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

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6
• Archive 7
• 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Previous talk has been archived, except for current discussions. See Archive 7. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)--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]

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]

(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]

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)

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

--Motters 21:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's sad that this hasn't been reported, even on Wikipedia. Even if it is purely coincidental it does seem to me to be worthy of mention than a simulation exercise of the same nature was going on at the same time as the attacks.

--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. [3]. --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!

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]

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]

Note: due to munged comments I moved this part of the discussion to this section. We already have mroe than one "talk" going on about this one issue. Striver, the reason I don't want it included is that it's irrelevant. It was self-promotion on the part of Powers ("see how smart my company is! we knew where it was going to happen!") that backfired on him. The interpretation of his comments on an "exercise" depends on the misunderstanding by the public that an exercise would involve the actual, physical Underground -- e.g. fake bombs, sniffing dogs, volunteers pretending to be terrorists who get "arrested". This "exercise" was no such thing. It was entirely on paper. There is no evidence that it had any physical connection with the Underground. More to the point, the only source for this information has contradicted his own statements, calling into question the reliability of his original claim. If people are hanging their hat on this as evidence of a conspiracy, it's a pretty thin hatrack. --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/London bombing

--Striver 15:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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]

As I've noted previously, the name is fine. There's a trend on Wikipedia toward this type of naming for terrorist attacks. It has the advantages of being concise, precise, factual, and unambiguous. --Dhartung | Talk 06:38, 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]

I think there is a difference between POV and incomplete (or even 'later to be proved incorrect') information. In the real world, the state of knowledge on more or less any subject is incomplete, subject to revision and, sometimes, radical change. The only difference between this article and, say, particle physics, is that this one moves rather faster. There is absolutely nothing Wikipedia can do about that, and the best we can strive for is an honestly impartial view of the best information currently available. Inevitably some of that will prove to be unfounded, but so long as we deal with that when it does, I don't think we have any reason to apologise. -- Chris j wood 16:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the section "Attacks on the Underground"

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.

The reference is appropriate because all three bomb carriers boarded their trains there. It's as appopriate as noting that two planes on 9/11 departed from Logan International Airport. --Dhartung | Talk 06:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, the rear end of the Piccadilly line train was within 100 m of Kings' Cross. -- Arwel 14:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All three descriptions of the tube bombs mention the fact that the trains went through King's Cross, not just the first one. I think this is relevant. - Wgsimon 17:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I edited the bolded header that said 'a series of bomb attacks' to 'a series of suicide bomb attacks.'. It was reverted and someone claimed that it was only the media who identified them as suicide bombers, not the police.

Now, I think at this point it's fairly obvious that these were suicide bombings. The police have said that all four men are believed to have died in the blasts. Has the police ever used to term 'suicide bomber'? Should we revert articles on 9-11 and other notorious suicide attacks because the police never use the phrase? I mean, has the FBI formally used the word "suicide" to describe 9-11?

It's pretty obvious from any encyclopedic point of view that these were suicide bombings. There are now pictures of the terrorists entering the train station together, all of them wearing huge backpacks. And if Scotland Yard denies these are suicide bombings, why? Are police honestly investigating some kind of possibility that the men only intended to leave their backpacks unattended on the trains and then detonate them? ---Wikologist---

I think it's faintly ridiculous. Wikipedia isn't solely limited to reporting what the police say -- otherwise this article would be about 7 paragraphs long. Every media source, outside the fringe political press, thinks these were suicide bombings. The public thinks they were suicide bombings. The police probably think so too, but for professional reasons they don't use that language; they've clearly outlined forensic scenarios that can't be anything but suicide bombing.

It's importnat to remember that there will be no formal charges against the bombers -- if somebody's waiting for that, they'll wait a long time, because these guys are dead dead dead. --68.73.106.79 15:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jeronim amended the article to say that police are not claiming these as suicide bombings. From a recent statement by the Metropolitan Police Service:

"After continued forensic work we now believe we have identified the four men who travelled from Luton and were later seen on CCTV at King's Cross shortly before 8:30am on Thursday 7th July.

"We can now confirm the identity of a third man who travelled from West Yorkshire and who died in the explosion at Edgware Road. He was Mohammed Sidique Khan, aged 30. We believe that he was responsible for carrying out that attack.

"We can also now confirm the identity of a fourth man who arrived in London with the three men from West Yorkshire and then died in the explosion between King's Cross and Russell Square underground stations. He was Germaine Lindsay, aged 19. We believe that he was responsible for carrying out that attack.

"We have previously named Hasib Hussain, aged 18, who died in the explosion on the bus in Tavistock Square, and Shahzad Tanweer, aged 22, who died in the explosion at Aldgate. We believe that they were responsible for carrying out these respective attacks."

I think that is pretty clear that the police believe that these were all deliberate explosions (not accidents happening to bomb-carriers) and that the protagonists died in their own attacks. Whether they expected to die is ultimately unknowable, but it is very hard to believe that somebody would explode a bomb in a 12ft diameter tunnel 100ft underground and expect to live. Whilst it may be technically correct that the police have not used the words suicide bomber, I think the change is more misleading than helpful. I have therefore reverted it. -- Chris j wood 12:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is it misleading to point out that the police have not claimed something? As for expecting to die, yes, they would have expected to die if they believed that they would be close enough to the bombs when they detonated. It's not for Wikipedia to decide whether they believed this or not. Accordingly, I will amend the article to report the known facts and leave the reader to decide what the bombers believed. -- Jeronim 14:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the way it now reads, it sounds as if we (ie. wikipedia) are alleging that the world's media is incompetent, and that the police think this may have been some quite different sort of attack (eg. timers on abandoned parcels, like Madrid). And that is to completely mistate the case. As you will see from my quote above, the police clearly do believe that this was an attack by what are, in normal conversation, called suicide bombers. The police themselves will, of course, never use that term in formal communications, because it does not meet their style and usage of language, which is conditioned by the need to be very precise and pedantic and not to prejudice any future court cases.

It is arguable that wikipedia also needs to be precise and pedantic, but not to the extent that we let that very preciseness confuse the average reader, which I contend is what the current wording in the intro paragraph does. You will note that I did not change your assertion on what the police have stated in the substantive investigation section, where it is in context and appropriate.

I'm not entirely sure what to do next. I still believe the intro para wording as it stands makes wikipedia look silly, by appearing to assert something that the whole world now knows not to be true. But I don't want to get into a reversion war. Any other editors out there have an opinion?. -- Chris j wood 16:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look at the intro para. I've reworked so as to essentially keep Jeronim's wording, but put it into context by moving it to after the existing statement about the bombers being identified and killed. I hope this resolves the issue. -- Chris j wood 17:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, from the quotation you gave, I see no clear belief on the part of the police that it's a suicide bombing, i.e. that the bombers expected to die. It would seem that you are making some assumption that I am not. It's entirely possible that the bombers expected to have time to escape before detonation, and nothing the police said rules this out. For the article to suggest otherwise is misleading. -- Jeronim 06:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed an assertion that emergency drills were taking place in the same *trains*. I know the "same stations, same time" conspiracy theory is going round like wildfire, but a more recent interview with the person whose interview on 5 live is being circulated suggested that "in the same stations" actually meant "on the same underground network". For now any "facts" on this are surely just speculation, and to assert that the drills were on the same *trains* is false. (unsigned)

The link from that removed section also has this to say about 9/11:

This is precisely what happened on the morning of 9/11/2001. The CIA was conducting drills of flying hijacked planes into the WTC and Pentagon at 8:30 in the morning.

Keep that fiction off this page and in a conspiracy page where it belongs. - Tεxτurε 21:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They constitute the deadliest incident in the history of the London Underground, with considerably more casualties than either the Moorgate tube crash of February 1975 (43 dead) or the Kings Cross fire of November 1987 (31 dead).

Err, no they don't. Apart from the fact that it was four separate incidents. only three under gtound, and the gravest incident, at KX, is less than either of the examples at 26 dead, there have been far deadlier single incidents in the Underground's history - 64-68 dead in a single bombing incident at Balham station on 14/10/1940, 56 dead at Bank station on 11/01/1941. Bad as the 7th July attack was, please don't overhype it. [4] -- Arwel 23:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The deadliest peacetime incident, then. The Underground has been remarkably disaster-free, but you can't really cite mass aerial bombardment in the same breath as a terrorist bombing. -- ChrisO 23:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just aerial bombardment, the Bethnal Green Disaster was caused by "irrational crowd behaviour" - mass panic. Thryduulf 00:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the following para from the intro section:

The bombings resulted in a questioning of the policies of the United Kingdom, traditionally tolerant and protective of radical Islam figures, up to the point that some had nickamed London "Londonistan".

I have done this because:

• The intro section is supposed to provide an intro and summary of the article following, yet I can see no reference to this questioning elsewhere in the article.

• There are no references cited for this questioning

• As someone living only 30 miles from the bomb sites, I've seen no sign of any significant change in attitude.

-- Chris j wood 16:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Major newspapers (NYTimes etc.) called these policies into question, whereas in the past this was only the case of that of countries to which extradition of terror suspects living in London was denied. As far as I understand it, Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced a series of anti-terrorist measures that would enable, for instance, to prosecute or expel priests that advocated violence. Etc. To me, this indicate a change of attitude at the level of politicians and the international press. David.Monniaux 17:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These messures are all in a similar vain to stuff Blair was trying to do before (I.D cards, religious hatrid bill, varrious terrorism acts) so I don't think there was any real change of thinking from Blair. As for crisim of UK libreal freedoms from the press I think this is correct to an extent as many American and UK and other papers have gone with this but it is not the case that this 'questioning' has been universal for example The Gaurdian has had articles saying we should not give up our freedoms in face of terrorrist atrocities (kind of thing). As for the public at large I'm not sure, I think its split. One thing to note is that 3/4 of the UK public link the attacks on London with the attacks on Iraq so prehaps it would be aprropreate to say that the attacks have lead to questioning of UK forien policy. --JK the unwise 17:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we cannot reduce that to a question of civil liberties. Let us take for instance the question of the extradition of Rachid Ramda: independently of the legal challenges before British courts (alleging that the suspect risks torture in France, or whatever), many saw in the various delays some unwillingness of the British executive to extradite suspects.

There are thus several questions: whether or not some more "intrusive" measures are desirable; whether granting visas (which is an arbitrary power) to priests preaching hatred is wise; and whether the executive should try to speed things up with respect to extraditions.

Of course, some of these questions may not have yet reached the British public. Still, I noted, when I was in Edinburgh just after the attacks, that the British press titled that the British government asked France to "hand over" (I supposed they meant "extradite promptly") some suspects of the attack. Undoubtedly, if such extraditions are requested, there will be a debate why it takes more than 10 years for the UK to extradite one person for bombings in the country next door, while the UK requests fast extradition. Already, there are major newspapers publishing opinion pages accusing the British government of "cynicism" on that issue.

So, yes, I think that this is worth mentioning, for it will probably have a lot of impact on the collaboration that the UK can expect from other countries. David.Monniaux 17:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with you mentioning it in the article, so long as it is backed up by reasonable references. I don't think it merits a para in the intro section unless you can first work it up into a reasonable (say 4 to 5 para section) in the body of the article, and then summarise that. -- Chris j wood 17:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that there has not been any great change in attitudes Re: Muslims in the UK. There has only perhaps been a slight reinforcement of existing attitudes. Those who thought of them as 'The Enemy Within' and were wary of them, now are saying 'We told you so', but those with a more optimistic attitude are perhaps hoping that the indigenous Brits and Muslims can 'sieze the moment' and draw a little closer at the expense of people with extreme views from both ends of the spectrum. The indigenous Brits are generally finding the mass Muslim outrage and condemnation of the bombings (their slogan seems to be 'Not in MY Name') impressive, given that the extremists know where they all live, and hopefully the Muslims are encouraged by the fact that the Brit's reaction seems to have been very muted. We have not unleashed a 'Kristalnacht' against them - but seem to be taking the line 'Let's wait and see what they come up with'. The only hardening of attitudes seems to be the desire to increase the efficiency with which we remove identified extremists from the UK, but it seems that the vast majority of the UK's Muslim population would be very glad to see the back of them too. Do, let's wait and see..... ChrisR

ChrisR, could you use the standard signature style, please? It's four tildes, or just use the second-from-the-right icon, assuming you have a recent browser. Indents would be helpful as well.

Anyway, the "questioning" of British policy that I see is coming from the neo-con right in the US, which has long criticized that anyway, so there isn't any "new" questioning -- just a better excuse for the questioning they were already doing. Attributed so banally it's a weasel-word addition and we don't need more of that. If there are specific analyses mentioning this issue, they can go in the Response article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]