Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Rumors

Think it's time to report the - so far fairly wild - speculation on possible future arrests of various London figures said to have ties to Abu Qatada? Or should we wait till they're actually arrested? If the former, note that while the Times [1] seems to have gotten the Garbuzi story right, some other papers mistakenly reported that he had "disappeared", only to have him turn up at the al-Jazeera London office this evening. - Mustafaa 00:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

From 81.79.88.156

"

[[Discounting the Suicide Bomber Theory]] A witness who was on the number 30 bus which exploded at Upper Woburn Street had described on national television news how he was "irritated" by a man with "olive coloured skin" fidgeting with a bag at the back of the upper deck of the bus. One could assume that the timing of the detonation - 9.37am - was designed to be one hour after the tube bombs exploded, and more than likely not on a bus but on a further tube train. The bus bombing seems therefore to have been the result of an ironic turn of events. Due to the events that had happened at 8.50am, people had been turned away from Tube stations and onto buses. With the streets becoming busier the number 30 took a diversion from its route into Tavistock Square. If the man described above was intending to leave this bomb somewhere else, then he must have been trying to delay the explosion. The very fact his fellow bombers had caused disruption to the transport system was now having a knock on effect on his own efforts. In grim conclusion, one could say that with - at current numbers - 12 dead on the bus as opposed to the 20/30+ that died at Kings Cross, the bomb on the bus claimed less lives that it was meant to.

"

There's nothing obviously wrong with this, but it's speculation and needs something backing it up before it can be included. --Mr. Billion 07:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Is the number of deaths first reported important enough for the first paragraph?

It seems to me that the first paragraph should have the most current information (incidentally, the Guardian is now saying the death toll is in more like 70 [2]). The fact that initial reports said 37 had died is relevant enough for a chronology of the events, but why put it in the first paragraph? The first reports of casualities are always underreported in events like these - I think what matters, at least for the indroductory paragraph, is the most-currently-known information. Moncrief 03:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Initial reports said 20, then 2 (possibley other number were mentioned in other orders). Initial estimates aren't always low, Clapham, IIRC turned out to havve much lower fatalities than at first believed. 9/11 had a lesser toll thn initially though I seem to remember. Rich Farmbrough 10:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

All right, point taken. The larger point is that the "first reports" of casualities don't belong in the introductory paragraph if the information is no longer up-to-date. At any rate, it's been fixed since I made this suggestion. Moncrief 18:28, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

decluttered top

I moved some things at the top of the page around, so it didn't look so cluttered. Not totally sure why someone wanted the table of content on the right side, but it just didn't look right.--Kross 04:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The most likely reason someone moved it to the right because it looks bad floated to the left. The "Bombings" section title has a line that extends into the Table of Contents's margin that way. I moved it back to the right as you can see. joturner 04:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

7 July 2005 London bombings memorials and services

I have created a stub for this article. Can everyone help and add a few things here? Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Non-British casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings

Uhh...other than a few folks, looks like most nations were not touched at all, unless I am looking in the wrong places. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Probably need to wait a few days or weeks. Unless they've issued lists of the 700+ injured people or the lesser number still in hospital, you won't find the information you need. The lists of missing people probably, sadly, indicate possible fatalities, but that is about all I can find. Carcharoth 10:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • NVM, this page is going to get whacked by the VFD process. Many of the things relating to this event are putting through various deletion processes, so it will be hard to collect information, and see it whacked a week later. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Opinions in External Links

This editor linked what was probably his own weird ramble on the subject of the London attacks. He suggested that it's good to get a Muslim perspective on this event, and that's true. However, I'm leery of this sort of bizarre ranting (the opinion piece's section on "Why Muslims are Better" and the bit about why Jews are "the worst of mankind" in particular). That's one Muslim perspective, but there are many Muslims and many perspectives, and we don't need this sort of crap. Mr. Billion 07:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the external link should be removed, but on the grounds that it provides no additional content to the article which would be of a considerable encyclopedic nature. --HappyCamper 07:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gone in sixty sconds.

Which version was shown? Rich Farmbrough 10:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

the new one, i saw 2 minutes of it when they broadcasted it. Cheers. Adidas 09:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Taking care when reverting vandalism

Can I please ask everyone to take care when reverting vandals? A vandalism reversion last night rolled the article back to a much older version, losing many legitimate edits in the process. I've restored these where appropriate, though it's been somewhat tricky because of subsequent editing. -- ChrisO 10:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed this text

Removed some text on the differing effects of the bombs due to the tunnel structures. As stated earlier in discussion page, I feel it is interesting but could be misconstrued. My initial reaction was that it was interesting, but then I realised that I wouldn't want everyone to know this level of detail. Carcharoth 10:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you wouldn't, but we're not in the business of providing the level of detail that you personally want - we're dispassionately recording the relevant facts. Discussions of the bombs' effects have been in Saturday's newspapers as well as on the BBC at the moment - see e.g. the graphic at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4668675.stm . A similar graphic is included in the print version of the Guardian story at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1524547,00.html . Saying that the damage will be worse if the explosion is in a confined space is hardly revolutionary new knowledge. -- ChrisO 10:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyone else have any opinions? As far as I can see, the BBC graphic is unaccompanied by the level of textual detail we provide. I'm not saying that it is revolutionary knowledge that an explosion in a confined space will be worse (so why bother saying this), merely that it seems unnecessary to make the specific link with the differing structures of London Underground tunnels. The BBC article does NOT make that specific link. Other sources might, but that does not allay my concerns. When do you cross the line between "dispassionately" recording "facts" (it is actually a theory to account for the death tolls - not a fact) and going into technical details about bombing. Carcharoth 10:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The popup (click 'Enlarge Image') in the article does make this specific link. I found this information interesting and relevant. In your earlier comment you stated concern for this information helping people plan new bombings, but this kind of information is not hard to come by. It would be legitimate for Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, to contain an article on bomb making. - Wgsimon 11:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The popup kept crashing my computer... Anyway, I see what you both mean about this information not being hard to come by, but would point out that the bombers might not have known this information before their attacks. Depends on whether they were going for maximum casualties or maximum disruption. I have one further concern, more a matter of article structure. The text that has now been restored says something like "greater number of casualties" on the Piccadilly Line train, but this has yet been mentioned in the article! The number of casualties at the different locations is not mentioned until a few sections later. Maybe this "differing effects of the bombs" could be moved to a different section. Which would hopefully make it less visible as well... Carcharoth 11:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Possibly it should be at the end of the Casualties section. The information could probably be shortened for the sake of conciseness. - Wgsimon 11:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It could be included, but should not be removed on the basis it's 'too informative' for copycats to reproduce. It's common knowledge, and was discussed many a time BEFORE the attacks even took place. Adidas 12:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Such information should be included if, One it is mentioned in the offical investigation report, Two that because of these attacks new stations are designed to miniamize blast effects (similar to the standoff distance -distance between a building and the street- because of the Oklahoma City bombing)--Mitrebox 19:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

By "if mentioned in the official investigation report" do you think the text under discussion should be removed for now? Carcharoth 22:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The text in my opinion is non-sensative and can stay. Sensative comments useuly deal with litte known information. It is fairly certin that the attackers canvased the area for several days prior to the attacks. Though they may have noted the tunnel sizes they were probally much more interested in attacking lines based on other factors.--Mitrebox 00:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Images gallery - misleading map and image

The article currently includes a link to an images gallery [3]. This is currently being considered for removal to the Wikimedia Commons area). If people click through to the image gallery, it is not very impressive at the moment, but some of the images are just confusing and misleading.

One of the images [4] was an attempt at a map using a satellite image (but the "free use" status is in dispute). That satellite map has other problems, such as labelling the bus attack with a car, and labelling stations arbitrarily, and labelling Aldgate East instead of Aldgate, and mispelling Edgware Road.

Both that image and this one [5] are misleading. The map is misleading as stated above, and the image is confusing because it talks about the Northern Line. What should be done about this? Carcharoth 12:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

As to the description, go into Commons and change it to Piccadilly line. That photo and its provenance is now well-known, and given the circumstances on Thursday it's not surprising that there was confusion. -- Arwel 12:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The original (moblog) upload page still says northern line, and no-one queried it there. The picture is slightly strange because it doesn't look like they are in one of the deep line tunnels (such as the Piccadilly Line) where there is not a lot of room outside the trains, so I'm not really sure what is going on with that picture, despite it being used all over the world by many media... Can you point me towards a website that gives a clear provenance and location for the picture. I don't want to change it without being sure. Carcharoth 20:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

people calm, my eye

Today sunday at 1pm they conducted a controlled explosion at the twickemham stadium... I can see it well from my balcony... Lots of neighbors started filming and getting really nervous because we didn't know it was planned... the whole south stand fell off and there was quite a bit of white smoke. 999 must have been well busy. Now this contradict the 'stiff upper lip' we read constantly about in the media... people ARE on the edge, maybe they just don't like to talk about it. Adidas 12:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm under the impression this is planned demolition of part of the Stadium to make way for new construction. I read your post to indicate a controlled explosion *of a suspected exposive device* occured. demolition news in Richmond and Twickenham Times Toby Douglass 12:49, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

yes, yes, it's controlled, meaning, planned by the fire dept. in order to make way for new construction. I called 999 immediately when it occured to check. Balcony owners in richmond were very relieved indeed. Still, quite a shock to see a big structure like that going down on quiet sunday afternoon. Adidas 13:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I heard that bang. I'm just down the road from Twickenham stadium. Sounded like a pile of scrap being loaded into a skip. Which is what I assumed it was. Didn't stop someone else running into the room and saying "was that a bomb?" Though to be honest, I admit that the thought did briefly cross my mind as well. Carcharoth 19:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Similar thoughts will proabally be common in the next few weeks. Here in the states I still impulsively check the news whenever the emergency sirens (usually only used for tornado alerts) are tested on sunny days--Mitrebox 19:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

translated statement

I sort of liked the linking to peace, mercy etc. from the formulae of the translated statement, as a sort of pacifist comment driving home the hypocrisy. Now, the links are just to Islamic terminology, of course closer to the intended, unthinking use of the formulae. Hyperlinks from quoted text are always critical, of course, since the constitute some sort of implicit comment, and it may be better to remove the links altogether, and place the important ones in a short commentary after the translation. The statement of course is dubitable anyway, and may have been uploaded by a random teenager. dab (ᛏ) 16:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree -- it seems to me that linking to definitions of 'peace' and 'mercy' is tantamount to saying "why don't you look up peace, you arsehole?" which isn't really the tone we're after in an encyclopaedia. It also pushes the opinion that the attacks are dispicable and their justification hypocritical, which whilst being a widely adopted point of view, and one to which I subscribe, is still just a point of view. Chris Smowton 17:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The present wikilinks (99 names of god, peace be on him, etc.) are more informative and contextual. It's an improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Children

Does anybody know how many children were maimed/killed in these attacks?

I heard something about one child being slightly injured. Vashti 19:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Most children were in school at the time. (Possibly something worthy of inclusion since some had to stay in school overnight.) Sonic Mew 19:57, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that my information is correct, I agree that mention of children being kept in school due to the transport lockdown is notable, but I'm concerned that putting in information such as "one child was slightly injured" may belittle the fact that many adults are severely maimed or very dead. Vashti 20:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

How can one be slightly dead? (Sorry, bit of black humour.) Anyway, I too heard about that child, but there are also some children missing (possibly dead). At this time of year, some older schoolchildren were on work experience placements after exams, so would have been travelling in London. If we want to include anything about this, we need to find a source first. Carcharoth 20:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Job title of Sir Ian Blair

OK, this is not the most important thing in the article, but it is annoying me that everywhere Sir Ian Blair is mentioned, the job title is described differently. Which of these is correct? "Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner Sir Ian Blair"; "Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair"; "Police Commissioner Blair"; "London Metropolitan Police Chief, Sir Ian Blair"? Oh, and it is best not to call him just "Blair", as people might confuse him with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. I'm fixing the wiki links that had "Metropolitan Police" pointing at a general definition, rather than at "Metropolitan Police Service", but I'm not sure what is best for Sir Ian Blair's job title. Carcharoth 18:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

According to the Met's website, his full title is the rather unwieldy "Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis", which they later abbreviate to "Metropolitan Police Commissioner". Call him that first and then "Sir Ian Blair" thereafter, as their article does? Vashti 19:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I've gone with your suggestion, but used it throughout. Article is too long for people to remember who this Sir Ian Blair is further down the article. I've also changed the wiki links to point at his job title, but this could be changed back to pointing at the Metropolitan Police, though I think wiki-linking from within a phrase is bad, which is why I changed it. Possibly the later wiki links to "Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis" could be lost, as the double wiki-link (to both Ian Blair and his job title) is only needed the first time, and later examples only need one wiki link. Not sure though. Carcharoth 20:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Table of Contents

I like how it's placed to the right. How did you do it? Pacific Coast Highway 20:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

That's easy. Use the template moniker {{TOCright}}. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Bus direction

Many news reports and this WIKI page state that the Number 30 bus was travelling from Hackney to Marble Arch.

However...

1) Photos of the bus indicate that the destination sign at the front was set to Hackney.

2) This woman claims to have been travelling from West to East on the bus...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4669793.stm

3) A bus from the East, that had diverted to avoid Kings Cross would surely be returning to Euston Road to the West of Kings Cross. Not heading South away from Euston Road on Upper Woburn Place.

The No. 30 - Hackney to Marble Arch is what the BBC is still reporting, I think it's best to stick with it... at least until TfL says otherwise. [6] -- Joolz 00:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

CNN are reporting it was travelling - from Marble Arch to Hackney Wick

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/09/london.busdriver/--Pound 08:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Many reports also say that the bus driver was LOST (because of the diversion). He had stopped to ask directions from a pair of traffic wardens. This story is widely available in the newspapers, and would explain many discrepancies. Carcharoth

To a certain extent but whether or not the driver was lost - there is the story of the woman above travelling from West to East on the bus, and the destination sign. And I've just found this Press Release from Stagecoach, the company operating the bus service, in which they describe the route as "Marble Arch to Hackney Wick"...

http://www.stagecoachgroup.com/sgc/mediainfo/releases/2005/2005-07-08/

It is clearly stated "He was driving the number 30 bus on a route from Marble Arch to Hackney Wick when the incident happened around 9.50 a.m. near Russell Square in Central London yesterday."

Since this is from the company that operated the bus service it must be pretty authoritative.

--Pound 10:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, the bit about "planned diversion" needs to be changed. It was not a planned diversion as seen by the bus driver being lost, and his comment "My bus had been diverted because there were thousands of people coming out of the Tube. There were many people who were trying to get on the bus at once." Also, the bus driver is an important witness (he almost certainly saw the bomber get on the bus). Carcharoth

On the basis of the Stagecoach press release, the CNN report, the BBC report on the woman travelling West-East and the bus direction indicator - I have changed the direction in the article (Marble Arch to Hackney Wick). As to the nature of the diversion - perhaps it should be changed to simply "diversion from its normal route" rather than "planned diversion from its normal route" until more definitive information is available.--Pound 11:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

er ... actually, I'd already made that edit but didn't notice someone else reverse it within a larger edit. --Vamp:Willow 11:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

terrorist attacks list/external sources

It looks like people keep editing the section at bottom of page ("see also") devoted to previous terrorist attacks, to include every (un-) imaginable historical attack there. Sort of detracts from the page's main function.

Also, links to other news sources, streaming links etc. ("external links") keep disappearing. Quite annoying.

Removed visor consultants claim

"A little known story has appeared on BBC5, about a group called Visor consultants coincidentally conducting an exercise the very day of the bombings: 'On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company, better known to you and I as a PR firm.

Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.

Power told the host that at the exact same time that the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.

The transcript is as follows.

POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.

Click here for a clip of this dialogue. Click here for a longer clip where the comments can be heard in their full context. [www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm]]"

Please find a more established source than "prisonplanet.com" lots of issues | leave me a message 04:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The interview does appear to have been taken place but this was a consultant claiming to have predicted the nature of the bomb attacks - after they had already taken place. Consequently, it's hard to verify his claim that their hypothetical scenario was indentical to what actually happened. Also this was not a "1,000 person strong exercise" - it was a few people in a room talking about what advice to give a company with 1,000 employees.--Pound 08:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It's completely ridiculous, of course, but this is already the basis of conspiracy-mongers everywhere. It's inevitable that it will remain in the article. I've tried to craft an NPOV text, correcting errors along the way (for instance, a 1000-person company isntead of a 1000-person strong exercise). Bogus facts that we'll need to watch for include claims that the exercise in any way took place within the Underground or involved fake bomb packages. I'm wondering if Visor Consultants will ever issue a statement (this would have to reach mainstream media, not Prison frickin' Planet, before that would happen). --Dhartung | Talk 16:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes - it needs to remain clear that this was someone after the attacks claiming that he'd been sitting a room with colleagues that morning talking about what to do if such an attack took place. Not an "exercise" taking place on the underground. And the claim that the hypothetical scenario being discussed matched the real one is unverifiable and may be self-promotion on the part of Visor Consultants.--Pound 16:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone should spend time changing the text of that part of the article, right now it sounds like fearmongering. --Quadraxis

It is fearmongering. This sounds colossally stupid if you've been involved in anything like these disaster recovery scenarios -- it's just managers sitting around a table, and an underling like me is there because he's not the most senior person, and you've got work to do, and it goes on for hours while human resources runs down its family contact procedure, and you just want to present your reboot-the-servers cheat sheet and book out of there. ;-) There are probably a dozen companies in central London holding similar meetings every month. (OT: just like the claims of "training exercises" on 9/11. Wow. That's unusual. What's the military doing when not being attacked by Russia? I hope to hell they're training.)

I modified the text somewhat, although the lack of coverage by the mainstream media means there's no authority to counter the claims (which of course they see as proof). --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"though others with experience in crisis management see it as little more than a paper exercise that was eerily prescient." is lacking a reference. Who sees it as this? --84.48.93.10 08:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe anybody who's sane? --Dhartung | Talk 16:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

And then, the whole paragraph suddenly disappeared without notice. I've put it back, as it was.--Knut Arne Vedaa 11:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I heard this interview live. The guy did not come across well, and it sounded like he was doing a bit of self promotion. I rather suspect the interviewer got the same impression, because immediately after the transcripted part of the conversation, he gave him a hard time over jargon ('slow time thinking' and 'quick time thinking') then cut him off abruptly. I certainly don't think this is encyclopedic, or at least not without third party corroboration of the exercise. -- Chris j wood 14:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Self-promotion is right; I wanted to put that in but couldn't think how. He was basically saying "look how good my firm is at predicting these things!" I agree it isn't encyclopedic, and now that the arrests have begun it's possible this type of speculation really will dry up (hasn't stopped the 9/11 gaming, though). I'd rather keep it out entirely than have to find nonexistent counterclaims. --Dhartung | Talk 16:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I've (new user) just checked and it's been removed again. i'm going to put it back on at some point along with links to the ITV interview and the BBCV interview with Peter Powers, the executive from Viso consultans. This is a very important piece of relevant information, and its factual basis is unquestionable. Whoever is repeatedly removing it is either an idiot or has ulterior motices.

Police Shot Suicide Bomers

There's an article in a NZ newspaper http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10334992

Does this have any merit?

It's been debunked a long time ago. No merit whatsoever Adidas 09:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I heard this from multiple (first hand) sources on the day. Do you have any links for the debunking?

Actually I see no evidence that the story was debunked; only that it is "unconfirmed." Do we have a definitive statement about it? --csloat 11:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It was asked by a reporter during the press conference where there was a rep. from each of police, BTP, transport for london, fire, medical.... on the day. The response from the police rep. was something along the line of "I'm not aware of any police sniper shooting dead anybody." -- KTC 16:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What a pity it's not true. Adam 09:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Alfie's Moblog

Is there a reason why we're linking Alfie's Moblog? This looks like just another copy of one picture available from a variety of other news sources. Chris Smowton 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I know alfie, and he's no linkspammer, unlike a few people who keep on readding their irrelevant blog to the list right after I deleted them. The link can stay - he was the first one to post that picture of the guy stuck in the underground (apparently it's a friend of his). However, due to the limited ammount of unrelated content, it could be wise to remove that link eventually. Adidas 12:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

If you know alfie and he knows Adam Stacy (the guy who took the picture) would you be able to try and clear up some minor bits of confusion? The confusion is that he said the picture is of passengers on a Northern Line train (and the yellow poles in the background seem to confirm this). If this is indeed a different train to the one that was bombed on the Piccadilly Line, then that needs to be made clear. Some people are assuming it is the Piccadilly Line train. Can you get definite confirmation that he was on a Northern Line train?

And more generally, the stories from OTHER trains are being lost in the coverage of the main stories. Most trains were brought into stations and evacuated, but some were stuck for some time after the bombings. There is possibly this story about a Northern Line train, and there are definitely stories about a train next to the Liverpool Street/Aldgate train (probably a Metropolitan Line train heading the other way), and a train (Circle or District Line) next to the Edgware Road train (the story about the blast causing debris to hit another train).

These other trains (that were next to or near the bombed trains) are clearly seen if you go the Transport for London News Centre picture gallery, where there are sequences of images from their Trackernet system showing the movements of these trains just before the bombings.

While it is not the main part of the story, this sort of material would add interesting angles to the story. Carcharoth

www.werenotafraid.com

Can anyone get to this site and see more than the half dozen pictures that originally load? I read an article about it on CNN.com here and tried to access the page. I can get to the homepage but all the links just return the same images. I thought it may be some bug with Safari so I tried Mozilla and my girlfriend's Windows box with IE and I get the same results. So is it just me or what? Any clues? Thought it may make an interesting addition to the article but maybe not... Dismas 20:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The CMS seems to be malfunctioning right now. This can wait. --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

So I looked up CMS in the wiki and didn't see anything that would help explain what you said. So... huh? Dismas 00:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

CMS = content management system = blog software = WordPress in this case. It's still borked, so no point linking. --Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Dismas 10:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

werenotafraid has become a puerile attempt at replicating b3ta.com, probably not what the domain owner originally thought of. Regardless, it's now filled with childish images of pets, jokes and common object photoshoped to feature the 'i'm not afraid' message. It also contains racist content such as images of roasted chicken with the label 'go home motherf%%%ers.' IMHO it should be removed from the links section as it now bears little relevance to the tragic attacks. Adidas 13:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. The site's quality may have declined as it became more popular, but its popularity is what makes it relevant. We're not arbiters of site quality at Wikipedia. The popularity comes from numerous mentions in major media which has spread it worldwide. --Dhartung | Talk 16:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Scientology

User:AnneFrankly has added some Scientology-related material. [7]

Is it acceptable, or should we pitch it? Mr. Billion 02:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess User:203.25.140.98 has already voted to pitch it. I'll remove the "Scientology Volunteer Ministers" bit too, then. Dunno why I bothered asking though, really. Mr. Billion 03:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Timing of trains

In the "Attacks on the Underground" section, is the speculation about a lone bomber justified? It starts out as speculation, and then phrases like "the bomber", and "the person who planted the other bombs" start to be used, which sound less speculative and start to assume that the speculation is correct, which doesn't seem justified yet.

The wording "roughly nine minutes east by tube from Kings Cross" and "roughly eight minutes west by tube from Kings Cross" is also a bit strange. London Underground have a system called TrackerNet that allows them to tell PRECISELY when the Circle Line trains arrived at and left Kings Cross (only the Circle Line trains - TrackerNet had not yet been installed on the Piccadilly Line at the time of the bombing). So IF London Underground release the information, there is no need for "roughly"; it can be said that the trains left Kings Cross "x" minutes ago. I thought one of the original press releases from London Underground said both Circle Line trains left Kings Cross 8 minutes before the bombings, but that seems to have disappeared now. Can anyone find another source?

Also, is there a source for this: "The parallel track of the Hammersmith and City Line from Liverpool Street to Aldgate East was also damaged."? Carcharoth 08:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

identified Casualties

As of 12:20 BST on the 12th July, on the main article, these two people are put as the identified casualties:

Susan Levy, 53, of Newgate Street Village (near Cuffley, Hertfordshire), on the Picadilly line train. Gladys Wundowa, 51, of Chadwell Heath, on the bus, a cleaner at University College London.

However, yesterday early evening, Gladys Wundowa was removed from all of BBC News newsstories as well as Sky News. Why is that? Maybe they misidentified her?

We can now also add at least two more names, they are identified on Sky News [8]. - Smoothy 12:20, 12 July 2005 (BST)

Yes, Gladys Wundowa has disappeared from news coverage, so presumably there was a mistake. She shouldn't be on the list (or at least there should be a note by her name) until more is known. --Dtcdthingy 13:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

There are further names. [9] I have updated the header paragraph but someone will need to check through carefully to make sure we are counting correctly. In particular, we need to watch locations and balance figures in the table lower down the article. 195.157.197.108 16:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Bus direction 2

Please can people STOP changing the bus direction to say Hackney Wick to Marble Arch. There are many sources that confirm that the bus was travelling from Marble Arch to Hackney Wick. See the discussion further up this talk page AND the linked reference in the article RIGHT NEXT to the text people keep changing. An article in the Evening Standard (12/07/2005) goes into detail about this, saying that this number 30 bus left Hackney Wick that morning and had turned around at Marble Arch and was heading BACK to Hackney Wick. Please do not change the bus direction details again. Thank-you. Carcharoth

References please

Can we please have a reference for the police conference about the investigations into four men seen on CCTV at Kings Cross ("Investigation" section). If this is properly referenced, then the earlier speculation about a single bomber (based on tube geography) in the "Bombings" section can be removed. Carcharoth

Similar incidents

The list of "Similar incidents" is growing; it's in danger of becoming a category in it own right, I suggest it is drastically trimmed (perhaps with a link to a suitable umbrella article or category). Andy Mabbett 17:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Page size

This page is 51 kilobytes long, we're warned. Perhaps we should hive off the investigation and or reaction sections, leaving this page to describe the bombings themselves. Andy Mabbett 17:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

My thinking is that the relatively static reaction stuff can be put into the Response to the 2005 London bombings article. There's getting to be some duplication, anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

How to include these references?

Under "Bombings" section I've added detail about the other trains at Edgware Road at the time of the bombings. This is mainly based on the images available here (TrackerNet images from London Transport):[10]

These additions are supported by the BBC reference I gave in the main article (the tube driver saying he was lucky to be alive): "There was a train at the platform in front of me, coming the other way. As the driver's cab was just passing mine, I saw a bright yellow light on the train on the other side." [11], plus this reference to the Hammersmith and City Line train at Edgware Road at the time of the bombing: "I was on the eastbound Hammersmith and City train that had just stopped at Edgware Road station. We heard a loud bang, which shook our train."[12]

I've included the BBC link and the link to the Transport for London news centre image gallery, where people can see the sequences showing the movements of the trains, but can't think of an easy way to reference the H+C line comment. Any way to do this? Carcharoth 21:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Casualty ages

I'm not sure enough of the facts to edit the page, but some web pages (eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/4677603.stm ) give different ages for some casualties.

• Jamie Gordon, 30 - we have 31
• Philip Stuart Russell, 28 - we have 29

-- SGBailey 08:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Some people were listed twice here with different ages and spellings of names. Should take care to check multiple sources for this kind of info and avoid duplicates too. MRSC 09:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Without birthdates, there will be a lot of "off by one" errors. --Dhartung | Talk 09:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Separate casualty page

Why did someone just remove the casualty section and direct the reader instead to Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, a less-than-useful, up-for-deletion page with limited information (a section on foreign nationals but none indentifying others who died or their ages or their cities, all of which had been in the main article). I'll assume good faith and hope that this is being sorted out as I type. But otherwise... something needs to be done to remedy this. Moncrief 10:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Becasue this page is too long. The removed material is now on the latter page. Andy Mabbett 10:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Now that all the information has been moved there, I can rest easy. Thanks. Moncrief 10:54, July 13, 2005 (UTC)