Misplaced Pages

Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:10, 8 July 2005 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,579 edits Aldgate or Aldgate East?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:55, 20 October 2024 edit undoPrimeBOT (talk | contribs)Bots2,079,652 editsm →top: Task 30: banner adjustment following a discussionTag: AWB 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
'''<font style="font-size:120%">Due to technical problems, this page is occasionally having sections duplicated. If this occurs, it may be temporarily protected and reverted to the last non-duplicated version. It is suggested that you do not edit the page (except to fix it) while it is in such a state.</font>'''
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Article history
| action1 = AFD
| action1date = 2005-07-10
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/7 July 2005 London bombings
| action1result = speedy keep


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


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


==Which Lines?==
----
] -
] -
]
----


While the description of the third bombing specifies it was on the Piccadilly Line, the descriptions of the other two don't specify which lines were targeted. This might be information of interest to readers (like this one). <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I have added ] for people to list bits that have been lost in the course of ongoing edits so they can be added back later if required. ] 7 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)


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


:Can you be more specific?] (]) 10:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
His comments are listed under 'religious leaders' by the pope's and should be moved (and probably shortened) to the world leaders column. ] 7 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)


==Memorialisation of Offenders==
== Statements ==


My apologies if this is covered in the extensive archives - I ran a few searches but didn't find any results. I've arrived on this page whilst looking for information following the ] this week, and I wondered what Misplaced Pages policy was on the memorialisation of offenders whose only claim to notability was the crime they committed. I think this question is particularly relevant in cases of ideological terrorism where the propaganda - the 'myth', as it were, of the terrorist - is more important to their professed cause than the crime they actually commit. In other words, while they aim to kill as many people as they can, that's only a means to an end for them: the true end is to frighten and divide societies, and deny them the ability to live freely.
We cannot include full statements as these are copyrighted by their authors. Please stop adding them. ] &bull; ] 7 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)


I don't wish to diminish the need to remember those murdered by such acts, and this isn't about forgetting the crimes themselves. And I realise there are arguments for "learning as much as we can" about such offenders and their motivations, and the process by which a person might be so indoctrinated. I also accept that Misplaced Pages tries to maintain a neutral point of view and generally isn't in the business of censoring material. However, I wonder whether dedicating entire articles to the perpetrators, as linked from this article, providing their names, photographs, history, and so on, is entirely proportionate even according to those principles.
: Oh come off it. World leaders etc making statements surely know and expect and intend for their words to be reproduced. ] 7 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)


My sense that these murderers should not be memorialised does, I admit, stem from a sense of frustration that justice cannot be served on those who destroy themselves in the commission of their crimes. Their memory, then, is all there is left to sanction. I don't come here to ask for full-scale ] - but I would at least suggest we can afford to remove the names and photographs of the killers. Those details are unimportant to any of the above concerns: we do not need them to learn about the offenders' backgrounds, or study the process of their indoctrination and radicalisation. At the very, very least, I question the need to maintain full articles for each of them.
:: I agree, this is clearly fair use, news, and most of the statements were spoken, not even written. ] 7 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
:::Tony Blair's most recent statement was even made just from hand-written notes! ] July 7, 2005 16:47 (UTC)
::::Public statements, press releases etc etc are not copyright and can be quoted in full. --] 7 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)


I apologise if this request is overly emotional, but I hope I have made a reasonably balanced case despite that. -- ] (]) 08:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
==Not the worst terrorist attack on the UK==


== Nationality table ==
''The day's events will likely be regarded as the worst terrorist attack on the United Kingdom to date.''


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


== Map in infobox ==
''Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up as it flew over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988, when 12–16 oz of plastic explosive was detonated in its forward cargo hold, triggering a sequence of events that led to the rapid destruction of the aircraft. Winds of 100 knots scattered passengers and debris along an 88-mile corridor over an area of 845 square miles. '''Two hundred and seventy''' people from 21 countries died, including 11 people on the ground.''


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


== Lockerbie ==
*Worst ground-based terrorist attack in UK to date, or


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


== First Muslim suicide bombing, or first suicide bombing? ==
::Good point. The second is more sensible wording IMO. &mdash; ] (]) 7 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
::::It is officially being called the worst UK terrorist attack on British soil. ] July 7, 2005 16:46 (UTC)


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


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


== Motive ==
Also - What about Omagh? Andrew Marr on BBC said this is not on that scale?? ]


I am not sure a motive is the same as the act carried out. The attackers were not motivated by Islamic terrorism, but by Islamic extremism, how they responded to that motivation was Islamic terrorism.] (]) 14:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
:29 people at Omagh. This was at least 33 and was four bombs not one. So bigger than Omagh. &mdash; ] (]) 7 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)
:I agree with your logic about the terms verbally - but extremism is a broader phenomenon, which does not necessarily lead to violence. We write of 'right-wing terrorism' being a motive I believe, though it likewise is an act, rather than a motive. ] (]) 16:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
::Do we, can you give an example?] (]) 07:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)2011 Norway attacks
:::], has 'Far-right extremism' as motive, also I believe some of the US far-right events have 'white supremacism' - which is more like the motivating beliefs behind the event than a motive. Actually in this instance, the perps gave specific motives ''(anger at Western actions in Muslim countries)''. Most similar articles have 'Is Ter' as motive. Is Islamic extremism any more a motive than Islamic terrorism, doesn't it simply characterise their beliefs? Also do sources describe extremism as the motive? I looked at several IRA events, many do not have a motive, but clearly Irish Republicanism would be the background 'philosophy', but not in itself a 'motive' in the ordinary sense of the word. I think it legitimate to put the motivating character of the event, rather than literal motive - which in this event was to cause as much mayhem and bloodshed as possible for reasons that don't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 20:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
::::So no then you have no examples of "far right terrorism " as a motive.] (]) 09:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


:::::I said 'I believe' - it was from memory and the main point was that a 'general descriptor' was often used, rather than a motive in the common criminal meaning. How exactly is 'extremism' a motive? ] (]) 20:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
::What is the definition of "worst terrorist attack"? Is it related to body count, or amount of people injured? Does the manner in which the victims were injured or killed matter? What about damage to buildings and infrastructure? "Worst" needs to be replaced with a more definite adjective. ] ] 7 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)


== Alexander Litvinenko claim ==
:::I agree with that. "More killed than any other attack" or something. &mdash; ] (]) 7 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)


Since the claim is so vaguely worded and the coverage in RS so thin, I'm inclined to think not, but am happy to follow what others think. I HAVE already removed the "Other theories" heading, such that the text is now in "Conspiracy theories" section. ] (]) 11:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
:I say it was bollocks, with absolutely piss-poor sourcing. ] (]) 13:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


:See ]. Indymedia (given as the only reference in the claim) is categorised as a "generally unreliable source". Without any other source to back up the claim I think it should be deleted immediately. --] (]) 17:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Technically, the lockerbie incident was viewed as an attack on the United States, since the plane was from an american airline, carrying mostly americans, and flying to america from Germany. On CNN, UK officials called the transit bombings "The worst attack ''on the UK'' since WWII." --] 7 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)


== Islamophobia ==


I was surprised there was not a single reference to Islamophobia in this article, as the 7/7 attacks led to a lot of Islamophobia. I will add it to the See Also section, but I think that someone more knowledgeable than I should add a section regarding Islamophobia to the article.
This isn't being helped by the fact that the BBC is referring to it as the UK's worst terrorist attack - a typical example of the media looking for a good headline. Probably it is not sensible to make such a reference, but to mention the Lockerbie bombing and Omagh for comparison.
Thanks!
] (]) 14:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


:You do not have to be knowledgeable about any subject to contribute to an article on Misplaced Pages. What you do need to be able to do is find reliable and verifiable sources that allow to to add relevant content. Be bold. Do it yourself. ] (]) 22:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I think if the ] ] fell on UK ground, it should also be considered an attack to the UK. 2004-12-29T22:45Z July 8, 2005 02:39 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 12#2005 London bombings}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 22:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 1#7.7}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 03:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


== Info table at top ==
This is actually a very good point. The Lockerbie attack was against a Pan Am jet - Pan Am was an American-owned company. The debris fell on Scotland, to be sure, but 20 minutes later it might have landed in the Atlantic Ocean. It doesn't seem to be an attack on Britain the way the 7/7 bombings specifially were. ] July 8, 2005 02:46 (UTC)


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


''-FS'' ] (]) 17:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, is this some kind of joke? They are regarded as a terrorist organization and attack civilians all the time.


== edited explosive used. ==
: it is sourced, although it does come across as rather curious. ] 7 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)


I edited the explosive used, it was not TATP, it was concentrated hydrogen peroxide and pepper, according to the coroner https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/01/july7-uksecurity
:Since all Israelis are conscripted and required to serve in Israeli's armed forces, Hamas claims that there are no adult Israeli civilians. &ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> July 7, 2005 17:15 (UTC)


If someone would like to add that as a reference, I don't know how, perhaps mentioning that the coroner said the explosive was "entirely unique", that would be good.
It is hypocritical and the conscription argument is quite specious considering that Hamas often targets locations in which it is certain there will be children present. i.e. Jerusalem Bus 2, Sbarro, 2003 Haifa Bus Bombing, etc... etc... Thankfully these coordinated London attacks did not target such locations.


Some notes:
"Hamas spokesman Moussa Abu Marzouk condemned the bombings, saying "Targeting civilians in their transport means and lives is denounced and rejected."
the detonator used HMTD. No TATP involved.
: It must be some kind of sick joke. It was ] who devolped the method of targeting mass transit systems as early as ]. In 1996 this terrorist group attacked serveral buses in Tel Aviv and in the ] they attacked even more buses with ]s. ], Meggido bus attack, Meiron bus attack, Haifa line 37 bus attack and ] to name the least. I think putting Hamas statement here defiles and desecrates the memory of those who were murdered in the vicious terrorist attacks in ] and ]. My condolences to the families of the victims. ] 7 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)


The 21/7 bombers used concentrated hydrogen peroxide oxidiser and chapatti flour fuel. afaik (I should) these are the only concentrated hydrogen peroxide /fuel bombings anywhere, though CHP/Fuel explosives were implicated in the "liquid explosive" plot, operation overt.
:Hamas' argument here is a load of bullshit. Yes, public transportation is more prevalent in Israel than in the US and the demographics are different, but you have to ask yourself, who uses public transportation? Teenagers, the elderly, people who cannot drive because of a disability or cannot own a car, tourists, etc. How many of these people can be reasonably considered combatants? This is the equivalent of Al Qaeda claiming that the 9/11 attacks were a legitimate act of war because military personnel and reservists were among the dead. Further, Hamas no longer represent the Palestinian people, now that they have elected a leader who opposes the violence. How can Hamas claim that their actions are a legitimate act of war rather than terrorism when the Palestinians have overwhelmingly voted in a leader with a completely different agenda. I may be preaching to the choir here, but it really boils my blood when I see editors use this justification on pages related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to prevent suicide bombings from being labeled as terrorist attacks. I was quite pleased that the front page labeled these attacks what they were - acts of terror.


Peter Fairbrother ] (]) 13:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:Having said that I don't necessarily support removing the quote as I think that it is an important piece of the story. However, more explanation is needed. ] 8 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

==Worst Terrorist Attack on British Soil==

Happy Camper put this in the edit summary:

''the term "terrorist attack" should not be used at the moment - the mainstream press has not consistently used this term for the events yet. If the term is used, please provide a reference for it''

The BBC are using it, also calling it the worst terrorist attack on British soil. This is on a completely different scale to the IRA. ] July 7, 2005 17:20 (UTC)

:See the new edits and the reference to a Bloomberg report I added. I'm much more comfortable that the term "terrorist attack" is now an objective and accepted term for the event. Previously, the term seemed to be used only as an intensifier in the article, although personally, I have no doubt that the events of today were a "terrorist attack". I was erring on the conservative side a bit too much when it came to editing this article to describe this tradgedy. Sorry for posting here belatedly. --] 7 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)
::This has been reverted back and forth more than a dozen times, can we agree on a term (bombing, terrorist, terrorist bombing, since Lockerbie or not, etc...)? The discussion page is a better place to have it, IMO. Personally, I favour "terrorist attacks", but we need to agree on something. ] 7 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

:::I really don't know what term is best. I've personally decided to take a WikiVacation from this article and come back maybe in a week or so after the editing has become a bit less hectic, and the media has had more time to give the general public more information on this event. I want to have some quiet time to reflect on the incident myself at the moment. I'd be happy with whatever term is used as long as it's reasonable. All the terms that you've stated seem to satisfy this reasonable criteria anyway from my perspective, so I trust your judgement. --] 7 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)


:::::::::::::::::This is probably part of a larger goal of making themselves look good to the EU so they can continue with their relations with them.

==Hotline==

The hotline numbers etc have disappeared. I've no great problem with this, but perhaps others do? ] 7 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
*It kind of helps to have the numbers there, as people are trying to find out information about relatives, friends, etc. and it saves a lot of work looking up the numbers. ] 18:47 7 July 2005 (UTC)
::I've re-added the numbers, since no reason was given for their removal. At the least we need the list of foreign ministry contact instructions. They're at the bottom (should be getting less urgent), but plainly visible at the ToC.

== What does this mean? ==

08:54: Suspicious people were said to celebrate on the tube with big firecrackers. ] 7 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

I too was going to ask this, there are no sources anywhere, could one be added to the article if found? Otherwise i think it's an erronious entry. -- Aslate

:I've taken it out for now. If anyone can provide a source we can always put it in later. &mdash; ] (]) 7 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

::Agreed. I think that's the best alternative to follow through with right now. --] 7 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

==Really current Current Events==

Ok, I'm new here, so don't hurt me. Why is Misplaced Pages reporting on this? I thought that breaking news was supposed to go to Wikinews and not on here.
:"The cause is unknown for certain at the moment, but a terrorist attack appears extremely likely." -- That sounds a lot more like a news report than an encyclopedia entry.
:"The Muslim Council of Britain utterly condemns today's indiscriminate acts of terror in London." Today? In an encyclopedia, there is no today...
I understand that all of this can be easily changed when more facts come out, but shouldn't events have a little time to cool and have facts gathered and crossreferenced before it is stuck in an encyclopedia?
(If this question is better asked elsewhere, please let me know and rm) -- ] 7 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

:You're right, but it's inevitable that people will want to add these things to Misplaced Pages, as the events are surely encyclopaedic, even if the tone of the article isn't at the moment. It will settle down into a more stable form soon enough. I do think people should focus their breaking news efforts on Wikinews, which exists for the purpose. &mdash; ] (]) 7 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)

:Part of our reputation as an encyclopedia is that we can change things in order to react to events, unlike paper encyclopedias, which quickly become dated. Putting in today is a mistake but being as accurate as possible up to the minute is only to be encouraged. Plus we need to utilise the ionterest in the subject to create a great article, ] July 7, 2005 17:58 (UTC)

::More comments: This is a good place to ask this question I think - you could also try the Village Pump as well. Yes, you're right, it might be better to wait until the events settle before an article is written. However, it's nearly impossible to prevent a Wiki from being edited like this. My personal stance on this is to "trust the Wiki" - sure, as the events unfold, it might sound like a news report. After all, it's only been less than 24 hours since the event. Nevertheless, I thoroughly trust that the article will become objective and encyclopedic. In other words, I agree and share all your concerns, but for me, I think in articles like these, the Wiki nature of this will ensure that everything works out in the end.

::One problem we'll need to find a way to solve in the future is to squish this page duplication bug during massively quick edits. Today, some administrators were briefly protecting the page so that page duplications could be fixed, and also, to prevent the loss of edits during the removal of the duplications. --] 7 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

:::Yes, I am a bit paranoid to edit anything (even though all I have done so far is on discussion pages) for fear that I am messing up what someone else is doing!
:::I like this place, it just seems odd that additions and changes happen immediately, while only deletions require drawn-out discussions. It would be nice if it were easier to discuss what would go into an article and what sort of orginization should be used before the article is actually written, instead of everybody throwing stuff on the wall and seeing what sticks. But then I am new here, and I do not mean to be rude by suggesting you are doing things wrong without any experience. By looking at the quality articles around, I can easily see that everything works itself out in the end. Since I am way off topic, I will move the discussion over to my talk page or something, if anyone wants to have it. -- ] 7 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)

::::That is basically what happens with these current events articles. We get "hit-and-run" editors who come and add things then go away again, and often they are really badly worded or duplicate something elsewhere in the article, then various regulars will keep an eye on things and try and keep it all in a reasonable state. It all settles down eventually. It's only natural I suppose that if people come across articles like this and see something that hasn't been updated, even if it only broke seconds ago, they hit the edit button and put it in. &mdash; ] (]) 7 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)

:::::If I may.. in many ways this proves to me the superfluous "fork" that is Wikinews. As I have followed the building of this article since early this morning, I find it appropriate to see the '"encyclopedia"' chronicling all knowledge in this manner. The history has faithfully recorded the back and forth, into the solidifying of ever stronger information. The events of this morning are absolutely atrocious, and it pains me to doll out any accolades at this time, however, the decentralized yet collaborative forum that is Misplaced Pages, is something we can be proud of. Should we not continue to use such a forum as we move forward in thoughtful response to this morning's events? I will hope so. ] 7 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)

::::::Firstly, I agree with you about Wikinews. I opposed its creation and while I hope it succeeds eventually I've been really unimpressed by it so far. One of the best things about Misplaced Pages in my view is its timeliness, and the way really good articles can be put together very quickly. This was great to see with the new Pope, who soon had an extensive article while Britannica will have absolutely nothing on him until their next edition comes out. I'd love Misplaced Pages to be somewhere people come for good background on current events, but I don't think much of it as a breaking news service. Articles like this that can get edited literally every 20 seconds or so are generally in need of a lot of work by one or a few people who can overhaul the whole thing some time after the attention has died down before they become decent articles. I'm sure in a month's time this will be a really great article, well organised and fully referenced. Covering topics in the news over a period of days and weeks is good, but minute to minute updates don't produce Misplaced Pages's best work. I share your pride in the impressive things Misplaced Pages can achieve though. &mdash; ] (]) 7 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)


:my feeling is that this will be an interesting application of that visual history generator for viewing edits to a[REDACTED] page. very chatotic at first, and then cooling off into understanding, might as well put this as a page, because it will be eventually, and more information works out better as base material for a finished article, we can chuck the chaff later!

:::::::Yes, a novice to the nature at play here, would be well advised to consider anything read at any particular moment, as in a constant state of flux. (just the same warning I give to anyone about EVERY article here) It is in the history tab that I find to hold so much promise. As you say Trilobite, over time a dedicated number of people can comb through the mountain of information sent here, with that, a very informative and neutral article can be built. At the speed of the internet, very strong demands for neutrality,.... and free. ]

:Also, I couldn't get the major news websites like guardian.co.uk, cnn.com, or bbc.co.uk to update this morning (due to high traffic on their part I would imagine) and the 'pedia became a valuable source of info. Many of my friends (I'm a Londoner) were stuck at work without access to television news, and I pointed them here. I know that's not really what this site is for, but it was a big help! Thanks to everyone who updated this article today. --] 7 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

I don't think that this article should have been created or should be moved to ]. There should be more coordinaton between ] and Wikinews. For example, why do users have to sign up for every Wikimedia project? If sign up once, you should be able to sign in to every project. 2004-12-29T22:45Z July 8, 2005 02:46 (UTC)

== emergency numbers and blog links ==

where did these go? i can maybe see why the removal of emergency numbers would happen, because this isn't really a primary site for people who have an emergency would go to, but the links to the blogs provided actual accounts of people involved with the attacks, and therefore i believe are very pertinant to the article. ~]

== death-toll updates ==

when people update those numbers can they put a timestamp (preferably for when the new numbers were announced) on it?
<small><comment by Gurkha at 19:09, 7 July 2005></small>

911 dead and 1776 injured is some sort of numerological sarcasm. BBC is reporting 37 confirmed dead and overy 700 injured. ] July 7, 2005 18:57 (UTC)

==keeping the links valid==
The nowpublic link contains maybe 4 pix of the event, 1 being of vague interest. For comparison the guardian web site as 64, and cnn and bbc even more. What else could this be but disguised promotion? I already had to edit that section to remove someone promoting his blog. It's sad to see people piggybacking a tragic event to direct traffic to their sites. I didn't bother removing the nowpublic link, I'd rather raise that concern here so maybe others will 'clean up' their links elsewhere. ] 7 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Anyone notices the casualty part? Screwy numbers and prostitutes...

== The word "casualties" ==

The words "casualties" and "deaths" mean two different things. "Casualties" encompasses both deaths and injuries. If you only mean deaths, say "deaths" or "fatalities", not "casualties".

Someone should change the prettytable under the "Casualties" heading to say deaths or fatalities instead of casualties, since it is only listing deaths. I tried to change it but my changes wouldn't go through.

== Source for 911+ deaths? ==

The news sources are reporting only 37 or so ... what is the news source for that number?
:A vandal. Unfortunately this page seems to be attracting a number of mentally unbalanced editors. -- ] 7 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)

::Agreed. I've already blocked a couple on sight for inserting profanity. This article is of such high visibility at the moment that there's no need to mess about with warnings in my view. These people know what they're doing. &mdash; ] (]) 7 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

:Someone apparently screwed with the injury list too: "Recent reports state that 30000 people (208 at Royal London Hospital alone ) are being treated in hospital and 15120 of those are in a serious condition." Someone please fix this. ]

== should we protect this page until someone fixes the repeated sections? ==
the article is getting ridiculously long (500kb and counting) ]<font color="#3ca370">] 7 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)

== Severe problem with casualty and injured number changing ==

At the moment the injuries list is at 30,000!!! Editing the page is not possible due to an apparent server error.

== check this ==

Somehow this doesn't sound likely:

"

Queen Elizabeth II issued an official statement, saying she was "deeply delighted" and had "nothing but admiration for the terrorists who planned the attack". "

:Probably vandalism. She expressed her deepest sympathy. ] July 7, 2005 19:34 (UTC)
::of course not.. another life-less vandal]<font color="#3ca370">] 7 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

== duped again ==

article is currently duped about 5 times
: Currently protected (probably to fix it) --] 7 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

== Casualties still way off ==

Still mentions 30000 casualties including more than 15000 in serious condition.

:We need to fix that. ] July 7, 2005 19:42 (UTC)



== Hmmm ===

Something ought to be done about the fact that the article has about 100 sections, most of which are copies. ] 7 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)

:All duplicates have been cleared out for now, though edits that made it into the wrong ones may have been lost. Sorting it out would be an inhuman task, so people may need to restore changes previously made. --] 7 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)

== Condoms? ===

Under "Roads" heading somewhere: "Many areas still have condoms for sale". It's a safe bet to say that this is a really lame "joke", and needs to be removed.

Already fixed, thank you.

== Dodgy map ==

Don't mean to be rude but that map is ''really'' crap. All British television news says 4 blasts, 3 on tube trains and one on a bus. There is no key for the orange pin symbols and what is that red dot in the middle saying London? Whatever, it does not deserve to head the article. ] 7 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)

: Hey! this image is inaccurate? 4 blasts is reported in news? Hmm! ] 7 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)

It's been rectified since I called it 'crap'. Now there're four clear explosion sites. Still inadequate but the best I spose we can do at the moment.

==Name==
I know that it's early days yet, well, early hours, but I think we might want to think about a better name. "7 July 2005 London bombings" is unwieldy. I don't think that that's what anyone will call it. How about just "London bombings, 2005"? This would be consistent with the ] format for article titles. And yes, I am presuming that there will be only one such incident in 2005. If there is a second one, we can change it to "London bombings, July 2005". But let's hope we don't get to that. ] 7 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)

:7/7? ] 7 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
::Negative. ] is already an article in itself. I would agree that London Bombings, 2005 would be a good article name. --] 7 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)

Since the attack was squarely on the london transit system and I know of no other such attack I propose that the article be named the "London Transit bombings" or "London Transit attack". Two, The attack has caused a shutdown of the transit system. Three, The attack has caused the US to increase its threat level but only on Mass Transit Systems. I contend that London bombings is not specific enough due to the IRA attacks of the 1960s-1990s and that "London bombings, July 2005" feels stone cold catagorial ie "Tsunami 2004"(I know its a bad argument)--] 7 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)

:Although there have been other attacks on the London transit system, for example on 10 September 1973
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/10/newsid_2504000/2504619.stm
--] 8 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)

:A better name is probably needed, but we should take the most appropriate name that's in general use, and the incident is too new to even know what that will be. In the coming days, when people start referring back to this as an event, we will get a better sense of what people are calling it. --] 7 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)

:Transit? Seems an odd choice of wording. Anyway, doesn't the inclusion of the date make the title specific enough? I agree that "London bombings" would be no good, as there have been plenty of bombings in London over the years, but I don't think anyone is proposing moving it there. I agree with Michael Snow that a suitable name will emerge. &mdash; ] (]) 7 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

:Certainly not "Transit" since we don't normally use the term in this context in the UK. The present format is fine, and matches the article on the Madrid train bombing. -- ] 7 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)

Unless a different name arise in the next days, I strongly suggest keeping ] for uniformity with other similar articles, for example ]. ] 7 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
:There's certaintly no need to rush about trying to find the best name for it, I think it will be probably be moved in the next few days when we see what the media dubs it and what people commonly refer to it as. -- ] 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

==power out source?==
A Slashdot contributor (LizardKing (5245) on Thursday July 07, @08:11AM (#13001525) ) says "I was in the midst of this when it happened. The Metropolitan line was halted, then the Jubilee. '''The train driver announced a "power surge on the combine", which is probably a prearranged message to prevent panic in an emergency.''' Trains were then brought into the nearest station and the passengers requested to evacuate. The tube staff were very calm and efficient, and I didn't see any panic. There was defnitely a sense that something unusual had happened, and people were mostly silent as we filed out to the sound of recorded evacuation messages." Makes me wonder if this was the source of the rumor about a power outage being the cause. ] 7 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
:As I understand it the original source of the power outage explanation was that when police officers investigated the first 'bang', it was proposed as more likely than a terrorist attack. Got that from BBC TV reports. --] 7 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)

:I think there is quite a strong possibility that this is the case. It would make sense, as even if it's clear to the driver that the train has been bombed it's probably not a good idea to tell the passengers this when they are trapped in the carriages in the dark. I couldn't quite work out what they were going on about with this "power surge" they were talking about when the story first broke. &mdash; ] (]) 7 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)

== Casuality Information / Sources ==
(Renamed from "at Least 40?")

What is the source for atleast 40 deaths, only 38 on the table and BBC reports 38.

--] 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

Proab this Grand Junction Sentinel, CO
I suggest that all increases in casuality (death/injury) count be listed here along with source. --] 7 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)

An Israeli-linked site, Debka.com, is reporting unofficial estimates of 45 dead.

The Sun has a new report that says "police confirm 53 dead"
jemstone66

The revert war over 38/40 confirmed deaths is getting a bit much. BBC says 38. The Grand Junction Sentinel is PROBABLY outdated, as it cites only 300 wounded, rather than the accepted 700+ cited by BBC and CNN. Note also that now cites the 37 fatalities/700+ casualty count. -- ] 7 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)

The latest official numbers from the BBC (via the Police) is 7 dead at Liverpool St/Aldgate East, 7 at Edgware Road, 21 at Kings Cross/Russell Square and 2 from the bus. However, during a BBC radio interview with a doctor from the British Medical Association who had attended the scene of the bus attack (the bus having exploded by fortunate coincidence outside the BMA offices), the doctor said that "at least 10 people" had died on the bus. This would put the best estimate of deaths at around 45. The BBC's "Newsnight" reported that the casualty figure from the bus attack was unavailable because the Police were conducting a detailed forensic examination of the scene, feeling that it was their best lead. (googlebugle - hrs (at) groundloop (dot) co (dot) uk - 01.20 BST 8 July 05)

== Time to get rid of the public transport update? ==

After all, as it's been pointed out, this is not a news page, and it's hard to keep it up to date now. There is a link lower down to the Transport For London site where the latest news and links are - but I don't know what is the etiquette for deleting a whole section (even though it was me who created it). Does one need to write some kind of redirect? ] 7 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)

OK, I did it. I deleted that section. ] 7 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)

== Ken Livingstone is not the Lord Mayor of London ==

That title goes to the Lord Mayor of The City of London, a different entity to Metropolitan London.

== It wasn't a suprise ==
I left home in the morning (time in here is the same as in London), and in the TV ppl said it was an electrical failure, and next London Metro was closed. I knew it from the beggining it was just for people not to enter in panic, because it was really a terrorist attack. I just arrived home, noone talked about it. And I talked to a lot of ppl today. So I open a Portuguese internet news service (I simply forgot the problem) and "A metro reforces security after London's attacks...". Oh well. They were just lying in the morning for ppl no to enter into panic or they simply didnt knew? -] 7 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)

== Page doubling bug ==

The page doubling bug is a long oustanding issue described at ].

Since this community seems to be experiencing it more than any other in recent history, you may want to look at that discussion and see if it conforms to your experience. Recently (two days ago) a potential fix for this bug was proposed, but it has not yet been validated as correct or made it into the code. ] July 7, 2005 23:00 (UTC)


== Al-Qaeda Letter Claiming Responsability ==

Regarding the posting, to the ] forum, of the Al-Qeda letter claiming responsability for the London bombings, does anyone know what time the forum posting took place?

Also, an MSNBC translator claimed that the Qur'an verse quoted in the letter had some sort of error (in the original Arabic). However, I am unable to find any specific information about what exactly the error is. The English translation of the letter does not contain any errors in the quoted verse (it is identical to how the verse appears in common English translations of the Qur'an). We DO have the original Arabic copy of the letter, so an Arabic speaking Wikipedian could easily confirm or deny the existance of an error in the Arabic quotation of the Quranic verse. --] 7 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)

:Yes I checked common English translations and couldn't really see the problem. Someone just added to the article. &mdash; ] (]) 7 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)

:: I've consulted with a number of Arabic speaking Muslims, all of whom say that the verse appears in the Al-Qaeda letter EXACTLY as it appears in the Arabic Qur'an. --] 7 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)

:::I think we ought to take this whole thing out then. As I recall it appeared in the article on the back of someone commenting on a US news network that the translation wasn't right. Since you've conversed with Arabic speakers about it, I'll leave you to make the call. &mdash; ] (]) 7 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)

:::: OK, it turns out that the Al-Qaeda letter only quotes the verse partially. The verse in the Al-Qaeda letter ommits the begining of the Quranic verse, "Ya ayyuhal Lathee (O Believers!)." This seems like less of a mistake and more of a deliberate PARTIAL quotation of the verse. --] 7 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)

== Responsibility: Prior warning ==

The page says under section responsibility that no warning was given, this is not true if you believe Israel National News (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=85346), as they claim a warning was given to israel before the first blast. I believe that should be changed as you cant simple choose to ignore Israel National News without reason. Least a footnote should be added on disputed fact of prior warning.

<blockquote>

Report: Israel Was Warned Ahead of First Blast
13:30 Jul 07, '05 / 30 Sivan 5765

(IsraelNN.com) Army Radio quoting unconfirmed reliable sources reported a short time ago that Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred.

The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address and economic summit.

At present, train and bus service in London have been suspended following the series of attacks. No terrorist organization has claimed responsibility at this time.

Israeli officials stress the advanced Scotland Yard warning does not in any way indicate Israel was the target in the series of apparent terror attacks.
</blockquote>


:And the Metropolitan Police have categorically denied this. -- ] 7 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)

See also http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_britain_explosions_1
and
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/stratfor-london.html which discusses this.

== Reactions ==

Is it really necessary to list each and every country's reaction to the incident on the 'main' page? Maybe it would be better to create a seperate page.


== Why is terrorist NPOV ? ==

] put a <nowiki>({{totallydisputed}}</nowiki> template, because, he says :'' "terrorist" is a vague and inherently non-neutral term''. I'm sorry I have to disagree. He has to justify such a claim before puting the template. If he doesn't, I'll erase it. Thanks.--] 7 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)

:I agree with you. Go for it! -- ] 7 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)
:Please do take it off. ] July 7, 2005 23:54 (UTC)

:No, there has to be a consensus that the article is NPOV and factual before *removing* the template. My explanation is above under "terrorism". I'll rehash it here: "terrorist" is an inherently non-neutral and vague term. While there is a literal denotation of the term "terrorism" that amounts to "violence against civilians to create fear", that definition is neither universal nor does it give a complete accounting of the term, since the term "terrorist" also has a strong connotation that colors the meaning of the term significantly. On its face, the term "terrorist" is a violation of NPOV, and until there is a consensus here to the contrary, the dispute tag stays. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 7 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)

(moving discussion from above)

I'm gonna wait until this calms down, but I think it's an immediate violation of NPOV to the term "terrorist". It's vague in meaning and non-neutral. I've put a dispute tag up accordingly. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 7 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)

:That tag is totally unwarranted. From the Misplaced Pages article on ], explaining the most commonly used criteria for determing who terrorists are:

* The motive is political or religious
* The target is civilian
* The objective is to intimidate
* The perpetrator is non-governmental
* The act was unlawful

:Which of these do not apply in this case? What word would you use instead? You haven't even offered another word to use in its place. That tag should be a last resort, in my opinion. People have worked hard to build consensus on this article all day; then you swoop in and put a tag up there without offering an alternative word to use. ] July 7, 2005 23:52 (UTC)

I don't think we *need* an alternative word. Change "terrorist attack" to "bombing" or "attack", for instance. Further, while you are discussion the *denotation* of the term "terrorist", it is the connotation and not the denotation that makes it a biased term. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 7 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)

:Terrorism is defined by ] as "The act of deliberately commiting an act of violence to create an emotional response from the victim in the furtherance of a political or social agenda." and by as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". The claims made thus far in the news and by political leaders appeal to these meanings (especially if the claims of being made by an Al-Qaeda-related cell are true).

::Again, learn the difference between denotation and connotation. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

:If, as Philwelch claims, '' "terrorist" is a vague and inherently non-neutral term,'' then the article on the ] should also have a <nowiki>{{totallydisputed}}</nowiki> template. -- ] 8 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

::I agree, but let's take this one at a time. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

:Considering you are the first person to consider "terrorist" to be NPOV, Phil, I think it's fair to say we already ''have'' consensus that this very commonly-agreed-upon word is appropriate to use in this article. You can have consensus with one person disagreeing. Removing tag. ] July 8, 2005 00:02 (UTC)

::Look at the section above. Another editor already starting replacing "terrorist" with "militant" earlier on and was reverted. Also, the tag was first put on there all of five minutes ago. There hasn't been any time for a consensus to form. Nor has anyone bothered to read and refute my arguments, so there hasn't even been a discussion. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

:::They've been refuted: the fact that you don't accept it is not the same is not having been refuted. --] | ] 8 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

:::The fact (without any NPOV), is that my mom always told me that it was bad to put bombs in trains or bus in order to kill civilians. So yes, terrorist has a bad connotation, but shall we erase the word ''nazi'' of the article about the history of Germany because it has a negative conotation ? It's ridiculous.--] 8 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)

:::: Nazis call themselves Nazis. Terrorists don't call themselves terrorists. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)

:::::So should we not call ''racists'' racist? -- ] 8 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

::::: It's evident that without any personal feeling towards the methods or cause involved, the provided definition of terrorism fits this situation, and hence it can and should be employed. Shed a tear for the lack of moral objectivity the term can actually muster in practise if you like. -- ] 8 July 01:42 (UTC)

==Terrorism==
Until you can cite a Wikpedia policy on calling terrorists "millitants", please stop changing from the former to the latter. ] 7 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)

:It seems clear to me that terrorist attack here in the intro is NPOV and refers to the tactics used (ie attacking civilians during rush hour without warning in order to create panic and fear) ] 7 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
:: I agree. It should be called a 'terrorist attack'. What you call the people behind it is a different matter. Especially as we don't even know who is behind it yet... --] 7 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)

::As they are officially being called "terrorists", and not "millitants", we should keep it like that. ] July 7, 2005 16:49 (UTC)

:::If "officially" you mean "by the government", since when does NPOV mean the government's POV? &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 7 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)

Does anyone outside of the UK or its former (or current) territories believe this nonsense? That the British army doesn't attack civilians, but "terrorists" do? Please...this is like the nonsense about bloodthirsty Huns from World War I. Give it a break. ] 7 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

: I suggest you condemn both, not neither. ] 7 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)

Come on folks, don't change it without discussing it here. The consensus in the media and the government is terrorism. ] 7 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)

:NPOV does not mean "the POV of media and government". &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 7 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)

HappyCamper why don't you step up and discuss it here instead of editing out a broad consensus view? ] 7 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

:I wasn't aware of this section in the talk page, and I cannot seem to edit consistently without encountering edit conflicts. Regardless, I've added something to the bottom of this page if you are interested. I don't mind what people use or consider appropriate terminology. If my edits don't remain in the article, then that's okay too. --] 7 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)

The article quotes people and sources who call this terrorism, which is fine, but the omniscient narrator calling this terrorism is not fine. ] 7 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
: I think you need to find yourself a dictionary and look up the word terrorism. It is the precise word for a deliberate attack on civilians. What some country did somewhere has absolutely nothing to do with how this common English word is properly used. --] 7 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)

:Please stop using a crime such as this as an argument, it is really distasteful. --] 7 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

::This is ridiculous. The term 'terrorist attack' is being used by the entire world media - see this search in Google News. It is reasonable to assume that academics will commonly use the term 'terrorist attack' to refer to the incident.
::'' almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently used to describe life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically-motivated self-appointed sub-state groups.'' Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics 2nd Edition
:::At least in my opinoin, terrorist is not a POV here. This is without a doubt an attack (it is not an accident). The average person would assume that this is a terrorist attack, and that is why all the ]. Having a NPOV means representing all POV. If there is another POV that you feel is not represented, please say so. -- ] ] 8 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

::::It is a '''bombing''', and that's what the title says it is. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

::Isn't PhilWelch a minority of one here? ]<sup>]</sup> 8 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
:::PhilWelch has reverted at least 3 times, --] 8 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)
::::I have never reverted. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
:::::PhilWelch has reverted 4 times now, --] 8 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
::::::To revert is to go back to a later version of the article. I have never done that. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)

:::::::Legalistic bullcrap. "Revert" means to restore/delete the same material over and over again. You've done it five times now: stop, or you'll be reported. --] | ] 8 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)

:::'''OK to use the term "terrorism": '''Andy Mabbett, Kfort, Frankie Roberto, Sonic Mew, Lee Hunter, 213.54.228.130, TreveX, Moncrief, Revas, BMIComp, Pipian, Vsion, Calton, PZFUN
:::'''Against term "terrorism": Phil Welch, Ruy Lopez, NoPuzzleStranger
:::'''Not sure/ambiguous:''' Evercat, HappyCamper
:::There seems to be a reasonable consensus here (13/2). I'm moving the POV template to this talk page. ]<sup>]</sup> 8 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

] a democracy. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

:Misplaced Pages is ]. --] 8 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

There hasn't yet been a half hour of discussion and a great deal of difficulty, due to edit conflicts, to even join the discussion. It's premature to declare a consensus. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

:Well, there is already a consens, you look like a minority of one...--] 8 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)
:Where is it specified that there needs to be a "half hour" of discussion? ] July 8, 2005 00:15 (UTC)

::There's no time limit. But generally, the issue needs to be addressed and discussed satisfactorily before making a decision. That hasn't happened. No one here has had a chance to fully read and respond to the discussion. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

There hasn't even been a discussion, Revas. Only a bullshit attempt to override my objections instead of actually responding to them. No one has yet bothered to answer my points. And due to the edit conflicts, it has been increasingly difficult to join the discussion. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

:It's not true, we did. Misplaced Pages speak about ''racist'' policies, even id this word has a bad connotation, because for many people, racism ''is'' bad. samething with putting bombs in a train. And you're a minority on your own, you can not force everybody to keep this template.--] 8 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)

::If and when there is a discussion on this that lasts longer than half an hour and doesn't involve recurrent edit conflicts preventing people from joining the discussion, then there can be a consensus. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)

:::Your first comments about terrorism on this talk page were at 23:47. It is now more than half an hour after that. So we've had half an hour of discussion. It is not possible to measure the number of people trying to edit who can't. 12 people (versus 2) have already voted that it is ok to use "terrorist." That sounds like consensus after half an hour of discussion to me. ] July 8, 2005 00:28 (UTC)


::::]. Until everyone has the chance to read the entire discussion and form an informed opinion (instead of shouting down Phil Welch and not responding to his points), no consensus has occurred. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

:::::So first you said we needed half an hour of discussion. Now "everyone" has to read and respond to your "points." Which is it? How do you determine if "everyone" has had a chance to read this? ] July 8, 2005 00:33 (UTC)

::::::I never said we needed a half hour of discussion. I said, awhile ago, that there hadn't even been a half hour of discussion *yet* and obviously the issue cannot be settled so summarily. Furthermore, you have been absolutely spiteful in your edits. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

:::Well, do you know many[REDACTED] talk with as much participants ? I don't (maybe because I come from the French one). But we dscussed it, we answered to you (but you did not bother to answer me), and you're a minority of one. We are twelve to agree, this article has been updated throughout the day and you're the only onewho wanna put this tag--] 8 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)

:On something as emotionally charged and vague as the word "terrorism", in the context in which it is being used, I feel it is the most appropriate and non-misleading term. Unless somebody can propose a suitable alternative to the word, it seems appropriate to leave it in the article. Yes, there are certain perceptions that the bombings were not "terrorist" in nature, but unless someone is willing to throughly change the article so that it becomes consistent with the new terminology, it seems rather unnecessary at this point to place a POV warning on the article. If it is considered inappropriate that the term "terrorism" is being used, it probably is better to raise this issue after the frequency and intensity of edits has died down so that a proposal can be put forward to counter the systemic bias pointed out in the article. If the word "terrorism" is not meant to be in the article, the "way of the Wiki" will not keep it in the article. Having said this, considering that this POV warning is fairly recent, it seems reasonable to assume that an implicit consensus on the use of "terrorism" in the article was already reached and declared acceptable for use earlier during the day. The edit history contains a number of edit summaries where this was being discussed on the fly. --] 8 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

::And we don't need to replace the word "terrorism" at all. There is no need for an alternative term as far as I can see. Just phrase around it. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

It is easy to resolve this, simply say that by the definition of terrorism these acts were terrorist in nature. Also say that the vast majority of the world's leaders condemns these attacks. Then add the caveat that of course the perpertraitors of the attacks may not necessarily view themselves as terrorists. --] 8 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

:That might be the start of a sensible compromise. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

==Terrorism, part 2==
Once again this dispute arises. People have also argued about whether the the 9/11 attacks should be called "terrorism." I don't think this should even be an issue. A fairly simple definition of terrorism is that it's deliberate violence unlawfully perpetrated against civilian targets for a political purpose. Blowing up public transport vehicles without warning is clearly an act of terrorism.
<BR>The issue arises repeatedly because of the connotations and the emotional charge that the word "terrorism" has gained. Terrorism has become a "boogeyman" word. Some people feel that describing some particular act such as the London attacks as "terrorism" while not also applying that word to describe a government's violent actions (accidental or otherwise) against civilians says that one is okay while the other is this terrible thing called terrorism. But by its simple denotations, "terrorism" is the word to describe unlawful violence for a political purpose. One could easily argue that governments should ''not'' be exempt from having "terrorism" used to describe their actions, but it is nonsensical to argue that ''everybody'' should be exempt from that descriptor. If you can't describe a shadowy group blowing up buses full of innocent people as terrorism, there is little else that could qualify for the term. ] 8 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)

:See arguments on the ] -- ] 8 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)

That's my point--there is little use for the term "terrorism" on an NPOV encyclopedia. It's not denotation, it's connotation. Please READ MY FUCKING ARGUMENTS. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)

:There isn't any reason to lose your temper. ] July 8, 2005 00:29 (UTC)

::I was speaking in the tradition of "read the fucking manual", but I think there's PLENTY reason to lose my temper. You people are shouting me down without reading, understanding, or responding to my arguments. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

:::You stated: ''"...And we don't need to replace the word "terrorism" at all. There is no need for an alternative term as far as I can see. Just phrase around it.'' --> How might you propose that we phrase around it? We'll listen to any solid alternative you can provide, honestly. --] 8 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

:::Sorry, we read, '''and''' we answered. But we strongly disagree. We agree that ''terrorism'' has a negative connotation, but ''racism'' or ''homophobia'' too. But it doesn't mean that a racist, an homophobic (?) or a terrorist act should not be called that way. What is '''your answer'''?--] 8 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

::::Yeah, the handful of people who have been obsessively editing this article every 2 minutes have read and answered. My answer is to make edits that improve the article while addressing this issue, so that there would be no reason, other than spiting me, to put "terrorism" back in. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)

:::::You did not answer to my question. Why should we ban the world terrorism and not the racism, or any descrptive but depreciative term ?--] 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

::::::These are case by case issues. If David Duke doesn't call himself a racist and denies that he is a racist, then Misplaced Pages should certainly not call David Duke a racist, for instance. We shouldn't ban the word terrorism, but Misplaced Pages shouldn't ever definitively say that a given attack is a "terrorist" attack due to the vagueness of the term. For instance, some consider the Blitz to be state terrorism. Should Misplaced Pages take a stand on that issue? One editor, reverting one of my edits out of pure spite, has done that. If NPOV is dead, then I can POV-push with the best of you. Thanks for letting me know. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

:::::::The problem is that saying that whites are superior to blacks is racism. Even if the man who says that deny it. And[REDACTED] has to write it. If putting bombs in the tube at rush hour is not terrorism, then, I don't know what it is....Lobbying ?--] 8 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)

::::::There is absolutely nothing "vague" about the definition of terrorism. It is actually as crystal clear as any word in the entire English language. I've already cited half a dozen dictionary definitions which are very specific and fit the incidents in London perfectly. There is a dispute over who is a "terrorist" but that is a very different question that determining what is an act of "terrorism", even within the WP discussions cited elsewhere. It is the same thing with "rascism" and "rascist". Forcing a black person to move to the back of the bus is clearly rascism. Whether any individual is a "rascist" is a matter for debate. --] 8 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

:::Frankly, noone is interested in your "arguments". This is an encyclopedia. Show us your supporting sources. Something like this: . You can't just make up your definitions of words. If you have a reference work that supports your view that the events in London were not terrorism lets see it. --] 8 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

::::This is a neutrality dispute, not a factual dispute. You seem to have missed that point. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)

::::'''OK to use the term "terrorism": '''Andy Mabbett, Kfort, Frankie Roberto, Sonic Mew, Lee Hunter, 213.54.228.130, TreveX, Moncrief, Revas, BMIComp, Pipian, Vsion, Calton, Mr. Billion, HappyCamper, GabrielF, TheBainer
::::'''Against term "terrorism":''' Phil Welch, Ruy Lopez, NoPuzzleStranger
::::'''Not sure/ambiguous:''' Evercat
:::: Now 17/3! Phil, people have read and understand your arguments! I realise and agree with you that there are difficulties with the use of this word. ''On balance'', however, there currently seems to be a consensus that the use of this term is reasonable in this instance. Please be gracious and accept this. ]<sup>]</sup> 8 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages pages on NPOV include the ] page. ] is included. This elucidates arguments on both sides. There is also the ] page. The latter does not have a conclusion. -- ] 8 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

:FWIW, EVERYONE is using the word terrorist. I've heard it on CNN, the BBC and even from Ken Livingstone. Further, the absence of the word terrorist carries just as much POV in this case as its presence and also provides a less specific description of the event. A terrorist act applies a violent attack aimed at provoking fear and accomplishing a political point, a "bombing" or a "blast" can mean a lot of other things as well. ] 8 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

::Gabriel, if you would, please add your name to the vote just above. ] July 8, 2005 00:41 (UTC)

::I'm not disputing. I figured I'd go see if there was previous debate on the topic. Clearly there was, and clearly it has never actually apparently reached much of a conclusion. -- ] 8 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)
:::Thanks for linking all those, Pipian. ] 8 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

::: Sorry - this page has been edited so many times it took me three or four tries to get my edit through and by that time there were several new posts, the indentation was referring to a previous post. ] 8 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

::Gabriel, NPOV does not mean the CNN's POV or BBC's POV. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
:::Nor does it mean Phil Welch's POV. The BBC and to a lesser extent CNN try very hard to be neutral in their reportage. We're not talking about Fox News. ] July 8, 2005 00:44 (UTC)
:::No, but it is reasonable to suggest that when the media reaches a consensus about something that consensus can be considered reality rather than just the POV of a single network. ] 8 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
::::You're accusing me of *not* thinking these are terrorist attacks? Assume good faith, Moncrief. Besides, media outlets have certain systematic biases as a rule. Needless to say, they also widely reported the attack on the ] as a terrorist attack, even though it was against a military target. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

As a question to Phil et al: how would you describe it if you don't want to use the word terrorism? My understanding is that the word "terrorism" applies to acts of violence intended to arouse terror in a general population, by non-government bodies. If it was conducted by a government, it would be an act of war. If it was done by a private citizen with no particular motive, it would be murder. Given that there were four bombs, it seems safe to rule out the latter. Given that there is no evidence of state involvement, it seems safe to rule out an act of war. The incident involved bombs detonated in public places, aimed at injuring people. This seems to fall well within the definition of terrorism. The fact that all international media and government sources that I am aware of are also classifying this as terrorism (as opposed to an act of war or individual crime) just supports this logical conclusion. --] (]) 8 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

:"State terrorism" a term that's commonly used. Examples could include the reigns of terror after the French and Russian Revolutions and the Blitz (Germany's bombing of England in WWII). &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

::Are you implying that a government was responsible for the bombings? If so, then supply some sources and there will be no problems in changing the wording. --] (]) 8 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)

:::I'm not implying that. I'm saying that your definition is not universally accepted, and that calling these bombings "the second largest terrorist attack" takes a POV that state terrorism is not terrorism (since the Blitz would make this the *third* largest terrorist attack). &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)

I fully agree with Philwelch. The word has an inherent negative connotation and is thus POV, and it is entirely superfluous for an objective description of what happened. There are plenty of neutral words available here. ] July 8, 2005 00:46 (UTC)

I tried to compromise, but you are reverting my edits out of pure spite. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)

:Let me be a bit brave and propose a compromise? Clearly, the consensus is that the word "terrorism" and its related constructs should not be absent from the article. However, let us refrain or restrain as much as practically possible from the use of the word "terrorism" solely as an ''intensifier'', and consider such instances as inducing a particular POV. Examples of this would be saying that the bombing was a "terrorist attack", a "terrorist incident", et cetera. Nevertheless, the presence of the word itself does not constitute a necessity for a POV tag. The article should clearly state ''who'' considers the events as constituting "terrorist". Clearly much of "Western media" has adopted this term, and as such should be included and remain in the article. --] 8 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)

:Actually, other than in direct quotes from world leaders and a reference to the Wikinews article which uses it in its name, the word "terrorist" is used exactly ONCE in this article. So it's hardly being overused. ] July 8, 2005 01:02 (UTC)

::Thanks to my edits, which you spitefully reverted. Before my edits it was used three times. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)

::Counting all forms that arguably raise the "Terrorist" NPOV argument that are not quotes, we have "This is the deadliest single act of terrorism..." and "Arab sources monitoring terrorist networks...".

::The following three: "...they had received warnings of possible terror attacks...", "Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair confirms fears that it is a coordinated terror attack", "calling the attacks a coordinated series of "barbaric" terrorist attacks", are only arguably NPOV arguments, as they can be construed easily as paraphrasings of quotes.

::-- ] 8 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)

:NPOV implies showing both sides, not omitting them altogether. I would be in support of what was suggested earlier, "...simply say that by the definition of terrorism these acts were terrorist in nature. Also say that the vast majority of the world's leaders condemns these attacks. Then add the caveat that of course the perpertraitors of the attacks may not necessarily view themselves as terrorists." -- ] ] 8 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

::And maybe bank robbers don't think of themselves as bank robbers NPOV to a point but come on. --] 8 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

::I'm glad people are approaching this reasonably instead of trying to shout me down. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)

Look at all this time wasted dealing with the eccentricities and semantic ideas of just one poster. Misplaced Pages uses "terrorism" (see main page), as do every news outlet in the western world that I'm aware of (including NPR and The Guardian, if you want an example of an arguably left-slanting media outlets). Phil, you've had your say. We've responded and voted. Move on already. ] July 8, 2005 01:06 (UTC)

:When did I ever make this into a question of right vs. left? Moncrief, you are the single most spiteful and combative editor I have ever met here. You assume bad faith and revert edits out of spite. You are the one who needs to get over your eccentricities and move on. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)

::You seem unable to make your points without resorting to using words like "spiteful" to describe other people's edits. That's your POV that my edits were spiteful. 15 other people, at least, voted that "terrorist," a widely-used term to describe precisely these sorts of attacks, was acceptable. I was reflecting that opinion. If you think that's "spiteful," then okay. ] July 8, 2005 01:21 (UTC)

::: It was spiteful to change "worst attack since Lockerbie" to "worst terrorist attack since Lockerbie" since that change made the sentence *less* informative. You didn't gain anything by changing that back. All you accomplished was to spite me. If you don't want me to resort to words like "spiteful" to describe your edits, cease making spiteful edits. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)

::::Um, they were the worst terrorist attacks since Lockerbie, which was also a terrorist attack. ] July 8, 2005 01:50 (UTC)

:::::Right. That changes nothing of what I said. They were also the worst terrorist attacks blamed on Middle Eastern terrorists since Lockerbie, which was *also* a terrorist attack blamed on Middle Eastern terrorists, but there's no need to get specific. Or is there? &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)

::::::Er... okay then. ] July 8, 2005 01:56 (UTC)

:::::::My point is "worst attack since Lockerbie" was sufficient and far more informative than "worst terrorist attack" or anything more specific. Your edit to change it back served no purpose. I assumed you were spiting me, but if you just want to be specific, well, I've improved it further. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)

::: This article and its discussion page are about the terror attacks. If apost here includes the word "YOU" or includes anyones name it probally doesn't need to be posted.--] 8 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

An enormous amount of time has been spent arguing over whether a spade should be called a spade. This argument is a waste of time. ] 8 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

I totally agree - "terrorist" is a very biased term, and I know a lot of people that think this. - Unsigned, written by (24.202.219.45)

Look, '''you win'''. Use "terrorist" all you want. I don't care. If "consensus" means "removing dispute tags without discussion and shouting down everyone who disagrees with you", then we have consensus. Misplaced Pages isn't worth it if this is how the vast majority of conscientious signed-in editors act. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)

== suicide bombing ==

''Radio 5 reported that two injuried victims from the bus bombing said that they saw a man exploded in the bus, giving strong indication of a suicide bombing.''
: I heard this from Radio 5, unable to provide Internet source. I'm not sure if it is suitable to put it in article. -- ] 8 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
::I would say that it should probably not be put in the article until it can be backed up by a credible source that we can use and attribute to. ] July 8, 2005 00:56 (UTC)
:::Some other reports indicate suicide bombing, but no strong confirmation: . There is a large discrepancy in the reported number of fatalities from the bus bombing, why ... ? --] 8 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
The sun has this on suicide bombing but isn't necessary reliable --] 8 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

== Underground lines ==

What sources have been used for the details of the Underground lines for where the bombings took place? The BBC says that the first incident was a Circle Line train:

But the Misplaced Pages article currently says Hammersmith and City Line.

Note that in this area of the network, Circle Line trains and Hammersmith and City Line trains use the same trains and run on the same lines. Hence possible confusion. The BBC source was London Underground, who should know...

Also, the article does not currently give details like which direction the trains were running in. Which it is now possible to add to the article (from the link above - click on links at that page to get the details of the other locations).

Also, what is the source for "5 trains" for the Edgware Road incident. This sounds unlikely. There are three Underground lines operating in close proximity there: District, Circle and Hammersmith and City. Unlikely to be more than three trains involved, though most sources are still unclear on the number of trains involved at Edgware Road.


Finally, the "bus driver dispatch" messages bit is interesting. Anyone have anything similar on what London Underground said to the train drivers? Or on how London Underground responded in general during the incidents - such as (non)information given out at other stations in the early hours of the emergencies.

] 8 July 2005 03:00 (BST)

*The source is this one : ] for the 5 trains stuff. --] 8 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)
** Where on that website is the 5 trains stuff?? ] 8 July 2005 03:20 (BST)
***''09.17 - Explosion on train coming into Edgware Road underground station, approx. 100 yards in the tunnel. There was an explosion on a train which blew through a wall onto another train on an adjoining platform. Five people are dead and others are injured. Five trains are believed to have been involved.''<br>
***You gotta click on '''City of London Police''' and it's in the first paragraph, between "05.25pm" and "03.15pm"-] 8 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)
****OK. But I'd watch for updates and be prepared to change this ] 8 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)

== Blamed on arabs? ==

is this appropriate wording? --] 8 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)

:It was less than elegant, but it was blamed on Arab terrorists, as was Lockerbie. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 8 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)

:: I'm also going to have to agree that the wording seems innapropriate, and at that this has not even been officially blamed on Arabs. What about attack by a terrorist organization? Or something of that sort. ]

== Quick Bits ==

Howdy, I've done some cleanup work on this article. Changed God to Allah in the translated statement, added a link to the Koranic verse translation, and added links to two bus bombings in jeruselem. I think[REDACTED] has come together very nicely to make an excellent article. ] 8 July 2005 02:13 (UTC)

== Casualty location table misleading ==

The casualty location table is misleading. The casualties at Aldgate East were from an explosion that was only 100m outside Liverpool Street Station. The casualties may have been evacuated to Aldgate East or Aldgate - we need a definite source to confirm which of these stations casualties were evacuated to, if not both (both Aldgate stations would be accessible from the tunnels at that point in the network) - but the explosion (and location of the fatalities) would be better described as Liverpool Street. And in any case, picking one station for each incident in this location table is arbitrary when at least two of the incidents occurred between stations. eg. King's Cross or Russell Square, Liverpool Street or Aldgate (East)? ] 8 July 2005 03:30 (BST)
:Changed, please check it out. Thks for highlighting --] 8 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

== Aldgate or Aldgate East? ==

After a bit of confusion on this, most sources: and seem to be saying that the Liverpool Street incident took place on a train from Aldgate to Liverpool Street, on the Circle Line. If this is confirmed, all the references here to Aldgate East and Hammersmith and City Line need to be changed.

Note that the Transport for London press release (first link above) consistently refers to Aldgate (Circle Line), not Aldgate East (H+C Line), even though it unhelpfully confuses the two by saying "Aldgate station heading towards Liverpool Street station on the Hammersmith & City line".

Also, the BBC seems to be one of the sources for the original Aldgate East error (also see the archived Talk pages where someone says they saw BBC TV coverage of Aldgate station - not Aldgate East), but the BBC pages now mostly say Aldgate, though some still say Aldgate East.

But it doesn't help that Aldgate and Aldgate East stations are a short walk from each other, and that both stations use the same tunnels and trains.

An eyewitness report here says "We got off at the back end of the train and they walked us towards Aldgate station." This suggests to me that it was indeed a Circle Line train that had been travelling from Aldgate to Liverpool Street.

Finally, this source confirms all the above. I would say it is definitely Circle Line train from Aldgate to Liverpool Street, and everything needs changing in this Misplaced Pages article: NOT Aldgate East and NOT Hammersmith and City Line. ] 8 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:55, 20 October 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 7 July 2005 London bombings article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 10, 2005Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
June 9, 2020Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 7, 2006, July 7, 2008, July 7, 2010, July 7, 2011, July 7, 2013, July 7, 2015, and July 7, 2018.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers / Terrorism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconBuses Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDisaster management High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconExplosives Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
WikiProject iconTrains: Rapid transit / in UK / in London Low‑importance
WikiProject icon
Trains Portal
London Transport Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated projects or task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
[REDACTED]
This article is supported by WikiProject London Transport (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconLondon High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
          Other talk page banners
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Which Lines?

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

Am I misunderstanding, as they say
"The first exploded on a 6-car London Underground C69 and C77 Stock Circle line sub-surface train" and "The second device exploded in the second car of another 6-car London Underground C69 and C77 Stock Circle line sub-surface train"
Can you be more specific?Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Memorialisation of Offenders

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

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

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

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

Nationality table

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

Map in infobox

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

Lockerbie

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

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

First Muslim suicide bombing, or first suicide bombing?

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

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

Motive

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

I agree with your logic about the terms verbally - but extremism is a broader phenomenon, which does not necessarily lead to violence. We write of 'right-wing terrorism' being a motive I believe, though it likewise is an act, rather than a motive. Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Do we, can you give an example?Slatersteven (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)2011 Norway attacks
2011 Norway attacks, has 'Far-right extremism' as motive, also I believe some of the US far-right events have 'white supremacism' - which is more like the motivating beliefs behind the event than a motive. Actually in this instance, the perps gave specific motives (anger at Western actions in Muslim countries). Most similar articles have 'Is Ter' as motive. Is Islamic extremism any more a motive than Islamic terrorism, doesn't it simply characterise their beliefs? Also do sources describe extremism as the motive? I looked at several IRA events, many do not have a motive, but clearly Irish Republicanism would be the background 'philosophy', but not in itself a 'motive' in the ordinary sense of the word. I think it legitimate to put the motivating character of the event, rather than literal motive - which in this event was to cause as much mayhem and bloodshed as possible for reasons that don't make a lot of sense. Pincrete (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
So no then you have no examples of "far right terrorism " as a motive.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I said 'I believe' - it was from memory and the main point was that a 'general descriptor' was often used, rather than a motive in the common criminal meaning. How exactly is 'extremism' a motive? Pincrete (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Litvinenko claim

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

I say it was bollocks, with absolutely piss-poor sourcing. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
See WP:RSPSS. Indymedia (given as the only reference in the claim) is categorised as a "generally unreliable source". Without any other source to back up the claim I think it should be deleted immediately. --10mmsocket (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Islamophobia

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

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

"2005 London bombings" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

"7.7" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Info table at top

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

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

edited explosive used.

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

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

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

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

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

Categories:
Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings: Difference between revisions Add topic