Wouldn't that be better in Wikiquote? - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

BBC News 24 was reporting 6 underground explosions and 2 bus explosions at about 10 past 2 BST.

They were also stating that there are 2 confirmed deaths and over 150 injured.

That's all I've heard so far.

For the record, I am in Britain right now, but not in London.

UNIverseVERSE 7 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

Its 3 underground explosions

• Edgeware road (circle line)
• Half way between Liverpool Street and Aldgate (circle line)
• Half way between Kings Cross and Russell Square (piccadilly)

Thus the earlier reports of 5 tube stations being hit.

Its really rather empty in London now. The national gallery is still open though. ~~~~ 7 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)

Does everyone realise that we have had one edit a second on this article since it was started?! Sometimes more than one edit a second! - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)

I think you exaggerate. Evercat 7 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)

Oops... very tired. It's more than one a minute. Doh! Exaggeration not intentional. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS doing a superb job here. Good response to bad circumstances --24.18.247.210 7 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)

So true. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)

Though to be fair it was very chaotic to begin with. The project was certainly one of the most up-to-date news sources but with no guarantee of what you'd be seeing at any given moment. With more substance and less confusion, the article has moved towards stabilization. -- Kizor 7 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)

"I absolutely share the stated by my colleague Tony Blair." Erm some omission surely..... Rich Farmbrough 7 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)

look it up and fix it then! :D jamesgibbon 7 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)

This article looks like a news report, not an encyclopedia entry. — PhilHibbs | talk

One, normal encyclopedia articles don't cover subjects currently in the news. Two, we like to think that this is a significant information source for the event, and as such the conventions can temporarily go hang. -- Kizor 7 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)

As the bombings occured just a few hours ago and reports are still coming in, it isn't possible nor worthwhile for this to be an encyclopedia entry. Right now this is one of the most up-to-date and informative pages on the internet about the attacks, and in the coming days when facts become clear and current information (emergency numbers, unconfirmed reports, etc.) are available, I'm sure the entry will be rewritten. -ctm

That's what Wikinews is for. This article should contain the condensed facts; the telephone numbers, situation reports and speculation should be in the Wikinews article - maybe a template needs to be constructed that would divert more traffic in that direction. I'll go and look at the {{current}} template and discuss it there. — PhilHibbs | talk 7 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Don't stress, this will get consolidated once the fuss dies down. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 15:35 (UTC)

Well, I created an article on it - Qal3ah, you might find it useful, does anyone want to link to this in the main article? -- Natalinasmpf 7 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)

It looks like if there is an edit clash when editing a subsection, the entire article text is presented, rather than just the section being edited. Saving the subsequent edit from the edit clash page looks to be the process that duplicated large portions of the article. Is this a bug? WLD 7 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)

Yes. There's something about it at the top of this page. I think editing a section can overwrite the edits made to other sections, too, but can't confirm. -- Kizor 7 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)

Repaired as of 16:54, editing the entire page. It seemed as if a copy of the entire page had been inserted under "Air"

That was probably me - or rather, the bug manifesting itself as I was trying to edit "Air" - believe me, I *didn't* cut'n'paste the entire article - but I did hit an edit clash, which I thought I hadn't tried to save. WLD 7 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

The UK is who invaded Iraq, this is just retaliation against British imperialism. I do not know why it is repeatedly called terrorism. The UK decided to attack Iraq and it has received its just desserts. Three days ago, on July 4th, we in the US celebrated men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton who attacked the British 200 years ago and won their freedom. Calling people opposed to British imperialism "terrorists" is silly. It's like Margaret Thatcher's big "criminal" thing. Please. The only bad guys here are the British army, and the people who voted to support someone who made them into an imperial force in yet another country. Ruy Lopez 7 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

As I've already repeatedly said to have edit conflicts wipe it: I appreciate the way you're speaking your mind, and would ask other wikipedians to hold the flames because what good is it going to do? Seriously? Now, from my point of view, killing civilians to make a political point comes under the definition of terrorism. Calling people who oppose British imperialism terrorists would be ridiculous, but calling people who do that by leaving bombs on public transports... well. What the other side did doesn't much enter into it. Furthermore, regardless of who's right, in the circumstances the overwhelming majority opinion - that this is terrorism - is sticking, so the point's a bit moot. -- Kizor 7 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)

How is bombing ordinary commuters during rush hour unannounced not terrorism? ~~~~ 7 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)

"Retaliation" and "terrorism" are not mutually exclusive terms. Terrorism is exactly correct for this incident regardless of the movitivation of the perpetrators. --Lee Hunter 7 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

Deliberate attacks on civilians are usually regarded as terrorist acts. You can argue that we've done similar things, but that's a separate discussion. Evercat 7 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)

I agree, it's definately a 'terrorist attack', as most people understand the word. Whether or not the people behind it are terrorists, and the motives they have, is a different question. It's a (so-far) unclaimed attack on a civillian target with no prior warning or declaration of war. Calling it a 'militant' attack is just confusing. --Frankie Roberto 7 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

Oh come off the "deliberate attacks on civilians"...there have been hundreds of deliberate attacks on civilians by US/UK troops in Iraq. Deliberate. As in deliberate. Just because the BBC or US corporate news doesn't report it regularly doesn't mean it doesn't happen. What a joke. Ruy Lopez 7 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

Please stop trolling, Ruy, SqueakBox July 7, 2005 15:55 (UTC)

I understand your point, Ruy, but unfortunately your change has caused other problems. At 33 deaths, this is not "the most deadly attack ever on London." I think the Blitz has that honor. It is, however, the most deadly attack against civilians by a non-governmental agency for a political purpose (one common definition of terrorism). The whole sentence, and indeed the whole scope of the attack, makes no sense without at least saying that this attack is nearly universally referred to as terrorism. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} July 7, 2005 15:57 (UTC)

While I and virtually everyone else would certainly regard this as a terrorist attack, I would really rather the article wasn't full of "and then the evil terrorists did this" kind of talk. I remember there being a similar argument on the Beslan school siege article. Wikipedia isn't here to make policital judgements, so let's report what happened in a detached and objective manner and let the facts speak for themselves. Civilians were deliberately slaughtered. As long as that's clear we don't need to go overboard with the word "terrorism" all over the place. The article as it stands at the moment is pretty good in this respect. — Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

Stop feeding the trolls or delete the whole block. Adidas 7 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)

Don't be absurd, precisely what I'm doing is trying to prevent trolling. — Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)

Hey trilobite, sorry you thought I was directing that comment at you. I wasn't and actually I agree with you. I was making a general statement.

Ooops! Sorry for misunderstanding and snapping at you. — Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)

Saying this isn't terrorism because it's retaliation is preposterous. Al Qaeda does not, and has not, ever, represented any legitimate government, anywhere, at any time, not even in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is nothing more than a well-financed and organized gang of terrorist thugs hiding behind a sham of supposedly noble religious legitimacy. Tomer ^TALK July 7, 2005 20:41 (UTC)

I think Ruy is missing a key point: al-Qaeda aren't Iraqis, so this can't be retaliation. I think it's pretty clear now that al-Qaeda are primarily Saudi Arabians. The American Congress couldn't find links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and we can presume that they tried pretty hard. Ground Zero 7 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

As the page has been protected, could someone add that the american embassy in grovesnor square has been sealed off, and roads leading to it closed ? ~~~~ 7 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)

Wikinews says "Air links are now closed at Stansted, Heathrow, Gatwick and London City airports." [3] 'pedia disagrees. Which is right? Rich Farmbrough 7 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

Well, I can hear the planes going overhead, and the BAA website (the airport operator) says "Our UK airports Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Southampton, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen - remain open and all flights are currently operating normally." WLD 7 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

Could anyone edit the bombing places or locations with the maps.google.com ?

That might be a copyright violation. Also re maps: the map that's linked at the top of the page is out of date. Shows seven bombs rather than four. --Lee Hunter 7 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

I removed the map as it was prominently featured and inaccurate. 64.142.81.56 7 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)

Please umnprotect this page now. There is no reason to protect it other than to stop legitimate editing and to weaken wikipedia credibility as an up to date source of info, SqueakBox July 7, 2005 16:00 (UTC)

This is not true. There is a wikipedia bug that is causing edit conflict detection not to work properly, so the deluge of edits is causing problems. Note this is not supporting the protection of the page, just noting that there is a reason for it. Morwen - Talk 7 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)

Due the the volume of edits, the page is being duplicated quite often. Also, I'm finding that the edits I'm making are not corresponding to the ones that are actually being attributed to me in the history. This is another bug to be aware of. --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)

I just protect it for a minute to stop people adding new stuff to it while I find the last sane version. If it wasn't protected, any edits made would be lost anyway. I can't see any other practical way of dealing with this problem. I have put a rather prominent note at the top of this talk page... Evercat 7 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)

Protecting for the odd minute is not a problem. We don't want a repeat of the 2 Popes situation where the pages were locked with the intention of being locked for a few days at the height of publicity. That would not be acceptable, SqueakBox July 7, 2005 16:17 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to my page protection. I protected it for the same reason as Evercat, and thanks to an error while saving it needed 5 minutes and not 2. Sorry for that, but I see no other way around that. --Conti|✉ July 7, 2005 16:21 (UTC)

I agree that this page blocking is appropriate if it is used to ensure that the article is not duplicated in any manner. --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

It's not to prevent duplication, it's to prevent edits being lost while the duplication is sorted out... Evercat 7 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

Oops, that's what I meant. --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)

(To SqueakBox) I followed all the Pope edits and that wasn't what happened at all - they weren't locked for an extended period at any time, as I recall. Pages receiving a very large number of edits in a short space of time are vulnerable to duplication because of the software bug. When this happens the page has to be protected for a couple of minutes so that it can be fixed without risk of further edit conflicts, then it's unprotected again. — Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Now that the flow of news has slowed, these need to be ncorprated into teh main article, or dropped.

• 15:22: Confirmed by London ambulance services - 45 dead and over 1,000 injured. Amongst the injured are victims experiencing burns, loss of hearing, fractured limbs, facial lacerations, and loss of limbs. Several casualties are on the danger list.
• 15:46: London police say there have been no arrests but they are "keeping an open mind as to who the perpetrators might be."

Andy Mabbett 7 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)

The 1000 injured figure does not seem to be substantiated by the London ambulance services at this moment. Hence, I have removed it from the article. --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)

His comments are listed under 'religious leaders' by the pope's and should be moved (and probably shortened) to the world leaders column. Brendan OShea 7 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

Until you can cite a Wikpedia policy on calling terrorists "millitants", please stop changing from the former to the latter. Andy Mabbett 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) Kfort 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... --Frankie Roberto 7 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)

As they are officially being called "terrorists", and not "millitants", we should keep it like that. Sonic Mew July 7, 2005 16:49 (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. Ruy Lopez 7 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

I suggest you condemn both, not neither. Evercat 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. Kfort 7 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)

HappyCamper why don't you step up and discuss it here instead of editing out a broad consensus view? Kfort 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. --HappyCamper 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. Ruy Lopez 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. --Lee Hunter 7 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)

Please stop using a crime such as this as an argument, it is really distasteful. --213.54.228.130 7 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

We cannot include full statements as these are copyrighted by their authors. Please stop adding them. ed g2s • talk 7 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

Oh come off it. World leaders etc making statements surely know and expect and intend for their words to be reproduced. Evercat 7 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)

I agree, this is clearly fair use, news, and most of the statements were spoken, not even written. Kfort 7 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

Tony Blair's most recent statement was even made just from hand-written notes! Sonic Mew July 7, 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Public statements, press releases etc etc are not copyright and can be quoted in full. --Lee Hunter 7 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

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

Unless the death toll rises rapidly, no. See Pan Am Flight 103:

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.

I suggest instead:

• Worst ground-based terrorist attack in UK to date, or

• Worst terrorist attack in England.

Good point. The second is more sensible wording IMO. — Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

It is officially being called the worst UK terrorist attack on British soil. Sonic Mew July 7, 2005 16:46 (UTC)

edit of map in photos

this map needs to be updated - it shows 7 explosionsin fact there were five - but some of them affected two stations. thanks

Also - What about Omagh? Andrew Marr on BBC said this is not on that scale?? User:Philipdw

29 people at Omagh. This was at least 33 and was four bombs not one. So bigger than Omagh. — Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 17:02 (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. Poiuyt Man ^talk 7 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)

I agree with that. "More killed than any other attack" or something. — Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Honestly, is this some kind of joke? They are regarded as a terrorist organization and attack civilians all the time.

it is sourced, although it does come across as rather curious. Kfort 7 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

Since all Israelis are conscripted and required to serve in Israeli's armed forces, Hamas claims that there are no adult Israeli civilians. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} July 7, 2005 17:15 (UTC)

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.

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. Sonic Mew 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. --HappyCamper 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. StuartH 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. --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)

The hotline numbers etc have disappeared. I've no great problem with this, but perhaps others do? Evercat 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. Kaiser Matias 18:47 7 July 2005 (UTC)

08:54: Suspicious people were said to celebrate on the tube with big firecrackers. Rich Farmbrough 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

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

Ok, I'm new here, so don't hurt me. Why is Wikipedia 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) -- Marvin01 7 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

You're right, but it's inevitable that people will want to add these things to Wikipedia, 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 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, SqueakBox 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. --HappyCamper 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. -- Marvin01 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 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 Wikipedia, 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. TTLightningRod 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's best work. I share your pride in the impressive things Wikipedia can achieve though. — Trilobite (Talk) 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 wikipedia 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. TTLightningRod

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. ~thatordinaryboy

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

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

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. Adidas 7 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)

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

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.

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. -- Arwel 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. — Trilobite (Talk) 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 [4]) are being treated in hospital and 15120 of those are in a serious condition." Someone please fix this. Loknar

the article is getting ridiculously long (500kb and counting) Peregrine_AY 7 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)