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.

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page or .

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• I have added Talk:2005 London bombing/MissingInfo for people to list bits that have been lost in the course of ongoing edits so they can be added back later if required. SimonLyall 7 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)

Previous threads archived in "Archive 4" on the talk page --HappyCamper 8 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)

Could an admin around here block 24.168.174.209 from editing the content page? Keeps adding unverified & marginal info without justification, and even violated 3RR with it seemingly. KissL 8 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)

I have already warned him about the three revert rule and will block him if he keeps it up. If he wants this stuff in he should come and discuss it here. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)

Thanks. KissL 8 July 2005 14:16 (UTC)

Not logged in, but wanted to respond. I did not break the three-revert rule. After the text [see below] disappeared the first time, I reposted it once, and when it disappeared again I stopped. Please don't make accusations like that, KissL, even "seemingly." Second, while I understand that posting "unconfirmed rumors" is questionable, I think my text handled it well and added relevant breaking data to this Wiki current events article. At the least, I'd like to see an explanation for why info from a Stratfor link (found at Cursor this morning) is more "marginal" and less worthy of posting than info quoting an Israeli newspaper that itself quotes "Army Radio quoting unconfirmed reliable sources." Thanks.

That said, I'm willing to wait and see what comes of the story before posting further. Here's the deleted text, which I placed at the end of the current "Issues" section:

Stratfor Consulting reports "unconfirmed rumors in intelligence circles" that the Israeli government "actually warned London of the attacks 'a couple of days' previous," implying a failure on the part of the British government, which, Stratfor suggests, "sat on this information for days and failed to respond" because a) it didn't want to disrupt the 31st G8 summit and b) "Israel has apparently given other warnings about possible attacks that turned out to be aborted operations." [1]

is 24.168.174.209 the same guy who posted the VERY long article, followed by POV and soapbox text regarding the UK gov. planting the bombs themselves? The wikipedia troll faq mentions that we should restrict discussion on talk pages to article improvement, rather than merits of various competing views. Just a reminder :) Adidas 8 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

Checking once again (which I didn't have enough time to do - that's why I said "seemingly"), I can see the addition [2] and two (pretty distinct) reverts [3] [4] from the same IP, so I admit 3RR wasn't broken. All the same: this info is 1) unverified because the link does not point to a site directly identifiable with Stratfor, and 2) marginal because it contains "unconfirmed rumors", no matter how brilliantly they are "handled" afterwards.

I surely have nothing against anyone removing the entire Issues section as similarly irrelevant, I just didn't want to do it because I wasn't sure it would meet consensus; that part at least quotes verifiable sources. KissL 8 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

In my view the argument against the stratfor para is pretty strong: Kissl's two points are on the nail. Unless and until there is better sourcing, I wouldn't think it belongs on the main page. Can't see a case for removing the whole section though: whether there is truth in the report or not, it merits attention. In what sense can you say it is irrelevant?Bengalski 8 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)

I removed the map because it shows an inexistant attack in Old Street. Please do not re-insert it, exept if you can edit a new page, without Old Street. thanks--Revas 8 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)

Used this article as a source. lots of issues | 8 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)

The nowpublic link is back on the article. It contains only 6 pictures, 4 related to the bombings. In comparison all major media outlet carry 50+ pics each. Whoever keeps reposting the link is doing a good job at looking like they are advertising their site. This is getting really, really old. Adidas 8 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)

The article suggests the intention of the terrorist was to cause maximum casulties. This does not agree with quite a number of analysts I've heard on BBC World etc who've said compared to the September 11th attacks and the Madrid bombings, the primary concern of the terrorists appears to have been for maximum effect then maximum casulties. I believe the bombing of the bus which occured quite a while after the tube bombings, after the tube had been shut down in fact is seen as part of this. The tube had already been shut down and with the bus bombing they ensured the London public transport system was completely shut down. Of course, one can expect that perhaps they also did their best to ensure maximum casulties while ensuring maximum effect. Of course, we will probably never know precisely what they considered in their planning but I do think the maximum effect bit needs to be mentioned given that it has been said by a number of analysts.

My personal POV is maximum disruption - there are better ways to inflict mass casualties than to attack the transport infrastructure. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)

50 plus people dead at Yahoo! News. --Wimtennis2005 8 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

1. "Airplane attack - The attack involved hijacking of one private aircraft. Hijacked plane crashed into the north side of the Piccadilly Circus at (09:11:13 UTC)." - this is completely fictitious, I'm removing. Also evidently an addition from a US user as in the UK we say 'aeroplane'.
2. The image of the bus: "Few seconds before the crash, image taken by anonymus tourist". I don't believe this, the image is a generic picture of a London bus. Removing as it's misleading.

--Air 8 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

It was just vandalism - you could have removed although I have now. The picture is clearly photoshopped as it has an plane in it as well as the iconic bus. I guess the picture is from something like B3ta although the name of the guy Internets makes me think of the Something Awful crowd. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

This doesn't require a section on the talk page. Just remove vandalism from the article when you see it. End of story. Moncrief July 8, 2005 16:10 (UTC)

This bit seems a little flakey:

One translator from U.S. cable news network MSNBC expressed scepticism at the legitimacy of this claim, claiming there are grammatical mistakes in the anouncement, as well as a "mistake" in the quoted verse from the Qur'an. [13] The verse, as quoted in the letter, is missing the beginning of the original Qur'anic verse, which begins with "Ya ayyuhal Lathee" ("O you who believe!"). The verse is quoted only partially, which may or may not be a mistake.

Is Al Qaeda known for their perfect grammar? --Lee Hunter 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)

See also this earlier discussion. I'm not sure why this is still in the article. It seems to be just someone on MSNBC speculating and no one has come along to substantiate it or get rid of it. I don't know enough about it though. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)

Ok I've taken it out. --Lee Hunter 8 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

I just want to send my condolances and offer my sympathy to my fellow Wikipedians in London and throughout Great Britain from an American who was indirectly impacted by the attacks of September 11, 2001. May God be with you. JB82 t 8 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)

Here's a site where you can write your condolences to the people of London: [5] Moncrief July 8, 2005 16:22 (UTC)

I see that some flickr photos are available under a creative commons license that seems wikipedia compatible. For example

• http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=24232837&size=o&context=pool-74918957@N00
• license at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

--Nantonos 8 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

• the image you have given as an example was stolen from the BBC --83.168.32.111 8 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)

Early on, someone had noted that the trial of Abu Hamza al-Masri had begun in London this week. I took this out because the WP article on Masri (incorrectly as I later learned) said the trial didn't start till December. Now I'm wondering if it shouldn't be put back in, since it actually did start a few days ago. Any thoughts? --Lee Hunter 8 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)

I think we should add it in. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place for this, it's interesting but IMHO there's not sufficient evidence that this is significant to the main point of this article to justify inclusion. Nick Fraser 8 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Well it's probably more significant than the Olympics - he is one of the UK's leading islamicists. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

The case for the including the Olympics link isn't particularly strong, but it could be significant in the development of the article - e.g. discussion of psychological impact (e.g. the high of Olympics decision followed by the low of the bombing). I don't think Abu Hamza link takes us anywhere, of course this could change, if for example an Islamic website mentions the bombing as a protest against the treatment of AH, etc. Nick Fraser 8 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

One user in particular is trying to remove all pictures from the article. He has placed comments in the article asking for there to be no pictures. However he seems to have decided this unilaterally. I think there should be some pictures, as long as people don't go overboard. What do others think? Secretlondon 8 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)

More pictures are good. I think we should try ot limit ourselves to two pictures per section though. Klonimus 8 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

I'm not sure at all why that user thinks there should be NO photos in the article. That would be a first for a Wikipedia article. Has he/she given any rationale for the photo removal? Moncrief July 8, 2005 18:36 (UTC)

One of the comments they added in mentioned speed of loading. They've not put anything on a talk page as far as I know - but I've not checked all of them. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)

Re Speedloading - If someone wants no-image speed loading they need to adjust their browser settings or ask wikipedia for RSS support. --Mitrebox 8 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)

I agree that we should scrap this mysterious "no images" policy. As long as we don't go overboard with huge photos everywhere it won't cause much of a problem for the readers, and as Mitrebox says, people should turn off image loading if they want pages to load more quickly. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)

Can we establish a concensus that pictures should be restored back to the article and trying to limit pictures to 2-3 per section. Klonimus 8 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

No objections to pictures myself but feel that this is something that can wait. Let's wait a day or so longer for the article to stabilise before adding lots of pics. It does slow the loading of the page a little and this is a very popular page. Others agree? Nick Fraser 8 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

No I don't. Why wait until the page's traffic has subsided? That makes no sense. As only user:Pigsonthewing seems to have a problem, and he hasn't discussed first then I'm minded to treat this page like every other. Images should clearly add to the article - so a map is fine, the picture of the damaged train is fine - a random picture of a tube station or of the Queen probably doesn't add enough. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

I think a visit of the Queen, is very notable and worthy of inclusion Klonimus 8 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)

I disagree - it tells the reader nothing. If it is important that the article mentions the Queen visiting people in hospital then add it - we don't need to see that as well. We don't learn any more than we do from the text. To be honest I don't think it's notable as text - I'd expect the Queen to visit them. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)

I changed numerical values of 'per cent' to '%' in accordance with the Wikipedia manual of style. It was then reverted. Was my edit and hence the Manual of Style guidance totally unacceptable? Bobblewik  (talk) 8 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)

Due to the duplication bug, this article gets reverted a lot. It was probably just lost in the shuffle. --Dhartung | Talk 8 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

I'm keeping references to Allah in the translated statement as Allah, because that is the closest translation to the original text. The Allah article is the best reference of understanding muslim idea's about thier god. Klonimus 8 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

Allah is not the "closest translation to the original text", it is no translation at all! As you'll see from the article, Allah is the Arabic word for God, also used by Arabic-speaking Christians etc. If we're to translate the statement into English we should translate Allah to God along with it. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 20:38 (UTC)

Yes it is, Allah refers to the god of the muslims, not everyone else who beleives in a monotheistic god beleives in Allah. Anyways the statement starts with the "Bismallah" statement which is "In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate" and so it should be.Klonimus 8 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)

Allah does not refer only to the God of the Muslims, it is an Arabic word referring to any monotheistic deity, used in Arabic translations of the Christian Bible, amongst other things. Your second sentence is fauly logic. "Bismillah" is "Bismillah" in Arabic, "in the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate" in English, and "in the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate" in English with an Arabic word left untranslated. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

Nickfraser removed the following NPOV passage in the first section:

A group called "Secret Organisation - al-Qaeda in Europe" has claimed that it carried out the attacks in response to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, making the 7 July death toll in London of 50 dead equivalent to between half to twice the average number of civilians killed every day in the invasion and occupation of Iraq since 2003, in which British military participated and continue to participate.

Nickfraser: please justify what you think is POV if you want to claim it is POV. i don't understand what is POV. Boud 8 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)

It's POV because it's conflating the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan with the bombings.It is considdered bad taste to compare war casualties with victems of terror attacks. Klonimus 8 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

I don't think taste comes into it - and saying that the two can't be compared is POV. The paragraph is POV as it implies a link between the two - that one caused the other. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)

The "Secret Organisation - al-Qaeda in Europe" states very clearly itself that the reason it carried out the attacks was in response to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The link exists. As for bad taste, if there is any aspect of bad taste, then ignoring the relevant facts would be in bad taste. 25-100 Iraqi civilians being killed per day are real people being killed: ignoring the claimed connection with the London attack would be bad taste. Boud 8 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

# 20:35, 8 July 2005 Nickfraser (rm POV passage - this is not the place to make political points about the merits of British involvement in Iraq)

The organisation claiming responsibility states that the British involvement in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is the reason for the attack: this is not making political points about the merits of either the US/British killings of civilians nor the killings of civilians in London yesterday: it is neutral to both. Boud 8 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

Hi Boud - I deleted your paragraph for a number of reasons. Firstly, stylistically the opening paragraph should deal in hard known facts - it should be tightly focused rather than dealing in speculation about linked foreign policy issues and historical context (these can be expanded upon later in the article provided they don't digress too much from the main point of the article). Secondly, the claim by 'Al-Qaeda Europe' is not sufficiently verified yet - it's going out on a limb a little as the Al-Qaeda Europe connection could well be a hoax, is there sufficient independent verification yet? Thirdly, I just feel that the majority of wikipedians would interpret the general tone of your paragraph as one that implies some kind of moral equivalence between the act of terrorism in London and the events you mention elsewhere in the world. That's contentious to say the least. Do others agree? Nick Fraser 8 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

I think we can go too far the other way and see acts of violence committed by state and non-state actors as entirely separate things. If one supported the war on Iraq one wouldn't want there to be any connection, if one opposed one might want to highlight the connection - I don't think we should ignore it. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

"The attacks on the Underground system were detonated by timers." - I don't believe that this is known yet, is it? Secretlondon 8 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

Could we please put Wikinews back at the top. I'll do it if no-one disagrees. --Celestianpower 8 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)