To-do list for 7 July 2005 London bombings: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2007-10-25 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : Lead section Verify : Update and convert external links to use {{ref}} and {{note}}

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Previous talk has been archived, see Archive 6.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]

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.

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.

"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]

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]

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'. But I am still of the feeling that these explosions do not conform to the norm as applied in (for example) the middle east. As a Brit, I obviously cannot condone their actions, (although it was probably inevitable), but I do get the nasty feeling that they were 'tricked' by far more sinister minds into their actions. If I were to become a human bomb, I would leave much more behind me...I would leave a written testament and a justification for my actions for all to see...I would issue a rallying call, or a summons for all of my mindset to follow my example. None of this has been seen. ChrisR (chris.redding@g4pdj.freeserve.co.uk)

Fine, that's your prerogative to analyze how it fits a pattern, and to think about your own actions in a situation. Keep in mind the Wikipedia:No original research guideline. It is almost certain that any suicide bomber is, at some level, indoctrinated or otherwise persuaded toward actions they would normally not take. The bottom line is that Wikipedia reports what people say or do. We aren't a second-guessing operation. --Dhartung | Talk 03:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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]