Talk:21 July 2005 London bombings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name

The name should be revised, we don't know what the incidents are yet, so I don't think we should use the same terms as the 7th July bombings. -- Joolz 12:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Early reports to TFL staff saying it's bombs with no explosive

And it can always be moved appropriately depending on what happens during the day. As of right now it should stay. Hansamurai 13:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

change the header

Maybe suspect bombs would be more appropriate.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.3.82 (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Title

It is not clear that these are "bombings" but they are definitely "explosions" -hence this article should be at 21 July 2005 London explosions.. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The title of this page is now misleading. The devices involved were not viable "bombs" (i.e they didn't work) so I'm at odds with the idea that these were "bombings". "attempted bombings" would be more accurate or a revert to the original title. MRSC 21:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Problem with this sentence "They said that the man was wearing a large winter coat, despite the hot weather" - Yesterday was not a hot day. In fact, by comparison to the rest of the week it was quite cold. I'm going to change it slightly --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Title

Hey guys, there's also 21 July 2005 London bombings! Redirect one to the other, please! (And take care of double redirects.) Lupo 13:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's a good idea to keep this article for now, and if the incidents turn out to be nothing serious, we can merge this article back into the 7 July 2005 London bombings article. Andrew 13:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Argh! The OTHER article was MUCH better for external links and wikilinks to places involved. -- Arwel 13:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I propose redirecting this article to the 21 July 2005 London bombings article, which seems to have more editors working on it, and also is linked to by the 7 July 2005 London bombings article. Any objections? --Brendanfox 13:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It's been redirected the other way Paul Weaver 13:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • We need to merge the histories, but it'll have to wait as the article is so active at the moment. Warofdreams 13:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I've now merged the page histories. Warofdreams 16:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed: I think this is the right place for the article until we know there were actual bombs (and not just minor explosions): I have attempted to merge in the info from the other article: the last version of the other article is here. Can we keep it togther now, please? We can merge histories and move to 21_July_2005_London_bombings if necessary when the situation becomes a little clearer. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Geez, you people don't waste time, when it comes to making articles on events as they happen. Good on ya.--Kross 13:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hahah, I added the initial paragraph into the 7 July page with a link to a new article, and by the time I'd typed something up to put into the new article, four or five other editors had beat me to it! --Brendanfox 13:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

yeah I heard about it around 1245, waited 10 minutes and posted on the 7th page at 12:56. Good job again wikipedians! Adidas 13:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps an "events of July 2005 in London" could be created with two subsections (hoping that there are no more incidents).

There is no evidence at present that the two sequences of events are connected. (And, as was said in a somewhat different context, two different murderers operating independently could well occupy the same building.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion from duplicate article 'bombings'

The 21 July 2005 London explosions and 21 July 2005 London bombings articles were merged. So here's the original discussion page (indented) from the 'bombings' article' --Brendanfox 13:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The name should be revised, we don't know what the incidents are yet, so I don't think we should use the same terms as the 7th July bombings. -- Joolz 12:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Early reports to TFL staff saying it's bombs with no explosive

And it can always be moved appropriately depending on what happens during the day. As of right now it should stay. Hansamurai 13:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

== change the header ==

Maybe suspect bombs would be more appropriate.

== Title ==

It is not clear that these are "bombings" but they are definitely "explosions" -hence this article should be at 21 July 2005 London explosions.. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Casualties

Have any casualties/fatalities been reported? DarthVader 14:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

One casualtie has been reported on BBC World Service. It has not been reported how severe it is. --193.4.198.10 14:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Some reports have claimed that one of the "bombers" was the only person injird.--JK the unwise 14:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Arrested man

The BBC reporter said that the arrested man did not appear to be carrying anything, nor have anything on his belt, but an entry here says he has a detonator. Can anyone confirm either of these? Shen 14:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Which arrested man? The one outside Downing Street or the one who was reported here to have been nabbed in the trauma room of the hospital? (And what's the source for that? I've been trying to confirm without luck.) CrashN2Me 14:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the information about a man being caught in the trauma room be removed? I have been scouring news reports and have absolutely no confirmation on this at all. I will probably remove it unless someone objects.

I was talking about the Whitehall man, who was led away; I got a bit confused. Thanks for clearing that up. Shen

I've seen several references now on BBC news to the hospital information, but nothing specifically mentioning the trauma room man - only references to the notice of the description being passed around. gblock

I'm going to remove the reference to the trauma room since this cannot be confirmed. CrashN2Me 15:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The consensus now seems to be that both arrests were in Downing St./Whitehall area. Has anyone confirmed whether the arrest near Oval was real? Barnabypage 16:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Image

This image Image:London21 route.jpg appears to be copyrighted to google --> we cant use it.--JK the unwise 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

But we can link to it?

Can't link to it because it was generated on google maps, there is no stable image to link to.--JK the unwise 15:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

How come Google Maps has an icon that reads "link to this image" then? (I know it's probably a dumb question.)

Me dumb. You right. I suppose it can be linked to then.--JK the unwise 15:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The image Image:London July21 Map.gif is copy righted to BBC. DO NOT USE.--JK the unwise 15:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I was wondering why it was being removed. ;)

Here's one on commons with a CC license: Image:London bombing 21 july 05 newspaper.jpg. slambo 17:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Bad formatting

I'm getting bad formatting (repeated sections). This happened with the article two weeks ago. Is it an artifact of the wiki code or just clumsy wikipedians dealing with editing conflicts?

It's bug 265 in the bugzilla. And it is being fixed now. -- 129.143.213.170 15:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This was caused by one user, 69.134.118.200, who also made vandal edits. So I assume this was intentional vandalism. The problem user has been blocked. Thue | talk 15:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd noticed the mischief. It's nice to see wikipedians go the extra mile and repair damage to other peoples' user pages when the kids come here to break things!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.197.108 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I submitted the image and it's been removed in the pruning process. Hopefully the current image from BBC will stay up.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Donwilson (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the image was removed because it is a BBC copyvio? Check the history.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.197.108 (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Organization

I think that we need to make larger headers and seperate the smaller sections (currently now the normal sections) so that the 'Contents' box can be greatly shortened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donwilson (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the contents of the contents box, you will see that it is relatively short except for when sections have been repeated due to the bug.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.197.108 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, after the administrative editing it looks much better.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Donwilson (talk • contribs) 15:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Mention on main page

In my arrogant opinion, the main page could have a mention of the mildness of these ones. What with the July 7th we must be causing an awful lot of nasty shocks. --Kizor 17:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Rectified. I thank you. --Kizor 17:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Spelling of COBRA

It seems someone is insisting on COBRA being spelt as "COBR" but not providing any references that the latter is correct. The BBC, the Guardian, Number 10 all refer to it as "Cobra" or "COBRA", and I see no references that indicate that that's incorrect. Also, even if it is incorrect, the common name for it is clearly COBRA, and that's what should be used. -- Joolz 17:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The number-10.gov.uk site uses both spellings, but COBRA more than twice as often as COBR. -- Barnabypage

The article at wikipedia uses COBR. --Pym98 17:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The following spell it with an A: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4703853.stm - http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7859.asp - http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,11032,816220,00.html - where are the authoratitive sources which state differently? -- Joolz 17:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The article used COBRA (and the name still has the A in the title) until someone changed it this afternoon -- Joolz 17:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to the Cabinet Office Briefing Room A article. --Pym98 18:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I know, so was I. Up until someone changed it today, it was using COBRA. -- Joolz 18:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, i changed it because when i read this today, i also read that article, which went to COBRA. the name is also used in the article they told me to read :)

Can you clarify please? are you saying you changed everything at Cabinet Office Briefing Room A to COBR because this article (this one, here) spells it as COBR, or the other way round? Also, you can sign your comment by typing ~~~~ so everyone knows who you are! Joolz 18:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you changed it to COBRA (just checked your contributions ;) -- Joolz 18:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

A bit childish for someone to include a link at No10 showing "Cobra" and then ask for evidence for "COBR". The same site has both, you just arbitrarily chose the page that supports your argument! Good approach to debate on accuracy and evidence which bodes well for this resource...not. It is possible that the BBC and Grauniad are wrong: citing their output proves nothing - it is evidence, but not official nor definitive evidence. If you heard the term "cobra" you would write it down with an 'a'. Room A is a general meeting room in the same building. COBR is a suite of many rooms (and not a committee as also claimed). As for the point about general use: what do you prefer, fact or popular myth? You should be concerned with getting the right information, not settling for what people think is right because no-one has questioned it before. Joe

Actually, I chose that link because that's the one which is linked in Cabinet Office Briefing Room A! A search with google shows 31 results for COBRA and 15 for COBR. Also, note that Wikipedia does not follow the "official names", it follows the common names. -- Joolz 19:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It is irrelevant how you found that particular page: indeed, that page may be the very basis of the mistake I say has been made in the first place. (I hope you are not employed in research.) You should not challenge others to do something you could easily do yourself and put it in a way that suggests the evidence does not exist, just to support your point. A big problem in this resource is people hunting only for information that supports their view, thus legitimising mistakes. Such people start from the basis that everything in this site is right, and anything contradicting it must be proven - even if the original wiki text has no official or definitive sources and thus cannot be proven itself. PS BBC and Grauniad are not authoratative. PPS Facts are not proven by hit counts on Google. Joe

Even the Prime Minister's office refers to COBRA, as standing for Cabinet Office Briefing Room A, and also uses the term as if it refers to a committee ("COBRA would be meeting tomorrow" - [1]). So whether or not this was an incorrect spelling, or meaning, at one time, it is obviously accepted usage now by a source that is as official as it gets. Language changes and this is an example. Barnabypage

COBR is the definitive term, as far as I understand it. Where it's been called COBRA, I think that's the result of mistaken transcriptions from the way that it's normally pronounced. See e.g. http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=cobr+site%3Agov.uk&btnG=Search&meta= and try searching for COBR on Hansard as well [2]. -- ChrisO 23:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Given the contentiousness on this issue, I'm not going to edit but I suggest that 'mistakenly' is removed from the COBR(A) article, and that the 21 July article refer to "COBR (sometimes called COBRA)" or vice-versa. -- Barnabypage

I've edited that article to remove the completely unsupported "mistakenly" and reflect actual usage. --Dhartung | Talk 02:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Simultaneity of explosions

Sources are contradictory and self-contradictory on the simultaneity of the explosions but there are strong indications that the bus bomb was substantially later, maybe by an hour or so. A definitive timeline would be good. -- Barnabypage 18:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Writing style when reporting live events

Please do not use phrasings such as "There is a police cordon around the area and traffic is at a standstill." Instead, write "As of <time such and such> there is a police cordon around the area and traffic is at a standstill." --Knut Arne Vedaa 19:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You mean "as of time such-and-such there was..."? -- Nickptar not logged in 19:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't "at 2:00pm, police cordoned off Such-and-Such Square" be even better? Barnabypage 20:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Also please make sure that reference links are included in the sentence to which they refer, and not at the start of the following sentence! - MPF 22:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Article title

Should we rename this article as 21 July 2005 London bombings to match 7 July 2005 London bombings? -- ChrisO 21:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

No, because as has been discussed, these are so far only explosions, not necessarily bombings. If anything, they're 'attempted bombings'.--Psyk0 22:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems they don't conform to the Wiki definition of bomb. --Barnabypage

So, if you want consistency between the two articles, call them "terrorist attacks" in which neither succeeded at terror, the first failed because the British are a tough people, the second because Murphy, as in Murphy's Law, was not on their side. AlMac|^(talk) 00:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This page should be moved to "bombings." By now, it's virtually certain that these explosions were caused by bombs, and most media stories refer to these as "bombings". —Lowellian (talk) 11:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone object to such a move? -- Joolz 12:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with it. violet/riga (t) 12:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

There was never any serious doubt about whether these incidents were bombings (or attempted bombings if you like). What else could they be? Mirror Vax 18:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the move as well. There is substantive evidence that it is a planned bombing. - Tεxτurε 18:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

They were bombs. People put them in places. Ergo, they were bombings. [[smoddy]] 21:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Given that the bombs failed to go off, wouldn't "attempted bombings" be more accurate? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

USA TV talking heads are speculating that British Intelligence has come up with some system of preventing explosive devices from going off. I am inclined to believe this is a phony report because if true, why is this capability not being used in Iraq and other places. But there are times that disinformation is a good thing. In WW II the Axis was led to believe the Normandy invasion would be at Calais. Perhaps we need a similar system of disinformation to mislead future terrorist attacks into thinking they cannot succeed because some technology is used to prevent the bombs from going off, and for reasons of national security, the details are not being shared. AlMac|^(talk) 00:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

They sound like complete idiots to me. Some kind of magical bomb prevention device? yeah, right... -- Joolz 00:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Confusing Layout

The layout is confusing, especially in the 'subsequent events' sections. The timeline could be improved, by adding timestamps to the events Adidas 10:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it might get slightly confusing over what happened at what time, I'm not sure how to make it a better layout though -- Joolz 10:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go at it, and I've tried to find times for all the incidents, I think Timeline of the 2005 London bombings needs updating. -- Joolz 11:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Pictures of bombers (Are the bombers asian or a mixed bag?)

I've just seen the pictures of bombing suspects released a few minutes ago, and claims that they are asian men. But having looked at the four pictures, the first guy wearing new york shirt looks white, the second guy looks like Indian and NOT Pakistani, the third guy looks black, and the fourth guy's ethnicity is indeterminate. This makes me wonder, is the London Police just releasing bullshit? How on God's green earth can they call these people asians and especially Pakistani origin asians? 202.165.255.18 15:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Realize that Indians and Pakistanis are all considered south asians. - Tεxτurε 15:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I've just reviewed online sources and I can't find a single police "claim" that the photographed suspects are Asian. (To my eyes, only the one with the backpack looks Pakistani; the others may be African or, like Lindsay, Caribbean blacks. One is biracial.) There is, however, a claim that the man shot running from police was Asian. My guess is that you, or your media source, confused these reports. --Dhartung | Talk 16:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Well the Bombers IMHO sure aren't ethnic Brits. (unsigned comment left by 132.241.41.75 in the wrong section of this talk page)

I think the confusion in this section is because of the different use of the word "Asian" in the US & the UK. See British Asian. Cromis 20:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

suspect thumbnails not displaying?

I added this

<gallery>
Image:21july-london-bombings-suspect1.jpg
Image:21july-london-bombings-suspect2.jpg
Image:21july-london-bombings-suspect3.jpg
Image:21july-london-bombings-suspect4.jpg
</gallery>

but the thumbnails don't appear to be working for me in Internet Explorer or Firefox. Could it be because the files are on the commons, and the image:whatever bits link to a wikipedia page with a link to the commons page? The original files are at [3][4][5][6] --81.154.236.221 17:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why the thumbnails aren't working, but since they've been uploaded to the commons they'll likely be removed in a little while because they won't be under a free licence, which the commons requires. We can claim fairuse, but not on the commons. -- Joolz 17:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

what do you mean by free license? I don't think the met police give a damn what you do with the images, the most important thing to everybody right now is to get them visible.--81.154.236.221 17:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Images on the commons need to be available for anyone for any purpose, and these don't qualify (unless the Police have explicitly released them into the public domain) -- Joolz 17:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

the gallery now uses images uploaded to wikipedia. If someone is certain that the images shouldn't be on the commons, I'm sure they can be deleted. --81.154.236.221 18:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If the Met are like normal government departments (they might be), and the images were part of a press release (pretty sure they are), then the Crown Copyright is waived, so they'd be effectively CC-BY and suitable for Commons. If. James F. (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Use is legitimate in the context of news reporting, anyway. Barnabypage 01:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)w

I imagine the copyright belongs to LU who operate the CCTV. ed g2s • talk 14:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Harrow Road

The 'incident on Harrow Road' was a house raid wasn't it? We should probably have this under the investigation section, which we don't really seem to be covering at the moment. Should the shooting go under that too? -- Joolz 20:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Distinguishing between the early and later arrests

Have renamed what was Arrests as The first arrests, and what was Suspects as Suspects and later arrests, which should make the article a bit more logical for readers seeking arrest information. Maybe someone who has the time would care to shape all the arrest-related material into one section? Barnabypage 20:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Layout

I've moved the Harrow Road incident into the investigation, which is what it was (rather than a subsequent incident). I think the layout is still quite confusing, I think if we put "Suicide attacks?" and "Chemical attacks?" into the 'Explosions' section, after the casualties section, because it's not really part of the investigation. I think the shooting in Stockwell tube station should either stay where it is if the Police thought that they were stopping another suicide attack, or go into the investigation if the guy was being investigated as a suspect at the time. Thoughts? (If nobody says anything i'll just go ahead and do it ;) -- Joolz 14:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• I would also advise keeping the claims of responsibility section (3.3) and the relationships to july 7 bombing section (3.1) together, since the july 7 bombing section touches upon the terrorist cell claiming responsibility... --T-mccool 14:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

One London Suspect Wore 'New York' Shirt

I'm not sure why the AP reported One London Suspect Wore 'New York' Shirt. Clearly from picture of the suspect that's not what it says. Could anyone clear this up for me?

• I'm pretty sure it says 'New York'. --T-mccool 13:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • It did say New York. I don't think there's any doubt about that. Just that, in my opinion, this seems to be completely irrelevant to the case. I'm not even sure whether or not this should be mentioned in the article. It'd be different if the man whad been standing in a crowd; then they could say the suspect is the man wearing the shirt that says 'New York'. But being that the man was alone in the picture... Regards, Redux 17:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I know it's irrelevant to the case, (And I also found out that Talk pages aren't meant for this kind of use) but how in the world do you actually see it say 'New York' in that image? It looks like 'New You'. I don't see where you're getting the letters R and K from? I asked several people I know about this, and they don't understand either. So what am I missing?
      • Actually, we can use the talk page to discuss details that [the poster] believes has or might have any relevance to the article. Feel free to ask questions about the topic here or in any article's talk page. All you have to do is stay on topic. A tip: when you post on talk pages, sign your comments with tildes (~~~~). If you don't have an account, the system will sign it using your IP address in lieu of a screen name. The IP address is identified in the History Page anyways, so it doesn't make much difference privacywise — if you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, I encourage you to register, there are many advantages to being a registered user; just use the link on the upper far righthand corner of the screen; if you'd rather not register though, you're still very much welcome to contribute. About the shirt: you are right, the image doesn't show clearly "New York", just "ew yo", as far as I could tell. Maybe this is at the source: wasn't the Metropolitan Police the one to say first that the shirt said "New York" (why they said it, I don't know, since it's irrelevant...)? The press probably just ran with it. You could say that the police would know what they are saying. They must have one of those image enhancement softwares. That's me speculating though. Regards, Redux 20:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
        • The image is a screen capture from CCTV cameras, it's probably easier to make out on the film, it's relevent to the Police because they've released the image to see if anyone has seen the guy. And I think they found the top discarded somewhere (I think), so they'd have been able to read it first hand -- Joolz 20:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
          • True, still shots from films that are not hi-res usually render a fuzzy image. The actual film is probably far more clear. About the police, it could be. Although "New York" is probably one of the most common things written on shirts, sweatshirts and similars. But indeed, in a case like this, one must cover all bases. They were right to spread the word. Umm, maybe this should go in the article (I don't believe it is there right now). Redux 20:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Joolz - they mentioned at today's press conference the street where the suspect had discarded the top so yes, presumably the police did find it; I don't know when. Barnabypage 14:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• The articles I read that mentioned "one suspect wore a New York shirt" was that they wanted to point out how common the attire wass of the terrorists. They went on to mention the man with a white baseball cap and gray shirt that had a palm tree design on it, and so on, so they weren't just explaining what the terrorists were wearing, they possibly wanted to make the point of how they could seem so anonymous. T-mccool 04:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Man shot by police

Would you guys be interested in more background (biographic) information on the Brazilian man shot by police in the subway? I have a couple of articles from the Brazilian press that give some information on his background, his family's reaction and the Brazilian government's reaction to the incident. If you'd like, I can translate them, or just the relevant parts, into English and post the translations here, on this talk page, so that we can decide what, if anything, can be added to the article's section. Unless of course you are satisfied with what is already in the article. Just let me know. In any case, I've added an entry to the news section of the Brazil Wikiportal that contains a couple of details about him that are not on this article. If you wish, use it. Regards, Redux 16:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Probably the best place for biographical details would be the guy's own article, but sure, go ahead! -- Joolz 17:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe he'd be notable enough to merit his own article on Wikipedia. Unless over the next few weeks this case takes in a lot of attention and has much repercussion. Otherwise, a subsection on this article about him and the incident should suffice. As I said, maybe the community deems what is already in the article to be sufficient. I have not been involved with the article thus far, and would not like to disturb the logic of the work that is being done here by clogging the article with information that most think should not be included. But let me give a sample of what I could provide:

• From an article of the online version of A Folha de São Paulo (leading newspaper from São Paulo): (...) A speaker for Scotland Yard has informed that Menezes' four cousins who also reside in London have been placed in a hotel, so that they can be spared the press inquires and thus have more privacy and comfort to deal with this terrible situation. It seems obvious that the Scotland Yard will be picking up the bill.
• From the online edition of O Globo (leading newspaper in Rio de Janeiro): The man killed in the London subway this friday was Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, a 26 year-old. His family is from the rural area of Gonzaga, in the west of the state of Minas Gerais. The victim's cousin, who recognized the body, told that he was in the country legally, had a fix job as an electrician and spoke English fluently. Still shaken from the news of the death, his family is still unaware of when the body would be brought back to Brazil. Itamaraty [Brazil's Ministry of Foreign Affairs] is expected to call a press conference to address the issue this Saturday. They await only a formal communication from the British authorities. First news that the victim was a Brazilian came from the newspaper 'The Observer', which is supposed to have gotten the information from police sources. Rumors grew considerably when the Metropolitan Police sent officers to the Brazilian Embassy in London. Menezes was killed while on his way to work. Allegedly, he was shot because his clothes and general behavior caused policemen at the station to suspect him. Maria Alves, Menezes' cousin who lives in São Paulo, said that Jean had been living in London for the past five years. He lived with other four cousins. Menezes had last been to Brazil this last February, while on vacations.
  I realize, of course, that not all this, or even most of it, is usable in the article. But perhaps some of the information contained could be useful. Regards, Redux 17:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • He already has his own article, Jean Charles de Menezes, and his death does seem to be causing a lot of fuss here -- Joolz 20:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh boy, that's a VfD waiting to happen (with a "merge" outcome, probably). About the 50+ victims of the July 7 explosions, wasn't there consensus somewhere that it would be fine to have them listed, but not create articles on them? Granted, this poor man was not a victim of the attacks, he was killed by the police. The event is so very much connected to the events of July 21 that it just doesn't seem (to me) to be the case of having an article just for him. Well, this is probably being discussed in the Menezes's article talk page. Let's see what is decided. Regards, Redux 20:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a massive article, I am extremely confident it would survive a VfD (normally long+decent and well referenced articles survive on that basis) and there would be too much info to merge. Personally he scrapes in for notability in my opinion because it's rare for the Police to shoot someone, and the circumstances in which he died are highly unusual, it's not to say that *anyone* shot by UK police is notable, ofcourse, but this guy was shot running from plain clothes police because they thought he was a suicide bomber, nobody has died like that in the UK before, and the repurcussions of the event are quite huge, the police officer could actually face criminal charges -- Joolz 21:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

No, that's definitely notable -- innocent man shot "execution-style" by police thinking he's a suicide bomber. Alas, it's practically as notable as the attacks themselves -- it will probably have far-reaching effects on the British law-enforcement response to the attacks, and as been stated elsewhere, at least one cop may go to prison, and several careers are probably going to end prematurely. In any case the information on him (as well as the notability discussion) belongs in that article; I will copy this entire discussion there. --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Could it be that the reason that he bolted away from the plain clothes Police was because he thought they were muggers? Did the Police tell him they were law enforcement. Conjecturing wildly, I contend that the Police were thoroughly convinced because of his looks and his attire, that he was a red hot human bomb that could explode at any second, if accosted. They therefore did not bother to identify themselves to him, which made him think they were muggers or something, and ran for his life. If the Police had told him who they were, he might have felt safe to stop for them and co-operate fully. Wow, if this happens to be true, certainly a few people should be fired and others put in the slammer for their extreme and unbelievable ineptness. Pale blue dot 12:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

The discussion has been transferred. Please visit the relevant article if you wish to express your views on the topic. Redux 23:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Categories

I notice this article is NOT in Category:Suicide bombing, while the July 7 one is. Does this belong there even though the attempted not successful? Should there be a category for terrorist attacks vs. Busses? AlMac|^(talk) 00:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be in Category:Suicide bombing - we are calling them bombings even though they were only attempted ones. Obviously they were, more specifically, attempted suicide bombings, so logically it should go in that categort. Barnabypage 14:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Little Wormwood Scrubs

This may be of small interest and/or be worth watching: Little Wormwood Scrubs (where the apparent fifth bomb has been found) is the eastern part of Wormwood Scrubs just north of Shepherd's Bush and White City (BBC TV and the bombed station) and just south of North Pole international depot, which is apparently used for the Eurostar (cross-channel train that goes through the Channel Tunnel). Map here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.197.108 (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If it's not in the article already then it should be! -- Joolz 12:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. The use of North Pole international depot for the Eurostar could do with verification (it has not been mentioned in any reporting I have seen and was simply something I noticed). I have also added information regarding the device's packaging (and related police appeal) and the disclosure of two of the CCTV suspects' names. There are now a total of five in custody. Someone needs to check our facts reflect this (I have not updated accordingly).

I have now updated the article with a section on individuals currently in custody (sourced from the BBC and with a reference link). There has been very little coverage of the Little Wormwood Scrubs device so I am unable to add anything to what I have already written on that.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.197.108 (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

House raids

Someone needs to comb through the sources to make sure the house raids section is complete and up-to-date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.197.108 (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There are now even more of these.... [7]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.197.108 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

July 2005 London bombings article

The July 2005 London bombings article contains a brief outline of both bombings. It is very short at the moment, and should be an overview of what happened on both occasions and the overall effect of the attacks. This should hopefully avoid some duplication between this and the 7 July 2005 London bombings article. violet/riga (t) 23:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

aww, I thought about doing that too! I wish I'd actually done it though, I'll help out ;) -- Joolz 00:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

New photograph

A further photograph of the Sheps Bush bomber has apparently been released. Anyone know where it is? Can we add it to the gallery?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.117.239 (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thumbnail images

This edit seems to have had the opposite effect to that intended. Before, the images displayed nicely for me, as a single horizontal banner. Now they are all jumbled. Revert?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.157.197.108 (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

New article on Jpost.com

London: 4 suspected terrorists arrested

This ought to be included, Klonimus 00:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

PrincessJO

Left this message on PrincessJO's talk page:

Hi. In 21 July 2005 London bombings, the link right after what you are trying to change says talks about the "fifth bomber, who had discarded his device in a nearby park before he could detonate it." This does not correspond to your change that "a fifth bomber device was found, but failed to produce a popping sound". The current text, "a fifth bomber dumped his device without attempting to set it off", matches the link directly following it. - Tεxτurε 20:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Where is the evidence, other than anecdotal from the police, that these were bombs? Witnesses report "pops", police report "failed bombs". Four simultaneous failures? Where is the evidence they were bombs? A lie, repeated often enough, is still a lie. PJO 20:52:00, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

Saying that "It has been reported that a fifth bomber dumped his device without attempting to set it off" then linking to an article that says "the police reported [exactly that]" is very accurate. - Tεxτurε 22:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A warning here regarding Wikipedia:No original research. Whatever this "popping" theory is that you're using, it's completely independent speculation. Wikipedia reports on documentable phenomena. It is documentable what the police say about an object, person, or event; we report that the police say it. Putting in our own second-guesses about their motives or novel explanations is verging on a serious Wikipedia:Neutral point of view problem. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and primary sources

I'm concerned that this whole article needs overhauling, particularly in the light of recent claims by Osman that his device was a flour bomb. If that claim turns out to be true, previous police statements become discredited and the Menezes shooting is even more starkly tragic. Moreover, putative links with the 7/7 bombings seem much less likely. It seems to me that we all need to tread very carefully with this one. Osman Hussain and his lawyer could yet prove very important in this as a turning point in how the incident is perceived. Can we start gathering links at the bottom of the article to as many relevant primary sources as possible? We are likely to need to refer to these as much as to BBC reports &c. I am thinking particularly of transcripts of official statements and press conferences. 195.157.197.108 11:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Four attempted bomb attacks?

I have copied this from article on Jean Charles de Menezes where it first appeared. It is clearly more appropriate her The statement in the first line of the article may be disputed. Has there yet been evidence that there were 'four attempted bombs' which did not explode? Certainly there were loud bangs - but I have not yet heard or read of definitive evidence that these were further bombs. May they not have been solely detonators, designed to add to the general confusion and panic? However, given that those responsible were photographed on CCTV they will probably be caught - hopefully not shot. Jeffrey Newman 16:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that evidence has now been produced to show that there were in fact similar explosives involved in the second attacks to those of July 7th but for some reason - as yet unexplained - they fortunately did not detonate. Jeffrey Newman 12:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Continuing my dialogue with myself - which in any case should move to another article - the issue of the 'explosives' has been raised again by the arrest of one of the 'bombers' in Rome and suggestions that there was no intention to cause loss of life. My caution is simply that over-eager police statements and actions were exposed in a number of IRA trials, but only years later. Jeffrey Newman 12:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

minor copyedits and npov issues

One would-be bomber apparently threw himself across the rucksack as if waiting for it to explode. - Let me get in my L&O theme for a second...Objection, calls for a conclusion! - in all seriousness, suicide bombers don't throw themselves over the bomb...it would be counterproductive, so at the very least I've removed the second half of the sentence. I'd welcome debate on removing the entire sentence, unless somebody can find a reference? Sherurcij 21:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I don't undetrstand how anyone can think that when a bomber deliberately and knowingly lets off an explosive device that they are carrying, which contains sufficient explosives to blast themselves into a thousand pieces how it can be anything other than a suicide bomb attack!? Jooler 21:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

To start with, they didn't "let off" any explosives since nothing other than simple blasting caps detonated to make a loud noise that startled people. Secondly, it's entirely possible to plant a bomb and not have it be a suicide bomb attack since that would require the foreknowledge that the bomber also intends to die in the attack (Which is relatively rare). Finally there's been no evidence that there was *any* explosives involved, muchless "enough to blast themselves into a thousand pieces", some reports say the rucksacks were filled with flour and the blasting caps - basically the equivilent of a small firecracker and a bunch of flour to give the appearnce of smoke, to cause panic. Not that that's definite either, but it's certainly far from definite that these were intended to be actual suicide bomb attacks Sherurcij 20:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Cross-referencing

The main suspects have articles of their own. It might be a good idea to reference these articles, rather than copy everything here. That way there's just one place to keep up to date. E.g., the information here on Osman Hussain (arressted in Italy) is very oiut-of-date; there's a nice detailed and more up-to-date article on him, why not just point to it? I've replaced some out-of-date stuff with a link.

Pol098 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

2nd June 2006 Raids

Would a link to the wiki article for the Forest gate raid be relevant here? I know it's not directly related to the 21st July incident but for those keeping up to date on this sort of activity in London may be interested Edicius81 10:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So did any of the suspects actually do anything?

This article seems way out of date. It says several people were arrested nearly a year ago, most of whom ought by now either to have been charged and be subject to prosecution/imprisonment, or have been released? What happened to them all? On the basis of recent statistics about terrorist related arrests, it would seem likely that most of the people would have been released with no further action against them. This event took place in 2005, and I assume the repeated references to things happening in 'July', 'August' etc mean 2005, but by now, 2006, this is unclear. Sandpiper 08:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

They're still awaiting trial (October 2006, according to the article on Hussain Osman). -- Arwel (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Useful links to update this page

[8] BBC Complete list of everyone charged in this case. Hypnosadist 16:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[9] BBC People charged in relation to Osman Hussain.Hypnosadist 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[10] BBC More info about the trial of the five main suspects.Hypnosadist 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

The article reports that the only casualty was someone suffering from asthma. This however is wrong. In the initial investigation, a passenger thought to be a bomber was killed under friendly fire, but this later turned out NOT to be the bomber. Simply south 12:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that was Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot the next day. Nick Cooper 08:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Total lack of Islam focus

This article mentions the religion (and therefore the reason) of the bombers just once, over halfway down the page. Why?Sinthesizer 03:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Five jailed for helping 21/7 plot from the BBC

Too buzy to add this at the moment. [11] ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:21 July 2005 London explosions suspect1.jpg

Image:21 July 2005 London explosions suspect1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:21 July 2005 London explosions suspect2.jpg

Image:21 July 2005 London explosions suspect2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:21 July 2005 London explosions suspect3.jpg

Image:21 July 2005 London explosions suspect3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:21 July 2005 London explosions suspect4.jpg

Image:21 July 2005 London explosions suspect4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)