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

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6
• 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)

Whom ever thought it was a great idea to replace this page with a series of penises (kudos for including both flaccid and erect!), you may have made me and a few others laugh, but honestly such a current and 'sensitive' article as this should be shown more respect.. please let wikipedia be a mature place for information ( I hope wiki-trolls read talk pages!) Adenosine | Talk 18:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

(Note: Pictures have been removed --Tokachu)

Previous talk has been archived, see Archive 6. --Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This link [1] takes you to the Transport for London image gallery, where there are interesting pictures from their TrackerNet service, showing the movements of the Circle Line trains just before and when they were bombed. I realise the Terms and Conditions you get when you click on the above link means we can't use their images, but can we even link to this page? I want to put this link in the External Links section, with a brief sentence explaining what it links to, but am not entirely sure if this is OK or not. Carcharoth 21:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're linking to the site, not copying the images. It's fine. - Wgsimon 00:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we do not make use of our 'fair use' / 'fair dealing' rights then they will be taken away. Copyright has limits and one of those limits is that portions of works maybe used in other works (quotes for example). As far as the terms and conditions go, I am not sure if you can legally (in America since that is were Wikipedia is based so it follows that duristiction's rules) wave your fair use rights in such a manner.

Personally I'd use them as fair use and wait for them to lodge a complaint and their justification as to why it wouldn't be fair use. Wikipedia is a monument to how classical copyright is too far reaching and copy left (in the form of the GNU GPL) restores the balance, so anything to further individual's freedom to information is in the spirit of Wikipedia. --ShaunMacPherson 04:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are saying that we should use the Trackernet images like any other media source would. They say "The TfL News Centre image gallery contains a selection of images which are available for press use only" and "Images held in the TfL News Centre image library may be used by members of the media for press use only provided such use is accompanied by the words "(c) Transport for London 2005". Images may not be used for any other purpose and must not be altered or passed to third parties without the written permission of the TfL Press Office.". I'm leaving the links in, but leaving it to others to decide about the actual images. Carcharoth 08:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The images can be used on WP providing the condition is met. On the other hand I couldn't find anything of interest on the page. It wasn't clear to me what I was supposed to be looking for. --Lee Hunter 13:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to Catherine below. Once you click past the Terms and Conditions, it should be the first 6 images you see. You need to download them and flick through them in order to see what they are showing (2x 3-image sequences): the movements of the Circle Line trains just before the bombs went off. Carcharoth 21:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, fair use is an affirmative defense, not a right per se -- so the concept of a waiver of rights doesn't enter in to consideration. Certainly one can enter into agreements not to publish or pass on information, the most obvious of which are Non-disclosure agreements. --Tabor 17:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Their license is NOT compatible with ours. Even if we counted as media, which we don't for their purposes, by uploading them here we'd be (at least perceived as) putting them under the GFDL and making them available for others to use under the GFDL, which is not Trackernet's intent. It's fine and very desirable to link there, and point out the important nature of the pictures, but we cannot upload and use the pictures here. — Catherine\^talk 18:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can since one can use images that are copyrighted under fair use so their 'license' has nothing to do with it. More than a few images are used on Wikipedia underfair use, as is quotes and other portions of copyrighted material. Reread my statements above and hopefully we can dispell ignorance on how we can use fairuse rights to the fullest extent (so they are not taken away). --ShaunMacPherson 21:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have read up on Image_use_policy and Wikipedia:Fair use to verify (very useful sources) enough that I believe these images can be used since by reading the 17 U.S.C. § 107 section of the United_States_Copyright_Act_of_1976 since: This topic is very newsworthy and Wikipedia is educational and nonprofit. Since the images are not designed for mass consumption (like a promotional poster) I'd use a smaller resolution then the ones provided there, if they are used at all - of course giving full credit to them as the copyright holder and a link as well. Anyone else have any thoughts? --ShaunMacPherson 21:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this. And thanks for agreeing that the pictures are desirable to link to. The sequence of train movements around Edgware Road is fairly clear, but I can't make out what is going on for the Liverpool Street / Aldgate train. In the final TrackerNet image for that train, there seem to be several other trains nearby, but I can't be certain. Also, unlike the Edgware Road incident, I can't find any eyewitness reports of people on other trains hearing the bombs explode. Anyone know of such reports? Carcharoth 21:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding details of the bus route, heavily based on an article in the London newspaper the Evening Standard ("A piercing scream... then their lives were shattered" - Keith Dovkants - 12/07/2005, p10 of 'West End Final' edition). The important bit is "Shortly after it [the number 30 bus] pulled onto its stand at Euston bus station at 09:35am, [the driver] was told to follow a 'safe alternative route' [...] to avoid King's Cross [...] The bus stand was crowded with people who had been turned off the Tube."

Chillingly, the article also reports that the bomber emitted an ear-splitting scream just before the bomb went off. Carcharoth 21:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some anon (or anons) keep adding references to a PR firm called Visor Consultants which supposedly predicted the bombings. This is self-promotional rubbish which seems to be being forwarded by conspiracy theorists and fringe websites [2], and it doesn't belong in this article. Could people please keep an eye out for this and delete it if it pops up again? -- ChrisO 22:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See below - apparently publicity the company does not want and an activity that was merely coincidental. Since people have heard about it, it may be prudent to explain it in the article to avoid people putting incorrect information in there. --Habap 15:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The story was aired on BBC radio and is relevant. It was documented. Why do you want to censor it? If you disagree with the story, add a sentence which outlines the alternative view. DELETING CONTENT BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH IT IS PATHETIC. It also negatively impacts on peoples' confidence in wikipedia as an "unbiased" encyclopedia. -- anon, 14 Jul 2005.

I don't think it was deleted because anyone disagrees that it happened. But it was clearly just this guy trying to fluff himself up by feeding on tragedy. The fact that someone in a metropolitan area of about 10 million people (one that has regular bomb threats) was having an emergency planning meeting at the time of a bombing is a chilling bit of synchronicity for those involved but entirely non-notable for the rest of the world. --Lee Hunter 18:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Power's interviewed statement on BBC Radio 5 at 15.01, 07/07/2005. The widespread transcript of this interview, published on the web, has some inaccuracies which lead to semantic misinterpretation. To get a clear idea of what Power actually said and more importantly his intonation, please listen to the recording which has also been distributed widely across the web in mp3 format. While Power does use this opportunity for self promotional purposes, he also implies that this was a full simulation involving real life interaction of people on the ground, at or near the location of the explosions and at the time the explosions occurred. He further confirms this statement in a defensive and hostile standardized email response to enquiries. His original statement on Radio 5 that Visor's simulated exercise took place at the precise stations which the attacks then occurred and that his simulation involved multiple simultaneous explosions, was expressed partly out of shock (he admits to a fear induced "fight or flight" physical response of his neck hair standing on end) as well as a marketing tool to imply that his company can accurately predict and deal with realistic scenarios. As time passed and he appeared in further public interviews he seems to be distancing himself from this statement, possibly because he realized, or was advised that the proven statistical probability of what he claimed on Radio 5 is so mathematically improbable so as to only be interpreted as evidence of foreknowledge or culpable involvement by any independent observer or investigation. In a later ITN news interview, 20.11, 07/07/2005 Power states that Visor's client was instrumental in selecting the scenario and locations involved. This can be interpreted as further distancing himself and his company from investigation. In his email response he contradicts his original Radio 5 statement further, by claiming that only one of the scenario aspects bore a "very similar" relation to the actual events of 07/07/2005. One independent investigator has released a statistical analysis, which asserts that the probability of the Visor simulation coinciding with one of the real events at the correct location, within a time-scale of one hour (averaged by a 5 year mean) is 18,949,840 to 1. Therefore this highly unlikely simultaneous occurrence of Visor's artificial terrorism simulation and the actual bombings in London should be fully, transparently and publicly investigated to disprove related conspiracy theories and to broaden human understanding of statistical probability, quantum/chaos physics and their relation to real world events and coincidences.

I am a long way from being a statistician (I'm not sure I can even spell the word) but the 19 million to 1 figure seems a bit improbable, given that the likely time for such an event is during rush hour from Monday to Friday, the likely location would be somewhere central and the bombs went off at four different locations (which increases the possibility that one would coincide). One would also have to know how frequently it happens that a mid to large company in London conducts an emergency planning exercise involving the transportation system (probably an impossible figure to determine). I'd be interested to know how this independent investigator came up with his figures. --Lee Hunter 14:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The probability was arrived at by using all 19 hours a day on days which the underground is open in a year and all 274 stations. If, as you suggest, we use a model of 3 hrs a working day (rush hour) then select 10 - 15 most likely target stations in the centre and also research an average yearly figure for professionally run, well pre-planned crisis management exercises involving actual walkthrough rehearsals taking place on the underground (post Madrid 3/11) I'm not sure the probability increases so much as to make this a non-issue. Perhaps someone could do the math for us all. If you want to travel down the road of Bayesian probability even further you could rationalise that a terror event was highly probable while the G8 was in the country, it was probable that major London underground station/s would be targeted and it was probable that 'suicide/remote bombers' would perpetrate the crime. You could argue that the probability was less than 20 to 1 if you rationalise far enough and surmise that it was only natural that Visor consultants should take this opportunity to test their system with a London client. In which case how was the bombing allowed to occur? Surely Power could have warned his friends in Scotland Yard about Visor's calculations? Surely they would have worked it out for themselves already? Unfortunately neither frequency probability derived from calculations alone nor Bayesian probability which takes other factors into account are entirely accurate systems. Even with the changes you have suggested I suspect that the statistical probabilty in question is still over a million to one and I would be happy if someone could calculate the figure for us. These coincidences occur too frequently and a full investigation into this case would reveal to us all whether they are the result of limited perception and pattern recognition, unavoidable synchronicities within the physics of the universe or of course evidence of a sinister worldwide bogey man conspiracy.

I also read somewhere that this guy Power specializes in emergency planning and that he had a particular interest in bomb attacks in the Underground after he himself was caught in an attack a while back. That suggests to me that he's probably talking about this sort of thing at least every week, if not every day. I'm sure there were any number of people in the police, fire dept, emergency planners, hr who came home that night and told their spouse "Why just five minutes/one hour/one day earlier we were talking about this very thing!"--Lee Hunter 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee may well be correct. However what he is saying is vague supposition, exactly what conspiracy theorists feed on and contrary to the point of an encyclopædia. The conspiracy minded types out there have gathered empirical evidence which can be shown as proof to their theories and many of them can take this model of reality which they have built and explain it very succinctly to reinforce and spread their own beliefs. Peter Power should not have stated so confidently what he did so publicly. He has caused problems and he has not publicly offered proof that what he said was inaccurate. He has not tried directly to prove the conspiracy allegations wrong. This will only add weight to those allegations as will removing them from a public encylopædia. Now we have a chance to prove absolutely that the conspiracy theorists are wrong. With a full investigation which has conclusive findings and proven detailed scientific data. We may even learn to use statistical probability, synchronicity and coincidence to our advantage in order to predict and prevent terrorist attacks.

The whole Visor Consultants thing is non-notable conspiracy theorising and POV rubbish; it absolutely does not belong in this article. It's received minimal media coverage - the only reason why it's being cited at all is because some of the wackier fringe elements of the blogosphere are pushing a particularly lame conspiracy theory, i.e. that the bombings were actually a plot by the British Government. See http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm for an example. I shouldn't need to point out that we're not in the business of documenting every lame-brained blogosphere conspiracy theory. -- ChrisO 22:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is your POV. The wikipedia pov is to report relevant facts. That is relvant. Why? Its was improbable. If it wherent, they would have warned for it. They did not. --Striver 23:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. See Wikipedia is not as well as Wikipedia:No original research. We had a similar discussion with the September 11, 2001 attacks article as well, as I recall. -- ChrisO 23:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I may be more in possession of facts than other because it's happening outside my own front door, but do tonight's house raids in Aylesbury warrant inclusion in this article? -- Francs2000 | File:Uk flag large.png 23:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth waiting a day or two to find out if anything significant was discovered. I suspect there will be a lot of raids all over the place in the next few months, and probably not many of them will turn up something of significance. I hope you get a peaceful night's sleep, anyway! -- Arwel 23:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Aylesbury raids are apparently linked to the fourth bomber. I think worth including.

I did not do any original research. I simply added a fact that manny belive its relevent. Its not harder than that. The truth is: You want to get ridd of it, not since it unrelevant, but since it makes you angry. Only the fact that it makes people angy makes it relevant.

--Striver 23:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Police are examining about 2,500 CCTV footage and forensic evidence from the scenes of the attacks, looking for, among other things, DNA evidence." This sentence badly needs rewording. Does it mean 2,500 separate CCTV cameras? 2,500 minutes of CCTV footage? 2,500 hours? Also, although grammatically and logically correct, lumping video surveillance and other forensic evidence together makes the example of DNA sound strange since you can't get DNA evidence from video. –DeweyQ 00:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's "footage from 2,500 CCTV cameras" - there are an awful lot of them around in the UK. -- Arwel 00:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the template reappeared, and its VfD appears to be failing (plenty of keep votes), I moved ahead to trim it down so that it doesn't have a bunch of red-link articles. The template was just a slightly trimmed 9/11 template and doesn't necessarily reflect the needs of this particular story. I fully expect it will grow, but I hope it will grow to meet the needs of the article, so that additions only occur when an article is ready. Discussion of additions to the template should occur at Template_talk:Jul7Bom. --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(You will receive this message if you request information using the contact e-mail shown on the www.visorconsultants.com website)

Thank you for your message. Given the volume of emails about events on 7 July and a commonly expressed misguided belief that our exercise revealed prescient behaviour, or was somehow a conspiracy (noting that several websites interpreted our work that day in an inaccurate / naive / ignorant / hostile manner) it has been decided to issue a single email response as follows: It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events.

However, anyone with knowledge about such ongoing threats to our capital city will be aware that (a) the emergency services have already practiced several of their own exercises based on bombs in the underground system (also reported by the main news channels) and (b) a few months ago the BBC broadcast a similar documentary on the same theme, although with much worse consequences. It is hardly surprising therefore, that we chose a feasible scenario - but the timing and script was nonetheless, a little disconcerting.

In short, our exercise (which involved just a few people as crisis managers actually responding to a simulated series of activities involving, on paper, 1000 staff) quickly became the real thing and the players that morning responded very well indeed to the sudden reality of events.

Beyond this no further comment will be made and based on the extraordinary number of messages from ill informed people, no replies will henceforth be given to anyone unable to demonstrate a bona fide reason for asking (e.g. accredited journalist / academic).

Peter Power Visor Consultants Limited

That will teach those cocky PR people a good lesson. They conducted a little paper exercise between them on paper, then when the bombing occured decided it would be great publicity to milk a tragedy. It didn't take long to backfire. Now their name is dragged in the mud by all the conspiracy lunatics. Thank you Karma police.... Adidas 15:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The worst part is that they probably were ignoring their own advice and never sat down to consider what to do if this ever happened. That is, a disaster which they considered actually occurred. Their 8 Key Thoughts on Disasters --Habap 15:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no article on this subject. It is the radical Leeds mosque which three of the suspects attended. It is likely to become a far more prominent part of the story as the investigation continues.

It appears the term "radical mosque" may be somewhat inaccurate. [3]

In the list of suspects there are two unnamed persons seen on video footage. Are they actually different people or did we dupe this info? --Lee Hunter 13:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BBC lists four bombers including an unnamed man; one man who has left the country; and a missing Egyptian Chemistry student (we have Professor). A total of six. [4]

He is no longer unnamed. BBC list him as "Jamaican-born Lindsey Germaine"

I'm still wondering whether these two individuals are actually referring to the same person (i.e. should we delete the unnamed person below). Both items seem to be referring to the fifth person in his early 30s seen on the CCTV footage: --Lee Hunter 16:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Ejaz Fiaz (also named as Eliaz Fiaz): possible co-conspirator and at first thought to have been the suicide bomber on the Piccadilly Line train. In his early thirties, from Beeston, Leeds.
• Unnamed: co-conspirator seen on CCTV footage with the four bombers, believed to be the bomb-maker and cell organizer. Described as a Pakistani in his 30s, he entered Britain through a port some time in June 2005, and left the country on 6 July.

Long time past, but they're not the same -- I've disambigged. --Dhartung | Talk 19:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is doing the rounds of various offices right now (15PM, 14th july): "FYI Hi all, I have been strongly advised by one of my work colleagues who is informing everyone she knows that the police will be putting officers on tube stations 24/7 for the next week as they highly expect another attack within this time. She has a friend in the police force who has just been in meetings confirming this. I have been advised to avoid the tube at all costs for the time being. This news will filter through apparently through the media in the next few hours. Please take care on your journeys home. I don't want to worry you all (a bit late now), but I would follow this advice if you can. Kind regards, (name witheld by Adidas)" So much for the 'spirit of the blitz!' Adidas 14:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

updating my own post here, turns out, this is not a chain letter - it was a forward from one company to another going through only one employee. Anybody got information corroborating its contents? Adidas 16:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a police update due in ten minutes (i.e. at 15:30 BST).

did it happen? I can't see anything about it on the usual web sites Adidas 15:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not seen anything beyond the fact that the BBC is reporting that the police have released CCTV images of the bombers. Perhaps it was a very short event.

you're right - cnn has pix of the police with a projected image behind them of the CCTV grabs during the conference. Cheers. Adidas 16:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see that this article was the first hit when I googled for "London bombings" this morning. --Lee Hunter 16:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sections entitled bombers and accomplices should be changed to suspected.... as at the moment it has not been legaly confirmed that these people were responsible for the bombings. Even though the police may have stated that they believe them to be the bombers it is prejudicial to state it as fact until they are found guilty by law. Should they be found not to have been the bombers (as with so many other facts related to this event) wikipedia could be guilty of libel under British law. DavidP 17:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are sub-headings of "suspects". Andy Mabbett 17:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, they weren't, but I've fixed that, now. Andy Mabbett 18:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding. Among other things text such as Media reports suggest the following people are suspected of participating in the attacks is used; and they're all over the national newspapers. I know British libel laws are more plaintiff-friendly than in the US, but there's only so many times we can use words like "suspected" and "alleged". --Dhartung | Talk 17:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. I've changed the subheads to 'alleged bombers' and 'alleged suspects' --Lee Hunter 18:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you've sparked an edit war. It cannot be libelous to label someone a suspect. A suspect is someone the police have named. The Richard Jewell problem came about because he was not a named suspect when the AJC and NBC came out with their news stories. In this case, the police are making arrests and executing search warrants based on these identities. That's encyclopedic enough for me. --Dhartung | Talk 18:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not naming them as suspects. The problem is that we're assuming that the reader is going to make the connection between the heading Suspects and the latter subheading of Suicide Bomber. This might be obvious to some WP editors (it's not to me) but I suspect would not be at all clear to a casual reader since the only indication of structure is a slight difference in font size. If you have a bold heading that says "Suicide bomber" and a list of names underneath, you are strongly indicating that this is a fact. --Lee Hunter 19:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I would be far more concerned if the suspects were presumed alive. Dead, I'm not sure it matters that much. I found this about posthumous libel [5] (Gladstone), and it appears that the bar is higher at "malicious intent". --Dhartung | Talk 02:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee is of course very concerned with preserving the good names of the suicide bombers (of blessed memory). Let's call a spade a spade, These people were Muslim (not presbyterian, or quaker, or methodist, or even unitarian universalist) suicide bombers (not militants) engaged in Jihad against the Infidels. Klonimus 04:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, whatever. Why don't you go haunt Little Green Footballs, or something? They like your kind there. --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's well known that unplesant facts make people uncomfortable.Telegraph:BBC edits out the word terrorist Klonimus 07:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, stop this childish trolling. Go someplace where it's appreciated. We're trying to create a factual article here. If you're not going to contribute to that goal, you're just noise. --Dhartung | Talk 19:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klonimus, I don't quite understand your comment. Religion is irrelevant to the question of whether this early police interpretation should be accepted as fact. It's not like the British police have never jumped to conclusions about a bombing (see Birmingham Six) --Lee Hunter 13:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is merely the authors opinion - 'is considered likely' by whom? why not just reference those who do?

Al-Qaeda involvement is considered likely, as it follows their pattern:

• Bombs were detonated nearly simultaneously;
• No warnings were given by the perpetrators;
• The bombs were detonated early in the day to catch the news; and
• The bombs were detonated at a time and location designed to inflict maximum death and injury to a civilian population.
• It is now considered probable that the bombers died in the blasts, raising the possibility that they were suicide attacks.

A police press conference on 12 July provided further details on the progess of the investigation. Investigators are focusing on a group of four men, three of whom were from Leeds, West Yorkshire, and are reported as being Cleanskins. All four arrived in London on the morning of 7 July and were recorded on CCTV at Kings Cross station (the London terminus serving Yorkshire) at about 08.30. Property associated with three of the men was found near the site of the three Tube explosions, while property associated with the fourth man was found near the bombed bus. All four are believed to have died in the bombings, with the three Tube explosions thought to have been possible suicide bombings. Police raided six properties in the Leeds area on 12 July: two houses in Beeston, two houses in Thornhill, one house in Holbeck and one house in Alexandra Grove, Burley. One man was arrested. A vehicle thought to be associated with the bombings was found at Luton railway station and subjected to a controlled explosion [6], [7], [8]. -- quote italicized by Jtkiefer

I think this section could probably use a rewrite since even though it's sourced I think that we should inherently distrust a paragraph that uses the phrase "thought to be" as many times as this does. Jtkiefer 06:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a scalpel. I think it should sound better now. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the bombs were not designed to inflict maximum casualties as they included no fragments, nails etc, as is the usual terrorist tactic, this can be seen from the types of injuries and the relatively low (though no less tragic) loss of life in the crowded tube trains. A bomb went off in one packed carriage for instance and killed only seven people. Th bombs were mainly blast bombs designed for structural damage. Police reports claim large quantities of TATP were found in Leeds, a classic blast bomb substance. However this is odd as most net based articles I've read today on TATP say it does not produce flame or heat just a gas blast. SO where did all the burn victims on the trians come from? Issues like this are important as they reveal the mindsets of the culprits and possible agendas, as well as test the official reports for contradictions.

There is talk the bus bomb was originally intended to detonate on an Underground train - on the Northern line. But the Northern line was not operational from Kings Cross that morning. Auswide

The Northern line was operating that morning but there were severe delays. Paul Tracy_|\talk 12:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Police want to know if there was a late change of plan. That is, did a mastermind get involved in that 57 minute period after the 3 underground explosions? Auswide

Okay, you're asking the same questions the police are. It seems like they intended to create a 4-way "burning cross" (by some interpretations) on the map of London. We don't yet know that they intended any such thing. The speculation arises because it seems very strange that they used a simultaneous attack on one form of transport followed by a non-simultaneous explosion. It's one of many strange things about this case. The use of suicide bombers, for example, by itself is superfluous. --Dhartung | Talk 19:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again (Dear Dhartung...please delete this as/if you wish, you are doing a great job) This is only a personal belief, but I think that the bombers would find Golder's Green (with its traditionally-high Jewish population) a hard target to resist. A pattern of bombs that would set us fleeing to the 'North, South, East and West' centred on King's CROSS can be made (with a bit of Deja-Vu) to have significant overtones to the Christian mind,...but I have no way of knowing if this has the same significance in the mind of a person with highly-extreme and unrepresentative Islamic beliefs. If I were one of these people, I think that I would rather draw a crescent on the face of London, (this being the most sacred symbol of Islam, signifying the crescent moon which signals the start of Ramadan - the Muslim holy month of abstenance - parallel to the Christian 'Lent'). The 'Cross of Fire' would seem to come from the extremes of the Christian religion (i.e. Ku-Klux-Klan imagery) which has, thankfully, little or no significance to either the British, or the UK's Muslim population. (ChrisR)

Should we be using the phrase 'Suicide Bombers' yet?. So far the usual jihad pre-mission video has not surfaced, no 'testament' of any kind has been found, nobody from even their closest circle seems to have had any clue of what was intended, and the bombers were carrying personal effects and documents on them. Is it possible that they only discovered that they were 'suicide bombers' in the split-second after they pulled what was supposed to be the arming device, intending to leave the train/bus at the next stop?.

ChrisR

It's not clear that all suicide bombers (e.g. in the middle east) do so knowingly. It certainly doesn't fit known patterns, but then, the Luton cell arrests last year were said to have disrupted plans.

In any case, the police are using the phrase suicide bomber, which means it's encyclopedic for us to report their version of events. Changing it because we think it doesn't fit a known pattern is POV. --Dhartung | Talk 19:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dhartung: I agree that you are correct in using the 'official' version as encyclopedic for the time being, i.e.'suicide bombers'.

SNIP...Non-encyclopedic personal opinion removed from here by self (ChrisR)

I've tightened up the wording on the Possible suicide bombers section. I approve of the additions of police reluctance to use the term and documentation of the state of the Leeds factory; these are factual. I removed the speculative claim that suicide bombings are used against "hard targets in high-security situations", as this is not supported by even a cursory review of the evidence (and see this comprehensive Atlantic article). Busses (Israel), recruiting lines (Iraq), and checkpoints (both) are by definition soft targets. The primary reasons for the tactic seem to be a) maximizing casualties (a suicide bomber can pick the best time and place) and b) creating horror and suspicion. High-security hard targets in Israel and Iraq are attacked with mortars and IEDs. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia frontpage's "In the news" says "After a series of raids, British police announce their suspicion that the 7 July London bombings were suicide bombings carried out by four British citizens, three from the Leeds area and one from Aylesbury." which contradicts what is said in the "Possible suicide bombers" section and the therein reference article. ("Police have carefully refrained throughout the investigation from publicly using the term "suicide bomber," describing the four men only as bombing suspects. "We've never used the phrase 'suicide bombers'. We've always been aware that among the things we need to clarify is the notion these people intended to die as well as letting off a bomb," the spokesman said.") Which is correct? --Knut Arne Vedaa 12:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The following is a quote from the external link "Same Old, Same Old..." in the section "Analysis":

"Failed states in the Middle East — autocratic, statist, unfree, intolerant of women and other religions — blame the West for their self-inflicted miseries. Sometimes they are theocratic, like the late Taliban or the current Iranian mullahs. But more often they are dictatorial like the Syrians, Pakistanis, Saudis, or Egyptians, who all, in varying degrees and in lieu of reform, have come to accommodations with the terrorists to shift popular anguish onto the West and the Jews."

Is this really something we want to be linking? This guy can barely seem to go a sentence without spewing out what is blatantly opinion masquerading as fact, or at the very least sweeping, groundless assumptions -- all things we seek to avoid in Wikipedia itself.

Now I recognise that by the very nature of being an "analysis," it's bound to make assumptions and contain conjecture, but in the context of an encyclopaedia is it helpful to endorse partisan ranting, even if we do provide an "alternative" view which is attributed to a "conspiracy website"?

Now admittedly my own political position predisposes me to hate everything that Mr Victor Davis Hanson has to say; however I'm not trying to push my own politics on Wikipedia, I just think we shouldn't be linking slanted, politically motivated analysis, including the views of both the left and the right, at all in the interests of remaining objective. Chris Smowton 14:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, none of the three articles linked at the moment (Hanson, JPost, Infowar) is "suitable". They're all pushing agendas.--Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should. Part of being NPOV is admiting and fairly documenting the different POV's that surround a topic. Thats includes POVs that we may disagree with. Refusing to document alternative POVs (as the BBC does) it's self a form of POV. VDH is an important political commentator in the US, and his views are representative of the neoconservatives who beleive the west is engaged in a war on terror. This article is not blog ranting, but was published in a leading american political magazine. Klonimus 20:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's document the points of view in an encyclopaedic fashion. Posting a link with no context but the word "Analysis," especially to someone not familiar with American political commentators and their various leanings, seems to me like an endorsement of a particular view. Seems to me, no matter how many views you endorse in this fashion (as opposed to reporting their views, which I personally would not equate to an endorsement) you're never going to "average out" the various viewpoints sufficiently to be truly neutral. For example, how many conservative articles should we link, and how many left-leaning, to obtain balance? Should they be equal in number, or proportional to the camps supporting the various POVs? If the former, should we give equal credence to the at least slightly deranged "Prison Planet" as to mainstream politics? If the latter, why are we even bothering to mention a tiny fraction of paranoiacs?

Then again, how do we quantify a balance? Does a slightly leaning article count for half of an extremist diatribe? How do we make this truly NPOV once we start bringing unverifiable, purely opinion-based POVs into the article? Chris Smowton 20:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It comes back down to the issue of notability. Articles and analysis published in major newspapers and magazines, by people who are noted for commenting in the relavent areas ought to be included. Moonbats raving on Democratic Underground, probably not.

I don't see why this has to decend into POV warring. Just include a sample of representative articles written from different veiwpoint. I'm sure Robert Fisk/Alexander Cockburn/The Guardian all have something to say about all this too.

BTW, the like to Arieh O'sullivan's article has the full title, but it was shortened because it caused line break issues. IMHO the views of Israeli experts on Islamic terrorism is worthy of an external link. Klonimus 20:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I retained the links, but changed the subhead to Opinion, which is more accurate. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article says:

suicide bombings, a terrorist tactic normally used against heavily-secured targets or in high-security environments

whilst our article on suicide bombing says:

Suicide bombing usually (but not always) targets poorly-guarded, non-military facilities and personnel.

Even allowing for the 'normally' and 'not always', they can't both be right. --Heron 19:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide bombing is a tool used by terrorists to attack anything they like or dislike. In Israel, India andthe rest of western world, suicide bombings have been used to attack soft targets (with the notable exception of the pentagon), in Iraq/Afghanistan, they have been used to attack military targets. Klonimus 20:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the speculative parts of that paragraph. It's not up for Wikipedia to say what tactics terrorists "normally" use. If there's a pertinent quote, we could include that. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this bit from the opening still true "emergency services are at the scene of the Underground blast in Kings Cross, searching for bodies." Surely they've recovered all the bodies by now, haven't they? --Lee Hunter 20:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They have recovered a lot of the bodies from the Kings Cross/Russell Square location. The last I heard (a few days ago) they were still carefully searching the bombed carriage (and the one next to it) for clues and body parts. Especially under the carriages. They identified someone else a few days ago, and those two carriages are still in the tunnel as far as I know, though you would need to check up to date media sources (I did read that they have removed the bombed bus from Tavistock Square). Maybe change that sentence you pointed out, and put the emphasis on police searching for clues, rather than emergency services searching for bodies. There will be just police there now. --Carcharoth

Many senior members of the so called Al Qaeda network are in reality graduates of the Muslim Brotherhood, an extreme right wing terrorist organisation with a racist agenda. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt during WWII by Al Banna, an admirer of Adolf Hitler, and soon became a branch of the Nazi Intelligence network. It also aimed to create a Islamic Fundamentalist form of Nazism to govern the Middle East and Africa for the Axis Powers.

After the war MI6 rounded up the Nazi handlers but recruited the organisation to attack the emerging State of Israel, with which it was then engaged in a terror war with. When this failed the Muslim Brotherhood was sold to the American OSS and inherited by the CIA. It was then used in anti-communist plans, much in the same way as Gladio was in the West. It was heavily relied on to recruit the Mujahadeen in the 80s (with assistance of the Pakistani ISI).

Relocated to Saudi Arabia in the late 1950s it took control of many of the local 'Islamic schools' and taught a Nazified form of Wahhabbism (now practised by much of the Saudi ruling class). This religion has been denounced by every Islamic authority ever since as non-Islamic (media take note). The only other supporters of it being the Taliban. The Muslim Brotherhood adopted many other names to hide its origins and spread through out the Islamic World. One of its most active bases today are the Islamic schools of Pakistan, where at least one of the 'suicide' bombers was indoctrinated. The alleged mastermind of the Madrid bomb was also a 'former' Muslim Brotherhood member.

The Muslim Brotherhood also still maintains connections with the far right of Europe via Croatia, the original contact point between the German Nazis, via the Ustashi, and the fascistic distortions of Islam based in Bosnia. Its current relationship with its past paymasters (the so called 'Dulles-Bush' faction of the CIA) is unknown.

Full details can be found in hundreds of webpages containing information from once classified files now available on line. Type Bana and Nazi into a Goggle search.

Sounds rather far-fetched, to say the least. The European "far Right" is anti-immigration, and by implication somewhat anti-Muslim/anti-Arab. Neo-Nazis hate Jews, which is something they share with some Muslims. But neo-Nazis also hate Muslims. Are you really claiming that white European Christian right-wingers are hooking up with Islamic fundamentalists? That would certainly be newsworthy, but I don't recall reading about it. Mirror Vax 09:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://gnn.tv/blogs/7360/london_bombings_conspiracy

Commnets?

Why is there no conspiracy section? I mean, where not main stream media...

--Striver 00:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.edstrong.blog-city.com/london_bombings_conspiracy_theory.htm

--Striver 01:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have these crackpot conspiracy theories ever been documented or reported in the mainstream news media? (like the 9/11 ones had, and many other conspiracy theories) -- Joolz 01:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look att this and notice the part he admits they where there prepared for a exercie identical to what happend.

http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jul05/120705exercises.html

Man, when i found out the same thing happened in 9/11, i was upplifted by my finding, but this time... its just sad...

And you know what the sadest part is? Not even wikipedia cares about it.

lets just tell ourselves that it one giant coincidans that in both event they where running exercises for exactly what happened. At the same day. And hour. And lets tell ourself that it not even worth reporting.

http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Jul05/160705web_of_deceit.html

--Striver 01:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, please see prior Talk on this topic as to why it wasn't included. --Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There always has to be a conspiracy, doesn't there? Any crackpot theory, especially one which blames a western government or company for every bad thing that happens in the world, is always preferable to the truth for some people. Adam 05:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, please don't keep inserting this material against consensus. It doesn't appear as if you've read the material above under "Visor Consultants 'foreknowledge' Claim - Response from company to info request". You should be carefull of the 3 revert rule-gadfium 06:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While not particularly eloquently said, I feel he does have a point. The 'conspiracy theorists' as many like to call them (putting them all under the same umbrealla so you can singlehandedly dismiss all said on grounds of personality...), merely represent a movement of people who distrust official interpretations of events and evidence due to past examples of corruption, and attempt to draw their own conclusions instead, usually focusing on contradictory/ missing/altered evidence and testimony. It is not the job of wikipedia users to collectively silence them as if they were an insidious movement and bend over backwards to accept the official line. That's one of the main reasons a wiki is superior to a politicised major media news source, and should be kept that way. Of course this means you may get inflammatory statements from the far right and left, but as long as their statements represent relevant encyclopaedic information and/or valid POV, then it is up to the reader, not the authors, to decide which interpretation of events is correct and what can be ignored. The Visor consultants claim, for example, was sourced on 07/07 by BBC radio 5 and ITV news. The fact that you don't like 'conspiracy theorists' or dont personally believe what he says is not grounds to remove the links from the article. If you can source evidence to suggest he is lying/the claim is misleading then that should go into the article as well. Authors should be educators, not censors. (By the way the article currently sources 'CBS' news, when infact it was ITV and BBC radio 5, but the 'edit' link takes you to the wrong section so it can't be altered).

WP has several 9/11 conspiracy articles, so perhaps someone could start a separate article for 7/7 conspiracy theories to which we can link from the main page. As a side note, apparently there are now about 700,000 websites featuring 9/11 conspiracy theories blaming it on everyone from Saddam Hussein, to the US government to (I'm not making this up) the psychiatric profession . Some of those sites make great reading, but one should remember to also visit at least one or two of the sites where those conspiracy theories have been rigorously debunked. [9]. --Lee Hunter 12:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thing is, i didnt even claim it to be a conspiracy, i just claimed it happend, whicth is factual, without adding any view to it.

--Striver 16:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody added:

However, no great significance should be placed on this coincidence as a terrorist attack on the London Underground had been widely expected, particularly after the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, and indeed a very large-scale exercise was conducted by the Metropolitan Police, London Fire Brigade, London Ambulance Service and the Army in 2003 which was predicated on an attack on Bank Station in the morning rush hour; the success of the rescue and first-aid activities on July 7th was attributed to the experience learned from this exercise. Visor Consultants themselves, in replies to email queries, said that theirs was only a paper exercise for a small number of managers at their client firm.

That is most assurdely POV!

In the midst of all the chaos on the 7th the article name got changed several times. At one point I moved it to its current name and said that we should leave it here for the time being until the dust starts to settle. At that point we can have a discussion about where it will be best located.

As its fair to say that the dust has at least started to settle, and the news isn't pouring in so fast as to prohibit reflection, now seems like as good a time as any to have the discussion. For my part, I'm happy with the current name as "London bombings" appears to be the name everyone I've spoken to irl and from the websites I've seen, is using to refer to the attacks. The date makes it clear which bombings we're talking about as the IRA made a good job of ensuring these were not the first, and although I hope I'm wrong, I would not be suprised if these were not the last. Thryduulf 13:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name's fine as it is, in my opinion. -- Arwel 17:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Striver 18:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you people keep censuring that factual info? Its clear pov to censure that fact!

--Striver 00:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you actually referring to Striver? (PS I accidentally reverted your comment then reverted it back straight away - I pressed the wrong button...) -- Francs2000 | File:Uk flag large.png 00:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Striver is referring to his repeated efforts to insert conspiracy theories - see #Visor Consultants self-promotion/conspiracy theorising and #Visor Consultants 'foreknowledge' Claim - Response from company to info request above. It's a non-encyclopedic POV being pushed primarily by some of the wackier conspiracy theorist blogs/websites. Needless to say, it's totally inappropriate for the article and has been removed several times already, but keeps being sneaked back in by Striver and some anon IPs. -- ChrisO 00:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is really refreshing to see the humane concern that this issue is dealt with fairly and with and eye to the facts.

I fear that almost everything that is contained here is pov of one form or another. theoreticaly the only people who have full possesion of the facts are the London Metropolitan Police - and they have actually said very little on the subject, what they do say is all phrased in terms such as "thought to be" that Jtkiefer has taken the scalpel to above under suspects section. therefore 99% of the psuedo facts here are actually reiterations of the press responses to the terrible events - which as we all know are nothing but opinion.

Sadly even the lack of bias of the Met is called into question when they issue statements like "we will find the link to Al-Qaeda" as they did on national television shortly after the bombings. from this we can assume that it is not so much an investigation as a critical path analysis with an agenda (curious that the statement was made as the pound began to fall against the dollar).

But if we were left only with verifiable facts this page would be a stub... so IMHO I think that there is a place for all of this conjecture provided that it is clearly identified as conjecture. also there is nothing wrong with portraying extreme views from either side of the political or religious spectra provided that they are clearly identified and balanced with an opposing view. after all, as it says at the top of the page "This article documents a current event". By far the majority of the event is its aftermath, including the turmoil that it has produced both physicaly and socially.

In short we should either be honest about this wiki article being a vehicle of opinion and make it as transparent as possible, or strike all opinion from it.

The london bombing wiki page and its archive is a unique document in that it is one of the first open access histories to have been written by people from all over the world as it happened. it is perhaps the first oportunity for the whole gamut of reactions to be caught and fixed as an antidote to the inevitable revisionism that will has already begun to obscure the bare detail.

Makes me wonder wether a pov only wiki, something like wiki-rant might be a good thing to develop. --DavidP 13:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why the description of the first bomb mentions Kings Cross St. Pancras? The train was pretty far away from there when the bomb went off. If there is some reason this is relevant (like maybe that it's the only precise time from a previous location that we know), I ask that anyone who knows it tell the rest of us.

If the section remains unmodified in a week, I think I'll delete the reference to Kings Cross. As it stands, it's only confusing matters.

Now that this is not being edited quite so much, can we start implementing {{ref}} and {{note}} before the links from the media organisations are archived/expire? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]