Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

مبهزمزنرورمنمتبنلمد

Use of the term "civilians"

The use of the word "civilians" to refer to the 52 victims of the bombings strikes me as inappropriate, as in this context it implies that the bombers themselves were other than civilians. This could be read as explicitly condoning a view of Al-Quaeda and/or their associates as soldiers rather than terrorists. While the meaning of these terms and their use in this context could be debated, I think that a more neutral term would be better here.Spiridens (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the bombers were the people who murdered them, and they were the enemy. So despite being civilians themselves, the use of civilians to describe the victims is very appropriate. ----DanTD (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The point I was making was that the previous version read as if the word "civilians" was being used to differentiate the victims from the bombers, because there would be no other reason to use that word in this context. The current version (in which the bombers have been included in the total) is fine however. Incidentally I don't understand your reference to "enemy" - who was whose enemy, and what has this got to do with whether or not they were "civilians"?Spiridens (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

7/7 inquests

I notice this has been left out. Spa-Franks (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What the reference says

This article uses the term British Isles (e.g. "This would make 7 July incident the first suicide bombings in the British Isles.") which as well as being controversial (see British Isles naming dispute) is in this case not what the references say. The reference (The Washington Post) uses Western Europe and I think that this is what the article should also use. Please be aware that this talk page is likely to get a visit from my troll, LemonMonday, who continues to follow me around and falsely accuse me of POV pushing. Bjmullan (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Try replacing it with this reference [1], and if you once more refer to me as either a troll or an SPA I'll report it. LemonMonday Talk 15:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Motives

The article is lacking a discussion of the motives for the attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.8 (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What, exactly, is there to "discuss"? Nick Cooper (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Speech marks

Is there a reason for using speech marks around rush hour in the lead? raseaC^{talk to me} 21:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Time in summary box

Shouldn't this be BST not GMT?62.31.43.52 (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to par with 9/11

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

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

7 July 2005 London bombings → 7/7 London bombings – we wouldn't write the "September 11 attacks" as "September 11, 2001 attacks" and my proposed title will actually make a reference to WP:COMMONNAME, as this bombing spree is usually known simply as "7/7" (like "September 11", aka "9/11"). Most media coverage also refers to this as "7/7": see this BBC report on the inquest, this article on CNN, the Sky News articles "7/7 London Bombings: Terror Arrest" and "7/7-Style Explosives Found In NY Cemetery", The Guardian's "Thousands to mark anniversary of 7/7 London bombings" article, the "7/7 Tavistock Square bus bomb" report seen on Newsnight and "Is London ready for another 7/7?" to see a few. Google News has the results as is: 1,600 for "7 July 2005 London bombings" and 1,960 for "7 7 London bombings". Therefore, amalgamate "7/7" as the common name and "London bombings" as the description together in the article title and that will make thie article seem more like "September 11 attacks" in terms of naming. -- 92.4.75.68 (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Some media do refers as 7/7 but it may just be short way to indicate the date.
• 9/11 redirects to September 11 attacks so why we should do backwards? (7 July 2005 -> 7/7).
• I looked through some articles with the date in the title and none of them has X/Y as date in the title. The month is included in the "Full name format": September 2010 Lahore bombings/4 January 2009 Papua earthquake

Teyandee (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. As per Teyandee, 9/11 is a redirect to the fuller name, but we should also be so conceited to assume that the events of the day are so universally known that we don't need the year and location. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Piccadilly Carriage number

This article says "311", which is what BBC say, but TFL say "331", claiming that "311 was at South Kensington" that morning. Then Channel 4 says "346". What do we use? It's clearly recognised that tfl are the head of london transport! Spa-Franks (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between train numbers, and car ("carriage" is not used on the Underground) numbers. The train number was initially reported as 311, but TfL later corrected it to 331. The car affected was 166, but some sources - including C4 - erroneously identified it as "346D" which was impossible on several levels. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

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

• http://www.newsweek.com/id/38176
  • In Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors on 2011-03-29 06:10:58, 404 Not Found
  • In 7 July 2005 London bombings on 2011-06-19 21:11:24, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

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

• http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/berne-halfmasting/index_e.cfm
  • In Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford on 2011-03-17 04:14:28, 404 Not Found
  • In Half-mast on 2011-03-22 19:27:17, 404 Not Found
  • In Half-mast on 2011-04-15 21:55:07, 404 Not Found
  • In 7 July 2005 London bombings on 2011-06-19 21:11:33, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:London newspapers 7 July 2005.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:London newspapers 7 July 2005.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of IRA bombings

How can it be relevant that no single PIRA attack killed as many people, but not relevant that the RIRA bomb at Omagh killed more than any of the 7/7 bombs? --Flexdream (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What sources support the inclusion of the latter? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 08:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WIkipedia link.--Flexdream (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proving you have no argument. And should you wish to know which reliable sources support the inclusion of the former, you'll find that's the question you should have asked when your initial edit was reverted. Then if none are forthcoming, remove the policy violating material. You don't add more policy violating material... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Which policy is being violated?--Flexdream (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia:No original research. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How is it original research?--Flexdream (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be the part of the policy right at the top reading "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" [emphasis in original]. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And so your reason for leaving the PIRA bombing reference in is? --Flexdream (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

PIRA? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to the part of my comment reading "And should you wish to know which reliable sources support the inclusion of the former, you'll find that's the question you should have asked when your initial edit was reverted. Then if none are forthcoming, remove the policy violating material. You don't add more policy violating material..." Your attempt at removal was reverted here, therefore per WP:CONSENSUS the onus shifts to you to discuss it. Obviously the same doesn't apply to new content you are adding, if that is reverted the onus is again on you to discuss it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So you don't think the PIRA reference is relevant but you wont delete that one?--Flexdream (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I won't. The initial removal of long-standing (I assume, feel free to find out exactly how long it's been there if you want) content was reverted (not by me, obviously), so it's up to those seeking removal to gain consensus. As I've already said it's problematic content and I'd like to see sources supporting its inclusion, but that isn't dealt with by adding more problematic content. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

They're both facts, supported by the numbers of those who were killed. It's common to compare terrorist attacks to other terrorist attacks that have come previously to give them some context. Are you denying that the Omagh bombing killed more than any one bomb, or just that it's not relevant to mention it? — JonC^ॐ 09:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" [emphasis in original]. If no sources are forthcoming supporting the inclusion of the former, I'll be glad to remove it myself in due course. As for your claim that it's "common to compare terrorist attacks to other terrorist attacks". That may well be the case, but the comparison would need to be supported by a reliable source. Most often it should be easy enough, since media are fond of trotting out lines such as "the worst terrorist attack since...", however I don't know if a source could be found for the somewhat different claims made here. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Writing False History

This article is a perfect example of how Wikipedia can be used to help write false history.
As of writing this, the article contains the following statement:
"On the morning of Thursday, 7 July 2005, four Islamist home-grown terrorists detonated four bombs"
This statement is based on information from sources which may or may not be trustworthy, and there is a great deal of evidence which indicates that the events of 7/7 were likely part of a false flag operation and not the work of "Islamic home-grown terrorists", yet here we are stating -- as though it is definite fact -- that it was the work of Islamic terrorists.
We should not be stating something as definite fact just because others have stated that it is definite fact. Doing so allows for a situation in which press statements from a small number of corrupt officials can completely change what the world believes about an event.
Rather than making these definite statements about events, we should be making very neutral, objective statements accompanied by cited quotes. -Kimyohan (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No, we are reporting what multiple investigations have shown it to be, i.e. a criminal attack by four home-grown Islamist terrorists. We do not indulge is conspiracist fantasies here.Nick Cooper (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Nick Cooper on this. If anybody is writing false history it's you and others who deny Al-Qaida involvement and make false accusations of a false flag operation. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this some kind of truther teach the controversy? SK (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"Operation Osiris"

It seems that some conspiracist nonsense has snuck in r.e. this security operation, which - as per the cited source - clearly took place in 2003, and therefore has absolutely no connection as claimed to Peter Power and Visor Consultants. I am therefore deleting reference to it, and the copyright-infringing YouTube links, and putting it back in the conspiracy theories section. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

complete nonsense

the firm hired by the government admitted that the attacks were the exact drill they were running.

there is no math you can make up that puts this probability with less than 20 zeroes.

its unreal how mindless and corrupt the entire establishment really is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn1ep2tS-HM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.152.217 (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, what's unreal is how many delusional revisionist turds there are who insist on using articles like this to fabricate history and reality for their own personal gain. -------User:DanTD (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll drink to that. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Victim list

Earlier I (then using IP address 50.100.184.151) made an edit which I summarized as:

Move table of victims into victims section where it belongs. Delete list of names (which was incomplete, too): this is an encyclopedia, not a memorial."

This was reverted by Flexdream on the grounds that "This article is not a memorial. It can include the names as an encyclodia should be comprehensive."

First, after checking with the Village Pump, I find that Wikipedia has no specific policy on this point. We have to rely on our sense of what it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to include. And my sense says that lists of names of people who are otherwise not notable just don't belong. If you include them, I feel, you are indeed turning the article into a memorial, and that is inappropriate. See WP:VL for an essay that sets out the justification for this view in a better fashion than I could do it myself. It seems to me that most Wikipedia articles about disasters do not include victim lists and I suggest this is evidence that most people agree with the position that they do not belong.

Second, reverting the edit restores the two other problems I mentioned in my edit summary. The table is again misplaced and the list is again incomplete, showing only 11 names of the 13 bus fatalities. (The table could also be improved, adding a column to give the number of people injured.)

I stand by my position that the list is inappropriate, and I'm unreverting, i.e. deleting it again as well as moving the victims table. If someone wants to voice agreement or disagreement, I suggest doing it here. And if someone does reverts the change again, then please address the other issues I mentioned in the last paragraph.

--67.71.98.166 (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC) (formerly 50.100.184.151)

Agree with IP and support removal of victim list per WP:NOTMEMORIAL Mo ainm~Talk 08:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL has nothing to do with victim lists, but rather it is to stop people starting pages about specific non-notable people as a memorial to them. I am therefore reinstating the victim list. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nick's first statement is correct; as I said, there's no specific WP policy on this. It does not follow that it is correct to include the list. I still say, as a matter of personal opinion, that it's not. And again, if the list stays then please address the other issues I mentioned. --67.71.98.166 (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

what does the long-form victim list add?

does it improve the article for the average reader? for any reader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.190.37 (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Intro/grammar

It is grammatically incorrect to start any sentence with a numerical number. Therefore:

Wrong - "52 other people were killed and around 700 were injured."

Right - "Fifty two other people were killed and around 700 were injured."

I cannot do it myself because of a page lock.. Besides the whole paragraph should be rewritten the more I think about it.

"The explosions appear to have been caused by home-made organic peroxide-based devices, packed into rucksacks and detonated by the bombers themselves, all four of whom died. 52 other people were killed and around 700 were injured."

How can they "appear to have been"? That's ambiguous nonsense? The bombers were either using organic peroxide or not. Were they using peroxide bombs as found from the forensic evidence? If they were, then state it because it was not another kind of device. Furthermore this entire sentence is over packed with too many clauses and facts. It reads like a grammatical-overstuffed mouth. Good writing keeps it clear and simple. This rewrite would be better:

"All four bombers died when they detonated home-made bombs concealed in their rucksacks using explosives created from organic peroxides. In total 52 people were killed and around 700 more were injured in the four blasts."

Please sign your posts with four tidles. This is Mkbw50 signing out! 16:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

al-Qaeda?

The article makes a handful references to al-Qaeda and its connection to these bombings, most of which cast doubt or outright deny such connection, while those that suggest there is a connection are stated as speculative. On the other hand, the article has the Template:al-Qaeda box template at the bottom in which the London bombings are listed in the timeline of attacks. So which is it? Should this article be listed as an al-Qaeda attack with such weak supporting information, or if it is so obvious that it is indeed an al-Qaeda attack then why isn't there more information to clarify this in the article?--67.250.35.250 (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the absence of evidence linking this attack to al-Qaeda I am removing the al-Qaeda info box.--67.250.35.250 (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)