this should have a bit more of a mention than just an external link as it is, arguably, an important issue related to the event - not just extra information. Perhaps there might be somewhere else that it could be put to make it less awkward (or maybe it needs more information, or to be better written). It might also be claimed that it is not encyclopedic. I personally think that it is, as the relief fund is directly related to the attacks, but even if it isn't it might be valuable to have it there (in the same way as having the contact numbers is). I am going to put it back in again, but if it gets changed again I will not personally intervene (although I may reply to further comments). Cheers TigerShark 9 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

- Hi. I am going to put this back in, but only because it looks like it may have been removed accidentally when vandalism was reverted here. As I mentioned above I will not revert it if it is changed on purpose, as I will leave that decision to the community. Cheers TigerShark 11:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Signpost article - need help!

I'm writing a Signpost article about Wikipedia's coverage of the London bombings. Anyone who wants to help write it or contribute tidbits is welcome. Here it is. Kaldari 9 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

Problem with picture?

This picture [6] called "London-07.07.2005-trapped_underground.jpg" seems to have an error in the caption (the caption seen with the picture when you click on it, not the caption in this article). The caption says this is a Northern Line train near King's Cross. The bombing took place on the Piccadilly Line. Either the caption needs changing, or the picture should not be used here. Carcharoth 9 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

That photograph does actually appear to be taken on a Northern line train and not a Picadilly train. Northern line trains have yellow hand rails, Picadilly trains have dark blue ones. It would appear that this Northern line train was forced to stop in the tunnel near the incident but not directly involved.Fi9 13:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Different effects of the bombs

Someone added something to the 'Bombings' section speculating on why the different bombs might have had different effects. This is interesting, but is there not a danger that this will read as a "bomber's manual"? I travel on these trains, and don't really want it widely known where bombs should be placed for maximum effect. Any way to erase any discussion of this as well? Carcharoth 9 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)

Even if this is left in the article, it is currently in the wrong place. It talks about the different numbers of casualties BEFORE the numbers of casualties are mentioned in the section titled "Casualties". Again, I would like to see the whole "different effects of the bombs" bit removed altogether, but wanted to canvass opinion before I do so myself. But it definitely needs moving to after the "Casualties" bit, and probably needs moving TO the "Casualties" section. The same thoughts apply to the bit about the death toll on the bus. Carcharoth 21:54, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Started new comment below on this Carcharoth 10:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

New information - sources?

Someone's added new information like the train numbers of the tube trains involved (impressive piece of trivia - but maybe not that relevant), the direction of travel of the tube trains (the direction of travel of the Circle Line train blown up between Aldgate and Liverpool Street had previously been unclear), and an expansion of the phrase "planned diversion" (for the bus) to say that the diversion was actually due to the closure of the area around King's Cross due to the bomb on the Piccadilly Line - which is NOT a "planned diversion".

What are the sources for all these bits of extra information and changes?

And more generally, is it worth commenting somewhere in the article that the information changed in the days after the attack? Offhand I can think of several early reports that were later changed. Some are already listed under "Initial reports", but could more be added?

Timings changed; Power surge stories; larger number of explosions initially reported; Old Street and Moorgate stations mentioned at first (all already mentioned in article); plus mentions of Metropolitan Line and Northern Line (Northern Line mention probably from mention of Moorgate and Old Street; Metropolitan Line mention probably due to Aldgate/Liverpool Street also being on Metropolitan Line); locations were confused, mainly due to confusion of Aldgate with Aldgate East; Hammersmith and City Line sometimes confused with Circle Line due to use of same trains and tracks.

And nothing more on the other trains involved at Edgware Road. What lines were they on?

And why were the timings so wrong? Any explanations yet? Carcharoth 9 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)

The only part of this I can speak to is the direction of the trains, which I've just readded based on the TV footage I just saw of today's press conference. It is relevant because the directions currently reported (and this does differ from what, e.g., the BBC website says) mean that the trains could all have been loaded with bombs in the vicinity of King's Cross and sent outwards from there. Doops | talk 04:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Time Errors

I don't understand the persistence of reports giving the wrong times for the Tube explosions. Errors understandable for a few hours immediately afterward but evidence must have quickly accumulated that the times being reported were wrong.

Does reporting wrong times fulfill a security precaution?

How could that fulfill a security precaution? And also, sign your posts with four tildes. joturner 9 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

It doesn't. But I agree, with whoever started this comment, that the persistance of the wrong timings is strange. The only thing I can think of is that whoever was in a position to correct these errors (survivors and/or officials) had more important things to deal with. Things that could be discussed or commented on in the same vein are the initial reports of "power surges" (probably initially the wrong conclusion from the multiple power failures, obsereved by London Underground network controllers, at the sites of the bombings; and then this story was maintained to prevent panic), and also the speculation (later discounted) that the mobile network was shut down to prevent possible remote detonation of further bombs. I think something about the errors in timings should be added to the "inital reports" section, along with early confusion over the locations (some of which would be due to bad reporting and some due to unreliable eyewitness reports and some just due to incorrect rumours). Not sure if this is all notable enough for the main article, but this is the sort of detail that gets lost when the encyclopaedic accounts of this event are written. Carcharoth 21:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that media uses other media as sources. Once a piece of data is released it becomes near impossible to correct until an offical source (Scotland Yard) releases a press statement. Of course then the error of the time becomes a media report. --Mitrebox 00:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Map of bombings

Someone should post a map on the locations of the bombings in London.