Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:16, 9 July 2005 editTigerShark (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators17,634 edits →Relief fund ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:55, 20 October 2024 edit undoPrimeBOT (talk \| contribs)Bots2,077,782 editsm →top: Task 30: banner adjustment following a discussion Tag: AWB
(993 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	{{comment\|Due to technical problems, this page is occasionally having sections duplicated. If this occurs, it may be temporarily protected and reverted to the last non-duplicated version. It is suggested that you do not edit the page (except to fix it) while it is in such a state.}}
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
			{{Article history
			\| action1 = AFD
			\| action1date = 2005-07-10
			\| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/7 July 2005 London bombings
			\| action1result = speedy keep

			\| action2 = AFD
	----
			\| action2date = 2020-06-09
			\| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/7 July 2005 London bombings (2nd nomination)
			\| action2result = speedy keep

			\|otddate=2006-07-07
	Please add new comments '''at the bottom of the page''' or .
			\|otdoldid=62597390
			\|otd2date=2008-07-07
			\|otd2oldid=224199878
			\|otd3date=2010-07-07
			\|otd3oldid=371947073
			\|otd4date=2011-07-07
			\|otd4oldid=438320934
			\|otd5date=2013-07-07
			\|otd5oldid=563066452
			\|otd6date=2015-07-07
			\|otd6oldid=670013351\|
			\|otd7date=2018-07-07
			\|otd7oldid=849182779
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|collapsed=yes\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|terrorism=yes\|terrorism-imp=high\|importance=Mid\|serialkiller=yes\|serialkiller-imp=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Buses\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Disaster management\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Explosives\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Islam\|importance=Low\|Islam-and-Controversy=y}}
			{{WikiProject Trains\|importance=Low\|UK=yes\|UK-importance=mid\|Subway=yes\|Subway-importance=mid\|Underground=yes\|LUL-importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject London\|importance=high}}
			}}
			{{Banner holder\|collapsed=yes\|
			{{Online source\| year=2005
			\| section=July 1–10
			\| title=How the Web kept us all in the picture
			\| date=July 8, 2005
			\| org=Metro (London newspaper)
			\| year2=2005
			\| section2=July 1–10
			\| author2=Louise Story
			\| title2=Witnesses Post Instant Photos on the Web
			\| org2=The New York Times
			\| date2=July 8, 2005
			\| url2=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/international/europe/08blog.html
			\| year3=2005
			\| section3=July 1–10
			\| author3=Brian Braiker
			\| title3=History's New First Draft
			\| org3=Newsweek
			\| date3=July 8, 2005
			\| url3=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8512552/site/newsweek/page/2/
			\| url4=http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2013/08/behind-wikipedia-wars-what-happened-when-bradley-manning-became-chelsea
			\| title4=Behind the Misplaced Pages wars: what happened when Bradley Manning became Chelsea
			\| author4= lex Hern
			\| org4=The New Statesman
			\| date4=August 23, 2013
			\| year4=2013}}
			}}

			==Which Lines?==
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*I have added ] for people to list bits that have been lost in the course of ongoing edits so they can be added back later if required. ] 7 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)

			While the description of the third bombing specifies it was on the Piccadilly Line, the descriptions of the other two don't specify which lines were targeted. This might be information of interest to readers (like this one). <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	----

			:Am I misunderstanding, as they say
			:"The first exploded on a 6-car London Underground C69 and C77 Stock Circle line sub-surface train" and "The second device exploded in the second car of another 6-car London Underground C69 and C77 Stock Circle line sub-surface train"

			:Can you be more specific?] (]) 10:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
	== Archival ==
	Previous threads archived in "Archive 4" on the talk page --] 8 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)

			==Memorialisation of Offenders==
	==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. ] 8 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)

			My apologies if this is covered in the extensive archives - I ran a few searches but didn't find any results. I've arrived on this page whilst looking for information following the ] this week, and I wondered what Misplaced Pages policy was on the memorialisation of offenders whose only claim to notability was the crime they committed. I think this question is particularly relevant in cases of ideological terrorism where the propaganda - the 'myth', as it were, of the terrorist - is more important to their professed cause than the crime they actually commit. In other words, while they aim to kill as many people as they can, that's only a means to an end for them: the true end is to frighten and divide societies, and deny them the ability to live freely.
	: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. — ] (]) 8 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)

			I don't wish to diminish the need to remember those murdered by such acts, and this isn't about forgetting the crimes themselves. And I realise there are arguments for "learning as much as we can" about such offenders and their motivations, and the process by which a person might be so indoctrinated. I also accept that Misplaced Pages tries to maintain a neutral point of view and generally isn't in the business of censoring material. However, I wonder whether dedicating entire articles to the perpetrators, as linked from this article, providing their names, photographs, history, and so on, is entirely proportionate even according to those principles.
	::Thanks. ] 8 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)

			My sense that these murderers should not be memorialised does, I admit, stem from a sense of frustration that justice cannot be served on those who destroy themselves in the commission of their crimes. Their memory, then, is all there is left to sanction. I don't come here to ask for full-scale ] - but I would at least suggest we can afford to remove the names and photographs of the killers. Those details are unimportant to any of the above concerns: we do not need them to learn about the offenders' backgrounds, or study the process of their indoctrination and radicalisation. At the very, very least, I question the need to maintain full articles for each of them.
	Not logged in, but wanted to respond. I did not break the three-revert rule. After the text 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.

			I apologise if this request is overly emotional, but I hope I have made a reasonably balanced case despite that. -- ] (]) 08:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
	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:

			== Nationality table ==
	<i>] 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 ] and b) "Israel has apparently given other warnings about possible attacks that turned out to be aborted operations." </i>

			The nationality table duplicates the info in text (though less complete since it does not mention the dual nationals). It also has the controversial 'flags', which are generally deemed inapt in situations in which people are not 'representing' their counties. If there is no objection, I will remove (or 'hide') the table. ] (]) 12:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
	: 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 :) ] 8 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

			== Map in infobox ==
	: Checking once again (which I didn't have enough time to do - that's why I said "seemingly"), I can see the addition and two (pretty distinct) reverts 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. ] 8 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

			The map shows the locations of Liverpool Street (1) and Kings Cross St. Pancras (3) but the article states the bombs exploded close to Aldgate (1) and Russell Square (3). There should be some consistency. --] (]) 21:37, 5 March 2018 (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?] 8 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)

			== Lockerbie ==
	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.

			The explosion did not take place over Lockerbie. The remains of the plane landed on Lockerbie. Basic stuff. See . --] (]) 21:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
	== Map of the Underground Network ==
			:It is universally referred to by variants of 'Lockerbie bombing' in the UK. If you want to impose a non-UK description onto an article on an English subject - thereby making it unrecognisable to a UK audience - what can I say! I've amended to 'near' Lockerbie, but honestly getting pedantic about whether the airspace around Lockerbie is 'over' it or not is silly. Much of the attack on Pearl Harbor didn't actually happen in PH itself - but it happens to be how the event is named. If you want we can remove 'Pan Am Flight 103' and simply pipe 'Lockerbie bombing' - I don't want to do that as I realise it is not recognisable to a US audience and putting Lockerbie and Scotland locates the event to all. ] (]) 21:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
	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--] 8 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)
			::Calling it the Lockerbie bombing would be fine. Misplaced Pages usually uses flight numbers to identify air disasters, which I am also fine with. But we must not say that the plane exploded over Lockerbie, because it did not. --] (]) 23:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
			:::I've amended to 'near Lockerbie' .... unless you are from the Lockerbie area of Scotland, the name immediately triggers memories of this event to a UK reader, in the way that such dramatic events become associated with place names. ] (]) 17:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

			== First Muslim suicide bombing, or first suicide bombing? ==
	== New York Times and Newsday ==

			Clearly it was both, but it looks a bit stupid, or worse, bigoted, to repeat the former when the latter is the greater claim, is sourced in the article to solid source, and we have already stated the religion of the suspected perpetrators. --] (]) 21:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
	Used this article as a source. \| 8 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)

			:I'm normally one for removing unnec emphasis of 'Islamic/ist" - in this instance I think it being the first, and one of the most deadly attacks with an Islamist motive is in a sense at least as important as the method (suicide bombing). It isn't actually their religion which is stated earlier, except in the sense that Islamic terrorists are ordinarily Muslims! Maybe a text can be found that avoids the repetition. ] (]) 21:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

			== Motive ==
	==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. ] 8 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)

			I am not sure a motive is the same as the act carried out. The attackers were not motivated by Islamic terrorism, but by Islamic extremism, how they responded to that motivation was Islamic terrorism.] (]) 14:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
	==Maximum casulties?==
			:I agree with your logic about the terms verbally - but extremism is a broader phenomenon, which does not necessarily lead to violence. We write of 'right-wing terrorism' being a motive I believe, though it likewise is an act, rather than a motive. ] (]) 16:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
	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.
			::Do we, can you give an example?] (]) 07:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)2011 Norway attacks
	:My personal POV is maximum disruption - there are better ways to inflict mass casualties than to attack the transport infrastructure. ] 8 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
			:::], has 'Far-right extremism' as motive, also I believe some of the US far-right events have 'white supremacism' - which is more like the motivating beliefs behind the event than a motive. Actually in this instance, the perps gave specific motives ''(anger at Western actions in Muslim countries)''. Most similar articles have 'Is Ter' as motive. Is Islamic extremism any more a motive than Islamic terrorism, doesn't it simply characterise their beliefs? Also do sources describe extremism as the motive? I looked at several IRA events, many do not have a motive, but clearly Irish Republicanism would be the background 'philosophy', but not in itself a 'motive' in the ordinary sense of the word. I think it legitimate to put the motivating character of the event, rather than literal motive - which in this event was to cause as much mayhem and bloodshed as possible for reasons that don't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 20:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
			::::So no then you have no examples of "far right terrorism " as a motive.] (]) 09:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

			:::::I said 'I believe' - it was from memory and the main point was that a 'general descriptor' was often used, rather than a motive in the common criminal meaning. How exactly is 'extremism' a motive? ] (]) 20:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
	50 plus people dead at Yahoo! News. --] 8 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

			== Alexander Litvinenko claim ==
	== 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.
	--] 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 ] although the name of the guy Internets makes me think of the Something Awful crowd. ] 8 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

			Since the claim is so vaguely worded and the coverage in RS so thin, I'm inclined to think not, but am happy to follow what others think. I HAVE already removed the "Other theories" heading, such that the text is now in "Conspiracy theories" section. ] (]) 11:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
	: This doesn't require a section on the talk page. Just remove vandalism from the article when you see it. End of story. ] July 8, 2005 16:10 (UTC)
			:I say it was bollocks, with absolutely piss-poor sourcing. ] (]) 13:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

			:See ]. Indymedia (given as the only reference in the claim) is categorised as a "generally unreliable source". Without any other source to back up the claim I think it should be deleted immediately. --] (]) 17:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
	==MSNBC Translator Claim==
	This bit seems a little flakey:

			== Islamophobia ==
	: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. 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.

			I was surprised there was not a single reference to Islamophobia in this article, as the 7/7 attacks led to a lot of Islamophobia. I will add it to the See Also section, but I think that someone more knowledgeable than I should add a section regarding Islamophobia to the article.
	Is Al Qaeda known for their perfect grammar? --] 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
			Thanks!
			] (]) 14:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

			:You do not have to be knowledgeable about any subject to contribute to an article on Misplaced Pages. What you do need to be able to do is find reliable and verifiable sources that allow to to add relevant content. Be bold. Do it yourself. ] (]) 22:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
	::See also ]. 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. — ] (]) 8 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)
			== "]" listed at ] ==
	:::Ok I've taken it out. --] 8 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 12#2005 London bombings}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 22:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
			== "]" listed at ] ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 1#7.7}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 03:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~Condolences~~ ~~from~~ ~~upstate~~ ~~New York~~ ==		== Info table at top ==

			The info table near the top has an error so it extends further to the right even though there is no text that takes up the space (on a mobile device at least). I can't figure out how to fix it right now.
	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 ]. May God be with you. ] <small>]</small> 8 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)

			''-FS'' ] (]) 17:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
	:Here's a site where you can write your condolences to the people of London: ] July 8, 2005 16:22 (UTC)

	== ~~Photos~~ ==		== edited explosive used. ==

			I edited the explosive used, it was not TATP, it was concentrated hydrogen peroxide and pepper, according to the coroner https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/01/july7-uksecurity
	I see that some flickr photos are available under a creative commons license that seems wikipedia compatible. For example
	* http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=24232837&size=o&context=pool-74918957@N00
	* license at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
	--] 8 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

			If someone would like to add that as a reference, I don't know how, perhaps mentioning that the coroner said the explosive was "entirely unique", that would be good.
	* the image you have given as an example was stolen from the BBC --] 8 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)

			Some notes:
	== Abu Hamza al-Masri ==
			the detonator used HMTD. No TATP involved.
	Early on, someone had noted that the trial of ] 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? --] 8 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)
	:I think we should add it in. ] 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. ] 8 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
	: Well it's probably more significant than the Olympics - he is one of the UK's leading islamicists. ] 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. ] 8 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

			The 21/7 bombers used concentrated hydrogen peroxide oxidiser and chapatti flour fuel. afaik (I should) these are the only concentrated hydrogen peroxide /fuel bombings anywhere, though CHP/Fuel explosives were implicated in the "liquid explosive" plot, operation overt.
	==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? ] 8 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)
	:: More pictures are good. I think we should try ot limit ourselves to two pictures per section though. ] 8 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

			Peter Fairbrother ] (]) 13:40, 2 May 2024 (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 Misplaced Pages article. Has he/she given any rationale for the photo removal? ] 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. ] 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. --] 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. — ] (]) 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. ] 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? ] 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 ] 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. ] 8 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
	:: I think a visit of the Queen, is very notable and worthy of inclusion ] 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages, at any stage in an article's development. ] July 9, 2005 00:41 (UTC)

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

	== Percentages ==

	I changed numerical values of 'per cent' to '%' in accordance with the ]. It was then reverted. Was my edit and hence the Manual of Style guidance totally unacceptable? ]  ] 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. --] \| ] 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 ] article is the best reference of understanding muslim idea's about thier god. ] 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. — ] (]) 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.] 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. — ] (]) 8 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

	==claim of responsibility in first section==
	] 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 ] and the ], 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 ], 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. ] 8 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)

	It's POV because it's conflating the ] and the ] with the bombings.It is considdered bad taste to compare war casualties with victems of terror attacks. ] 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. ] 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 ] and the ]. ''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. ] 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. ] 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? ] 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. ] 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. --] 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. ] 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.] 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. ] 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.] 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.]
	::Can you answer in one single paragraph ? It's unreadable. Thank you.--] 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. --] 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.)] 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.--] 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'. --] 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: ] where the claim is made and the ]. 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.) ] 8 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

	::::Well, I'm ('''voluntay''') going direcly to the ] 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: ] where the claim is made and the ]. ''
	::::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,--] 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 ]: ''whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly.'' ] 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. ] (proud owner of a ] ;-) 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. ] 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. — ]\<sup>]</sup> 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. ] 9 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)

	==Timers==
	"The attacks on the Underground system were detonated by timers." - I don't believe that this is known yet, is it? ] 8 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

	I think it is correct but don't know absolutely if this has been verified - can anyone help here? ] 8 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)

	== Return Wikinews back to top ==

	Could we please put Wikinews back at the top. I'll do it if no-one disagrees. --] 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.--] 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? --] 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. — ] (]) 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 --]

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

	==]==
	I have created this new template, which is based on ]. 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. {{Jul7Bom}} Thanks for noticing! (oh, and do edit as you see fit - but no vandalism, ''por favor''.)] — ] \| ] 9 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)
	*I just added the second article to the template. ] 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. ] 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. ] 9 July 2005 14:24 (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. ] 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.) --] 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. ] 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? --] 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

	No, it could be a suicide bomber as well, which then coordinate themselves. -- ] 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.--] 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. ] July 9, 2005 12:54 (UTC)

	:That's '''''"doubly inured"''''' not "doubly injured"!. -- ] 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. ] 9 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)

	== Naming? ==

	Surely someone has a more appropriate name for the attacks than "]". Maybe just "]" or "]"? They still provide enough info to tell readers what is being referred to. ] 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.--] 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. — ]\<sup>]</sup> 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 Misplaced Pages style for such events. --] \| ] 9 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

	::::This has just been moved to ]. I think we should move it back. ] July 9, 2005 12:58 (UTC)

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

	:::::I agree. That was a bad move made without discussion. ] is fine. — ] (]) 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. ] moved it back . What do people think? — ] (]) 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 ] 9 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)

	== Signpost article - need help! ==

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

Latest revision as of 17:55, 20 October 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 7 July 2005 London bombings article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 10, 2005	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept
June 9, 2020	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept

Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 7, 2006, July 7, 2008, July 7, 2010, July 7, 2011, July 7, 2013, July 7, 2015, and July 7, 2018.

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers / Terrorism Mid‑importance

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

Buses Low‑importance

	Buses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Explosives Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Islam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.

Trains: Rapid transit / in UK / in London Low‑importance

	Trains Portal

	London Transport Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject London Transport (assessed as Top-importance).

London High‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other talk page banners

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

"How the Web kept us all in the picture". Metro (London newspaper). July 8, 2005.
Louise Story (July 8, 2005). "Witnesses Post Instant Photos on the Web". The New York Times.
Brian Braiker (July 8, 2005). "History's New First Draft". Newsweek.
lex Hern (August 23, 2013). "Behind the Misplaced Pages wars: what happened when Bradley Manning became Chelsea". The New Statesman.

Which Lines?

While the description of the third bombing specifies it was on the Piccadilly Line, the descriptions of the other two don't specify which lines were targeted. This might be information of interest to readers (like this one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.162 (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Am I misunderstanding, as they say

"The first exploded on a 6-car London Underground C69 and C77 Stock Circle line sub-surface train" and "The second device exploded in the second car of another 6-car London Underground C69 and C77 Stock Circle line sub-surface train"

Can you be more specific?Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Memorialisation of Offenders

My apologies if this is covered in the extensive archives - I ran a few searches but didn't find any results. I've arrived on this page whilst looking for information following the Manchester attack this week, and I wondered what Misplaced Pages policy was on the memorialisation of offenders whose only claim to notability was the crime they committed. I think this question is particularly relevant in cases of ideological terrorism where the propaganda - the 'myth', as it were, of the terrorist - is more important to their professed cause than the crime they actually commit. In other words, while they aim to kill as many people as they can, that's only a means to an end for them: the true end is to frighten and divide societies, and deny them the ability to live freely.

I don't wish to diminish the need to remember those murdered by such acts, and this isn't about forgetting the crimes themselves. And I realise there are arguments for "learning as much as we can" about such offenders and their motivations, and the process by which a person might be so indoctrinated. I also accept that Misplaced Pages tries to maintain a neutral point of view and generally isn't in the business of censoring material. However, I wonder whether dedicating entire articles to the perpetrators, as linked from this article, providing their names, photographs, history, and so on, is entirely proportionate even according to those principles.

My sense that these murderers should not be memorialised does, I admit, stem from a sense of frustration that justice cannot be served on those who destroy themselves in the commission of their crimes. Their memory, then, is all there is left to sanction. I don't come here to ask for full-scale damnatio memoriae - but I would at least suggest we can afford to remove the names and photographs of the killers. Those details are unimportant to any of the above concerns: we do not need them to learn about the offenders' backgrounds, or study the process of their indoctrination and radicalisation. At the very, very least, I question the need to maintain full articles for each of them.

I apologise if this request is overly emotional, but I hope I have made a reasonably balanced case despite that. -- Trillioris (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Nationality table

The nationality table duplicates the info in text (though less complete since it does not mention the dual nationals). It also has the controversial 'flags', which are generally deemed inapt in situations in which people are not 'representing' their counties. If there is no objection, I will remove (or 'hide') the table. Pincrete (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Map in infobox

The map shows the locations of Liverpool Street (1) and Kings Cross St. Pancras (3) but the article states the bombs exploded close to Aldgate (1) and Russell Square (3). There should be some consistency. --TBM10 (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Lockerbie

The explosion did not take place over Lockerbie. The remains of the plane landed on Lockerbie. Basic stuff. See here, Fig. B4. --John (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It is universally referred to by variants of 'Lockerbie bombing' in the UK. If you want to impose a non-UK description onto an article on an English subject - thereby making it unrecognisable to a UK audience - what can I say! I've amended to 'near' Lockerbie, but honestly getting pedantic about whether the airspace around Lockerbie is 'over' it or not is silly. Much of the attack on Pearl Harbor didn't actually happen in PH itself - but it happens to be how the event is named. If you want we can remove 'Pan Am Flight 103' and simply pipe 'Lockerbie bombing' - I don't want to do that as I realise it is not recognisable to a US audience and putting Lockerbie and Scotland locates the event to all. Pincrete (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Calling it the Lockerbie bombing would be fine. Misplaced Pages usually uses flight numbers to identify air disasters, which I am also fine with. But we must not say that the plane exploded over Lockerbie, because it did not. --John (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I've amended to 'near Lockerbie' .... unless you are from the Lockerbie area of Scotland, the name immediately triggers memories of this event to a UK reader, in the way that such dramatic events become associated with place names. Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

First Muslim suicide bombing, or first suicide bombing?

Clearly it was both, but it looks a bit stupid, or worse, bigoted, to repeat the former when the latter is the greater claim, is sourced in the article to this solid source, and we have already stated the religion of the suspected perpetrators. --John (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm normally one for removing unnec emphasis of 'Islamic/ist" - in this instance I think it being the first, and one of the most deadly attacks with an Islamist motive is in a sense at least as important as the method (suicide bombing). It isn't actually their religion which is stated earlier, except in the sense that Islamic terrorists are ordinarily Muslims! Maybe a text can be found that avoids the repetition. Pincrete (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Motive

I am not sure a motive is the same as the act carried out. The attackers were not motivated by Islamic terrorism, but by Islamic extremism, how they responded to that motivation was Islamic terrorism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your logic about the terms verbally - but extremism is a broader phenomenon, which does not necessarily lead to violence. We write of 'right-wing terrorism' being a motive I believe, though it likewise is an act, rather than a motive. Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Do we, can you give an example?Slatersteven (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)2011 Norway attacks

2011 Norway attacks, has 'Far-right extremism' as motive, also I believe some of the US far-right events have 'white supremacism' - which is more like the motivating beliefs behind the event than a motive. Actually in this instance, the perps gave specific motives (anger at Western actions in Muslim countries). Most similar articles have 'Is Ter' as motive. Is Islamic extremism any more a motive than Islamic terrorism, doesn't it simply characterise their beliefs? Also do sources describe extremism as the motive? I looked at several IRA events, many do not have a motive, but clearly Irish Republicanism would be the background 'philosophy', but not in itself a 'motive' in the ordinary sense of the word. I think it legitimate to put the motivating character of the event, rather than literal motive - which in this event was to cause as much mayhem and bloodshed as possible for reasons that don't make a lot of sense. Pincrete (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

So no then you have no examples of "far right terrorism " as a motive.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I said 'I believe' - it was from memory and the main point was that a 'general descriptor' was often used, rather than a motive in the common criminal meaning. How exactly is 'extremism' a motive? Pincrete (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Litvinenko claim

Is this claim worthy of inclusion? Since the claim is so vaguely worded and the coverage in RS so thin, I'm inclined to think not, but am happy to follow what others think. I HAVE already removed the "Other theories" heading, such that the text is now in "Conspiracy theories" section. Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I say it was bollocks, with absolutely piss-poor sourcing. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RSPSS. Indymedia (given as the only reference in the claim) is categorised as a "generally unreliable source". Without any other source to back up the claim I think it should be deleted immediately. --10mmsocket (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Islamophobia

I was surprised there was not a single reference to Islamophobia in this article, as the 7/7 attacks led to a lot of Islamophobia. I will add it to the See Also section, but I think that someone more knowledgeable than I should add a section regarding Islamophobia to the article. Thanks! Education-over-easy (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You do not have to be knowledgeable about any subject to contribute to an article on Misplaced Pages. What you do need to be able to do is find reliable and verifiable sources that allow to to add relevant content. Be bold. Do it yourself. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

"2005 London bombings" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2005 London bombings has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 12 § 2005 London bombings until a consensus is reached. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"7.7" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 7.7 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 1 § 7.7 until a consensus is reached. Okmrman (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Info table at top

The info table near the top has an error so it extends further to the right even though there is no text that takes up the space (on a mobile device at least). I can't figure out how to fix it right now.

-FS 2600:1700:AFD0:C30:C95:8ED6:AFDF:A776 (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

edited explosive used.

I edited the explosive used, it was not TATP, it was concentrated hydrogen peroxide and pepper, according to the coroner https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/01/july7-uksecurity

If someone would like to add that as a reference, I don't know how, perhaps mentioning that the coroner said the explosive was "entirely unique", that would be good.

Some notes: the detonator used HMTD. No TATP involved.

The 21/7 bombers used concentrated hydrogen peroxide oxidiser and chapatti flour fuel. afaik (I should) these are the only concentrated hydrogen peroxide /fuel bombings anywhere, though CHP/Fuel explosives were implicated in the "liquid explosive" plot, operation overt.

Peter Fairbrother 62.3.121.230 (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories: