Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings/Archive 4

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

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


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


 * I agree, this is clearly fair use, news, and most of the statements were spoken, not even written. Kfort 7 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
 * Tony Blair's most recent statement was even made just from hand-written notes! Sonic Mew July 7, 2005 16:47 (UTC)
 * Public statements, press releases etc etc are not copyright and can be quoted in full. --Lee Hunter 7 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

Not the worst terrorist attack on the UK
The day's events will likely be regarded as the worst terrorist attack on the United Kingdom to date.

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

''Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up as it flew over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988, when 12–16 oz of plastic explosive was detonated in its forward cargo hold, triggering a sequence of events that led to the rapid destruction of the aircraft. Winds of 100 knots scattered passengers and debris along an 88-mile corridor over an area of 845 square miles. Two hundred and seventy people from 21 countries died, including 11 people on the ground.''

I suggest instead:


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


 * Worst terrorist attack in England.


 * Good point. The second is more sensible wording IMO. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
 * It is officially being called the worst UK terrorist attack on British soil. Sonic Mew July 7, 2005 16:46 (UTC)

edit of map in photos

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

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


 * 29 people at Omagh. This was at least 33 and was four bombs not one. So bigger than Omagh. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)


 * What is the definition of "worst terrorist attack"? Is it related to body count, or amount of people injured? Does the manner in which the victims were injured or killed matter? What about damage to buildings and infrastructure? "Worst" needs to be replaced with a more definite adjective. Poiuyt Man talk 7 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)


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

Technically, the lockerbie incident was viewed as an attack on the United States, since the plane was from an american airline, carrying mostly americans, and flying to america from Germany. On CNN, UK officials called the transit bombings "The worst attack on the UK since WWII." --Crucible Guardian 7 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)

This isn't being helped by the fact that the BBC is referring to it as the UK's worst terrorist attack - a typical example of the media looking for a good headline. Probably it is not sensible to make such a reference, but to mention the Lockerbie bombing and Omagh for comparison.

I think if the Pan Am Boeing fell on UK ground, it should also be considered an attack to the UK. 2004-12-29T22:45Z July 8, 2005 02:39 (UTC)

This is actually a very good point. The Lockerbie attack was against a Pan Am jet - Pan Am was an American-owned company. The debris fell on Scotland, to be sure, but 20 minutes later it might have landed in the Atlantic Ocean. It doesn't seem to be an attack on Britain the way the 7/7 bombings specifially were. Moncrief July 8, 2005 02:46 (UTC)

Oh Christ, it's not going to be referred to as 7/7, is it? Laaaaaaame. And the BBC are wrong. The Lockerbie incident was the worst terrorist attack in Britain ... pointless quibbling over semantics. The description of this being 'the worst terrorist incident since Lockerbie' is fine as it stands. Proto t c 8 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

The official line is "The worst terrorist attack on British soil in recent years". That's what seems to be repeated in the media. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 8 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)

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


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


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

It is hypocritical and the conscription argument is quite specious considering that Hamas often targets locations in which it is certain there will be children present. i.e. Jerusalem Bus 2, Sbarro, 2003 Haifa Bus Bombing, etc... etc... Thankfully these coordinated London attacks did not target such locations.

"Hamas spokesman Moussa Abu Marzouk condemned the bombings, saying "Targeting civilians in their transport means and lives is denounced and rejected."
 * It must be some kind of sick joke. It was Hamas who devolped the method of targeting mass transit systems as early as 1994. In 1996 this terrorist group attacked serveral buses in Tel Aviv and in the Al-Aqsa Intifada they attacked even more buses with suicide bombers. Jerusalem bus 20 massacre, Meggido bus attack, Meiron bus attack, Haifa line 37 bus attack and Jerusalem bus 2 massacre to name the least. I think putting Hamas statement here defiles and desecrates the memory of those who were murdered in the vicious terrorist attacks in Britain and Israel. My condolences to the families of the victims. MathKnight 7 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)


 * Hamas' argument here is a load of bullshit. Yes, public transportation is more prevalent in Israel than in the US and the demographics are different, but you have to ask yourself, who uses public transportation? Teenagers, the elderly, people who cannot drive because of a disability or cannot own a car, tourists, etc. How many of these people can be reasonably considered combatants? This is the equivalent of Al Qaeda claiming that the 9/11 attacks were a legitimate act of war because military personnel and reservists were among the dead. Further, Hamas no longer represent the Palestinian people, now that they have elected a leader who opposes the violence. How can Hamas claim that their actions are a legitimate act of war rather than terrorism when the Palestinians have overwhelmingly voted in a leader with a completely different agenda. I may be preaching to the choir here, but it really boils my blood when I see editors use this justification on pages related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to prevent suicide bombings from being labeled as terrorist attacks. I was quite pleased that the front page labeled these attacks what they were - acts of terror.


 * Having said that I don't necessarily support removing the quote as I think that it is an important piece of the story. However, more explanation is needed. GabrielF 8 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

I copymoved the discussion to Talk:Response to the 2005 London bombings. MathKnight 8 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)

Worst Terrorist Attack on British Soil
Happy Camper put this in the edit summary:

''the term "terrorist attack" should not be used at the moment - the mainstream press has not consistently used this term for the events yet. If the term is used, please provide a reference for it''

The BBC are using it, also calling it the worst terrorist attack on British soil. This is on a completely different scale to the IRA. Sonic Mew July 7, 2005 17:20 (UTC)


 * See the new edits and the reference to a Bloomberg report I added. I'm much more comfortable that the term "terrorist attack" is now an objective and accepted term for the event. Previously, the term seemed to be used only as an intensifier in the article, although personally, I have no doubt that the events of today were a "terrorist attack". I was erring on the conservative side a bit too much when it came to editing this article to describe this tradgedy. Sorry for posting here belatedly. --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)
 * This has been reverted back and forth more than a dozen times, can we agree on a term (bombing, terrorist, terrorist bombing, since Lockerbie or not, etc...)? The discussion page is a better place to have it, IMO. Personally, I favour "terrorist attacks", but we need to agree on something. StuartH 7 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)


 * I really don't know what term is best. I've personally decided to take a WikiVacation from this article and come back maybe in a week or so after the editing has become a bit less hectic, and the media has had more time to give the general public more information on this event. I want to have some quiet time to reflect on the incident myself at the moment. I'd be happy with whatever term is used as long as it's reasonable. All the terms that you've stated seem to satisfy this reasonable criteria anyway from my perspective, so I trust your judgement. --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)


 * This is probably part of a larger goal of making themselves look good to the EU so they can continue with their relations with them.

Hotline
The hotline numbers etc have disappeared. I've no great problem with this, but perhaps others do? Evercat 7 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
 * It kind of helps to have the numbers there, as people are trying to find out information about relatives, friends, etc. and it saves a lot of work looking up the numbers. Kaiser Matias 18:47 7 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've re-added the numbers, since no reason was given for their removal. At the least we need the list of foreign ministry contact instructions. They're at the bottom (should be getting less urgent), but plainly visible at the ToC.

What does this mean?
08:54: Suspicious people were said to celebrate on the tube with big firecrackers. Rich Farmbrough 7 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

I too was going to ask this, there are no sources anywhere, could one be added to the article if found? Otherwise i think it's an erronious entry. -- Aslate


 * I've taken it out for now. If anyone can provide a source we can always put it in later. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)


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

Really current Current Events
Ok, I'm new here, so don't hurt me. Why is Wikipedia reporting on this? I thought that breaking news was supposed to go to Wikinews and not on here.
 * "The cause is unknown for certain at the moment, but a terrorist attack appears extremely likely." -- That sounds a lot more like a news report than an encyclopedia entry.
 * "The Muslim Council of Britain utterly condemns today's indiscriminate acts of terror in London." Today? In an encyclopedia, there is no today...

I understand that all of this can be easily changed when more facts come out, but shouldn't events have a little time to cool and have facts gathered and crossreferenced before it is stuck in an encyclopedia? (If this question is better asked elsewhere, please let me know and rm) -- Marvin01 7 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)


 * You're right, but it's inevitable that people will want to add these things to Wikipedia, as the events are surely encyclopaedic, even if the tone of the article isn't at the moment. It will settle down into a more stable form soon enough. I do think people should focus their breaking news efforts on Wikinews, which exists for the purpose. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)


 * Part of our reputation as an encyclopedia is that we can change things in order to react to events, unlike paper encyclopedias, which quickly become dated. Putting in today is a mistake but being as accurate as possible up to the minute is only to be encouraged. Plus we need to utilise the ionterest in the subject to create a great article, SqueakBox July 7, 2005 17:58 (UTC)


 * More comments: This is a good place to ask this question I think - you could also try the Village Pump as well. Yes, you're right, it might be better to wait until the events settle before an article is written. However, it's nearly impossible to prevent a Wiki from being edited like this. My personal stance on this is to "trust the Wiki" - sure, as the events unfold, it might sound like a news report. After all, it's only been less than 24 hours since the event. Nevertheless, I thoroughly trust that the article will become objective and encyclopedic. In other words, I agree and share all your concerns, but for me, I think in articles like these, the Wiki nature of this will ensure that everything works out in the end.


 * One problem we'll need to find a way to solve in the future is to squish this page duplication bug during massively quick edits. Today, some administrators were briefly protecting the page so that page duplications could be fixed, and also, to prevent the loss of edits during the removal of the duplications. --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am a bit paranoid to edit anything (even though all I have done so far is on discussion pages) for fear that I am messing up what someone else is doing!
 * I like this place, it just seems odd that additions and changes happen immediately, while only deletions require drawn-out discussions. It would be nice if it were easier to discuss what would go into an article and what sort of orginization should be used before the article is actually written, instead of everybody throwing stuff on the wall and seeing what sticks. But then I am new here, and I do not mean to be rude by suggesting you are doing things wrong without any experience. By looking at the quality articles around, I can easily see that everything works itself out in the end. Since I am way off topic, I will move the discussion over to my talk page or something, if anyone wants to have it. -- Marvin01 7 July 2005 18:29 (UTC)


 * That is basically what happens with these current events articles. We get "hit-and-run" editors who come and add things then go away again, and often they are really badly worded or duplicate something elsewhere in the article, then various regulars will keep an eye on things and try and keep it all in a reasonable state. It all settles down eventually. It's only natural I suppose that if people come across articles like this and see something that hasn't been updated, even if it only broke seconds ago, they hit the edit button and put it in. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)


 * If I may.. in many ways this proves to me the superfluous "fork"  that is Wikinews.  As I have followed the building of this article since early this morning, I find it appropriate to see the '"encyclopedia"' chronicling all knowledge in this manner.  The history has faithfully recorded the back and forth, into the solidifying of ever stronger information.  The events of this morning are absolutely atrocious, and it pains me to doll out any accolades at this time, however, the decentralized yet collaborative forum that is Wikipedia, is something we can be proud of.  Should we not continue to use such a forum as we move forward in thoughtful response to this morning's events?  I will hope so.  TTLightningRod 7 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I agree with you about Wikinews. I opposed its creation and while I hope it succeeds eventually I've been really unimpressed by it so far. One of the best things about Wikipedia in my view is its timeliness, and the way really good articles can be put together very quickly. This was great to see with the new Pope, who soon had an extensive article while Britannica will have absolutely nothing on him until their next edition comes out. I'd love Wikipedia to be somewhere people come for good background on current events, but I don't think much of it as a breaking news service. Articles like this that can get edited literally every 20 seconds or so are generally in need of a lot of work by one or a few people who can overhaul the whole thing some time after the attention has died down before they become decent articles. I'm sure in a month's time this will be a really great article, well organised and fully referenced. Covering topics in the news over a period of days and weeks is good, but minute to minute updates don't produce Wikipedia's best work. I share your pride in the impressive things Wikipedia can achieve though. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)


 * my feeling is that this will be an interesting application of that visual history generator for viewing edits to a wikipedia page. very chatotic at first, and then cooling off into understanding, might as well put this as a page, because it will be eventually, and more information works out better as base material for a finished article, we can chuck the chaff later!


 * Yes, a novice to the nature at play here, would be well advised to consider anything read at any particular moment, as in a constant state of flux. (just the same warning I give to anyone about EVERY article here)  It is in the history tab that I find to hold so much promise.  As you say Trilobite, over time a dedicated number of people can comb through the mountain of information sent here, with that, a very informative and neutral article can be built.  At the speed of the internet, very strong demands for neutrality,....  and free. TTLightningRod


 * Also, I couldn't get the major news websites like guardian.co.uk, cnn.com, or bbc.co.uk to update this morning (due to high traffic on their part I would imagine) and the 'pedia became a valuable source of info. Many of my friends (I'm a Londoner) were stuck at work without access to television news, and I pointed them here. I know that's not really what this site is for, but it was a big help! Thanks to everyone who updated this article today. --Urbane legend 7 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

I don't think that this article should have been created or should be moved to Wikinews. There should be more coordinaton between Wikipedia and Wikinews. For example, why do users have to sign up for every Wikimedia project? If sign up once, you should be able to sign in to every project. 2004-12-29T22:45Z July 8, 2005 02:46 (UTC)

emergency numbers and blog links
where did these go? i can maybe see why the removal of emergency numbers would happen, because this isn't really a primary site for people who have an emergency would go to, but the links to the blogs provided actual accounts of people involved with the attacks, and therefore i believe are very pertinant to the article. ~thatordinaryboy

There was a blogs section at some point which had a very interesting list of people blogging live from places all over London

Can't seem to find the old version as I'm not too familiar with the wiki format -- maybe someone else could have a look??

The blog section was deleted on 7 July 2005 at 16:45 by 82.164.3.140. No reason was provided. Can this section be re-published?

The blogs section has been reinstated. And deleted again...

Here is a copy SimonLyall 8 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)

* perfect.co.uk - liveblogging from the beginning * Swindon Blog - Mollten.com * NowPublic.com - Live Reports from People on the Scene * London Underground Blog - updated regularly with news * Livejournal community - with contacts and local news * Technorati - Blog search engine and directory, currently focused on today's events * ThreeWorldWars - Investigates significant patterns in major world events, including the London Explosions * dcinput blog - Posting what I'm seeing on the net and hearing from inside Jim Henson's Creature Shop in London * podbat blog - As it happens. Also a google maps API implementation showing how events are unfolding

My limited understanding of wikipedia is that it's about the decentralisation of information and a participatory approach to the collection and production of knowledge. Why can't this section be republished on the main page?

(cut and pasted from 'Talk:2005 London bombing/MissingInfo')

death-toll updates
when people update those numbers can they put a timestamp (preferably for when the new numbers were announced) on it? 

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

keeping the links valid
The nowpublic link contains maybe 4 pix of the event, 1 being of vague interest. For comparison the guardian web site as 64, and cnn and bbc even more. What else could this be but disguised promotion? I already had to edit that section to remove someone promoting his blog. It's sad to see people piggybacking a tragic event to direct traffic to their sites. I didn't bother removing the nowpublic link, I'd rather raise that concern here so maybe others will 'clean up' their links elsewhere. Adidas 7 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)

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

The word "casualties"
The words "casualties" and "deaths" mean two different things. "Casualties" encompasses both deaths and injuries. If you only mean deaths, say "deaths" or "fatalities", not "casualties".

Someone should change the prettytable under the "Casualties" heading to say deaths or fatalities instead of casualties, since it is only listing deaths. I tried to change it but my changes wouldn't go through.

Source for 911+ deaths?
The news sources are reporting only 37 or so ... what is the news source for that number?
 * A vandal. Unfortunately this page seems to be attracting a number of mentally unbalanced editors. -- Arwel 7 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I've already blocked a couple on sight for inserting profanity. This article is of such high visibility at the moment that there's no need to mess about with warnings in my view. These people know what they're doing. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)


 * Someone apparently screwed with the injury list too: "Recent reports state that 30000 people (208 at Royal London Hospital alone [4]) are being treated in hospital and 15120 of those are in a serious condition." Someone please fix this. Loknar

should we protect this page until someone fixes the repeated sections?
the article is getting ridiculously long (500kb and counting) Peregrine   AY   7 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)

Severe problem with casualty and injured number changing
At the moment the injuries list is at 30,000!!! Editing the page is not possible due to an apparent server error.

check this
Somehow this doesn't sound likely:

"[274]

Queen Elizabeth II issued an official statement, saying she was "deeply delighted" and had "nothing but admiration for the terrorists who planned the attack". [275]"


 * Probably vandalism. She expressed her deepest sympathy. Sonic Mew July 7, 2005 19:34 (UTC)
 * of course not.. another life-less vandal Peregrine  AY   7 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

duped again
article is currently duped about 5 times
 * Currently protected (probably to fix it) --Zetawoof 7 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

Casualties still way off
Still mentions 30000 casualties including more than 15000 in serious condition.


 * We need to fix that. Loknar July 7, 2005 19:42 (UTC)

So was that a glitch yesterday where all the deaths had been multiplied by ten so I seriously thought there had been 380 deaths until I came here this morning? Hansamurai 8 July 2005 12:04 (UTC)


 * That was simple vandalism. Unbelievable that you would get your beaking news from an encyclopaedia! All you needed to do was switch on the radio or the tv or look at any news website and you'd see that 380 deaths was a massive exaggeration. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 12:33 (UTC)


 * Well, I continued to hear ~37 on TV the rest of the evening and just found it odd where Wikipedia had gotten this kind of information. Just curious what had come of that. Hansamurai 8 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

Hmmm
Something ought to be done about the fact that the article has about 100 sections, most of which are copies. 7 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)


 * All duplicates have been cleared out for now, though edits that made it into the wrong ones may have been lost. Sorting it out would be an inhuman task, so people may need to restore changes previously made. --Michael Snow 7 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)

Condoms?
Under "Roads" heading somewhere: "Many areas still have condoms for sale". It's a safe bet to say that this is a really lame "joke", and needs to be removed.

Already fixed, thank you.

Dodgy map
Don't mean to be rude but that map is really crap. All British television news says 4 blasts, 3 on tube trains and one on a bus. There is no key for the orange pin symbols and what is that red dot in the middle saying London? Whatever, it does not deserve to head the article. ZephyrAnycon 7 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)


 * Hey! this image is inaccurate? 4 blasts is reported in news? Hmm! Kim Bruning 7 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)

It's been rectified since I called it 'crap'. Now there're four clear explosion sites. Still inadequate but the best I spose we can do at the moment.

Name
I know that it's early days yet, well, early hours, but I think we might want to think about a better name. "7 July 2005 London bombings" is unwieldy. I don't think that that's what anyone will call it. How about just "London bombings, 2005"? This would be consistent with the United Kingdom general election, 2005 format for article titles. And yes, I am presuming that there will be only one such incident in 2005. If there is a second one, we can change it to "London bombings, July 2005". But let's hope we don't get to that. Ground Zero 7 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)


 * 7/7? ZephyrAnycon 7 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
 * Negative. 7th July is already an article in itself. I would agree that London Bombings, 2005 would be a good article name. --Psyk0 7 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
 * 7/7 is lame. It must not become the widely used abbreviation. Proto t c 8 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)

Since the attack was squarely on the london transit system and I know of no other such attack I propose that the article be named the "London Transit bombings" or "London Transit attack". Two, The attack has caused a shutdown of the transit system. Three, The attack has caused the US to increase its threat level but only on Mass Transit Systems. I contend that London bombings is not specific enough due to the IRA attacks of the 1960s-1990s and that "London bombings, July 2005" feels stone cold catagorial ie "Tsunami 2004"(I know its a bad argument)--Mitrebox 7 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)


 * Although there have been other attacks on the London transit system, for example on 10 September 1973

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/10/newsid_2504000/2504619.stm --Nantonos 8 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)


 * A better name is probably needed, but we should take the most appropriate name that's in general use, and the incident is too new to even know what that will be. In the coming days, when people start referring back to this as an event, we will get a better sense of what people are calling it. --Michael Snow 7 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)


 * Transit? Seems an odd choice of wording. Anyway, doesn't the inclusion of the date make the title specific enough? I agree that "London bombings" would be no good, as there have been plenty of bombings in London over the years, but I don't think anyone is proposing moving it there. I agree with Michael Snow that a suitable name will emerge. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)


 * Certainly not "Transit" since we don't normally use the term in this context in the UK. The present format is fine, and matches the article on the Madrid train bombing. -- Arwel 7 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)

Unless a different name arise in the next days, I strongly suggest keeping 7 July 2005 London bombings for uniformity with other similar articles, for example 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings. GhePeU 7 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
 * There's certaintly no need to rush about trying to find the best name for it, I think it will be probably be moved in the next few days when we see what the media dubs it and what people commonly refer to it as. -- Joolz 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

power out source?
A Slashdot contributor (LizardKing (5245) on Thursday July 07, @08:11AM (#13001525) ) says "I was in the midst of this when it happened. The Metropolitan line was halted, then the Jubilee. The train driver announced a "power surge on the combine", which is probably a prearranged message to prevent panic in an emergency. Trains were then brought into the nearest station and the passengers requested to evacuate. The tube staff were very calm and efficient, and I didn't see any panic. There was defnitely a sense that something unusual had happened, and people were mostly silent as we filed out to the sound of recorded evacuation messages." Makes me wonder if this was the source of the rumor about a power outage being the cause. 4.250.138.93 7 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
 * As I understand it the original source of the power outage explanation was that when police officers investigated the first 'bang', it was proposed as more likely than a terrorist attack. Got that from BBC TV reports. --Psyk0 7 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)


 * I think there is quite a strong possibility that this is the case. It would make sense, as even if it's clear to the driver that the train has been bombed it's probably not a good idea to tell the passengers this when they are trapped in the carriages in the dark. I couldn't quite work out what they were going on about with this "power surge" they were talking about when the story first broke. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)
 * Because London Power (?) announced within an hour of the bombings that there was no power surge, it sounds like they did investigate that as a possible cause. I wouldn't trust a trainman to know, immediately after a blast, that it was a terrorist attack. In other words, this is idle speculation -- it is encyclopedic that it was reported as a power surge both to passengers and the media, and that the explanation was dismissed later. I'm sure that any time anything goes wrong on the Tube they have terrorism -- usually IRA -- at the back of their minds anyway, but it's not the job of the Wikipedia to sort that out (i.e. guess about it). --Dhartung | Talk 8 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)
 * As I understood from the press conference the near-simultaneous explosions suddenly caused much LESS power to be drawn from the grid. Because nobody at the power station knew about the explosions at that time they attributed this drop in power demand to circuit breakers being set off by a power surge. Only later (as the information about the explosions started to come in) it became clear that a power surge was not responsible to the drop in power demand. Hope this clears that up. Cheers, --Jpkoester1 July 8, 2005 07:50 (UTC)
 * None of us have access to London Transport's Emergency Plan. This could be the equivilent of Mr Sands for fire as far as we know. You certainly can't say "because of a bomb" as it will affect public safety. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Casuality Information / Sources
(Renamed from "at Least 40?")

What is the source for atleast 40 deaths, only 38 on the table and BBC reports 38.

--212.159.107.43 7 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

Proab this Death toll climbs to at least 40 in London blasts Grand Junction Sentinel, CO I suggest that all increases in casuality (death/injury) count be listed here along with source. --Mitrebox 7 July 2005 21:14 (UTC) Google News

An Israeli-linked site, Debka.com, is reporting unofficial estimates of 45 dead.

The Sun has a new report that says "police confirm 53 dead"  jemstone66

The revert war over 38/40 confirmed deaths is getting a bit much. BBC says 38. The Grand Junction Sentinel is PROBABLY outdated, as it cites only 300 wounded, rather than the accepted 700+ cited by BBC and CNN. Note also that The World news page now cites the 37 fatalities/700+ casualty count. -- Pipian 7 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)

The latest official numbers from the BBC (via the Police) is 7 dead at Liverpool St/Aldgate East, 7 at Edgware Road, 21 at Kings Cross/Russell Square and 2 from the bus. However, during a BBC radio interview with a doctor from the British Medical Association who had attended the scene of the bus attack (the bus having exploded by fortunate coincidence outside the BMA offices), the doctor said that "at least 10 people" had died on the bus. This would put the best estimate of deaths at around 45. The BBC's "Newsnight" reported that the casualty figure from the bus attack was unavailable because the Police were conducting a detailed forensic examination of the scene, feeling that it was their best lead. (googlebugle - hrs (at) groundloop (dot) co (dot) uk - 01.20 BST 8 July 05)

Time to get rid of the public transport update?
After all, as it's been pointed out, this is not a news page, and it's hard to keep it up to date now. There is a link lower down to the Transport For London site where the latest news and links are - but I don't know what is the etiquette for deleting a whole section (even though it was me who created it). Does one need to write some kind of redirect? Gmcgreevy 7 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)

OK, I did it. I deleted that section. Gmcgreevy 7 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)

Ken Livingstone is not the Lord Mayor of London
That title goes to the Lord Mayor of The City of London, a different entity to Metropolitan London.

It wasn't a suprise
I left home in the morning (time in here is the same as in London), and in the TV ppl said it was an electrical failure, and next London Metro was closed. I knew it from the beggining it was just for people not to enter in panic, because it was really a terrorist attack. I just arrived home, noone talked about it. And I talked to a lot of ppl today. So I open a Portuguese internet news service (I simply forgot the problem) and "A metro reforces security after London's attacks...". Oh well. They were just lying in the morning for ppl no to enter into panic or they simply didnt knew? -Pedro 7 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)


 * this is explained below under 'power surges' Adidas 8 July 2005 13:28 (UTC)

Page doubling bug
The page doubling bug is a long oustanding issue described at 275.

Since this community seems to be experiencing it more than any other in recent history, you may want to look at that discussion and see if it conforms to your experience. Recently (two days ago) a potential fix for this bug was proposed, but it has not yet been validated as correct or made it into the code. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 23:00 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda Letter Claiming Responsability
Regarding the posting, to the Al-Qal3ah forum, of the Al-Qeda letter claiming responsability for the London  bombings, does anyone know what time the forum posting took place?

Also, an MSNBC translator claimed that the Qur'an verse quoted in the letter had some sort of error (in the original Arabic). However, I am unable to find any specific information about what exactly the error is. The English translation of the letter does not contain any errors in the quoted verse (it is identical to how the verse appears in common English translations of the Qur'an). We DO have the original Arabic copy of the letter, so an Arabic speaking Wikipedian could easily confirm or deny the existance of an error in the Arabic quotation of the Quranic verse. --Zeno of Elea 7 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)


 * Yes I checked common English translations and couldn't really see the problem. Someone just added this to the article. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)


 * I've consulted with a number of Arabic speaking Muslims, all of whom say that the verse appears in the Al-Qaeda letter EXACTLY as it appears in the Arabic Qur'an. --Zeno of Elea 7 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)


 * I think we ought to take this whole thing out then. As I recall it appeared in the article on the back of someone commenting on a US news network that the translation wasn't right. Since you've conversed with Arabic speakers about it, I'll leave you to make the call. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)


 * OK, it turns out that the Al-Qaeda letter only quotes the verse partially. The verse in the Al-Qaeda letter ommits the begining of the Quranic verse, "Ya ayyuhal Lathee (O Believers!)." This seems like less of a mistake and more of a deliberate PARTIAL quotation of the verse. --Zeno of Elea 7 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)


 * The missing part is actually "Ya ayyuhal ladheena amanu", or "Oh you who believe". amanu is derived from iman which means belief.  This is a pretty critical part of the verse as it defines the intended audience.  Fundies like alQaeda wouldn't misquote leading to the incorrect implication that this verse is directed to everyone.

And what the hell is that wild speculation regarding suicide bombers? North South East West is more likely to simply be flowery language.

Responsibility: Prior warning
The page says under section responsibility that no warning was given, this is not true if you believe Israel National News (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=85346), as they claim a warning was given to israel before the first blast. I believe that should be changed as you cant simple choose to ignore Israel National News without reason. Least a footnote should be added on disputed fact of prior warning.

Report: Israel Was Warned Ahead of First Blast 13:30 Jul 07, '05 / 30 Sivan 5765

(IsraelNN.com) Army Radio quoting unconfirmed reliable sources reported a short time ago that Scotland Yard had intelligence warnings of the attacks a short time before they occurred.

The Israeli Embassy in London was notified in advance, resulting in Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remaining in his hotel room rather than make his way to the hotel adjacent to the site of the first explosion, a Liverpool Street train station, where he was to address and economic summit.

At present, train and bus service in London have been suspended following the series of attacks. No terrorist organization has claimed responsibility at this time.

Israeli officials stress the advanced Scotland Yard warning does not in any way indicate Israel was the target in the series of apparent terror attacks.


 * And the Metropolitan Police have categorically denied this. -- Arwel 7 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)

See also http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_britain_explosions_1 and http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/stratfor-london.html which discusses this.

There was a paragraph on this in 'other events' section - outlining both the original story and the denial, with sources - until 01.25 am GMT friday 8th, when someone simply deleted it. I have reinstated it. People may feel it should be moved to another section or treated differently - but why simply deleted. There is at least a reputable source, and was carried in newspapers from Ha'aretz to Yetz Sheva and from The Guardian to The Daily Mail. Of course the fact that it was carried in various newspapers (with denial) says nothing for the veracity of the original story. But neither does the fact that Shalom and the Met have denied it mean it wasn't true. 8 July 2005 10.50 BST

See also Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings


 * God this is getting boring. I have deleted it. Why? because under the pretense of adding more info to this page the OP went on talking about how we were all fooled and the british governement planted those bomb themselves. Flamebait and POV if I ever so some. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Adidas 8 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)


 * Oh I see you posted it back. I hope you are proud of yourself . I quote 'the gem' you placed back: "Don't ignore the obvious evidence that this whole affair was orchestrated by your own government.". Great. Did you even read what this page was supposed to be? Go read the article called 'the 5 pillars of wikipedia'. Look - post it all you want, vandalize the article frankly I'm starting to care less and less. I don't have all day, and I'm just trying to help out and do my bit for the wiki. This is really, really depressing. Adidas 8 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)

Sorry I do not have not signed up for a username as yet - something I must do. I am one person who reposted the paragraph on the warning story; but not the same person who pasted the conspiracy theory in the discussion. To my mind, no one can say at this point exactly what happened, and all sections of the media could do with a lot less wild speculation. Personally, I am not inclined to go along with the conspiracy theory. That doesn't mean the warning allegation isn't worthy of inclusion. It is at least as well sourced as the majority of the information on the page. (eg. Not just wikipedia but all media putting so much focus on the statement of responsibility from an unknown group posted on one website.) Taking it seriously enough to at least mention does not imply vandalism, POV or acceptance of conspiracy speculation.

Reactions
Is it really necessary to list each and every country's reaction to the incident on the 'main' page? Maybe it would be better to create a seperate page.

Why is terrorist NPOV ?
Philwelch put a ( template, because, he says : "terrorist" is a vague and inherently non-neutral term. I'm sorry I have to disagree. He has to justify such a claim before puting the template. If he doesn't, I'll erase it. Thanks.--Revas 7 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Go for it! -- Arwel 7 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)
 * Please do take it off. Moncrief July 7, 2005 23:54 (UTC)


 * No, there has to be a consensus that the article is NPOV and factual before *removing* the template. My explanation is above under "terrorism". I'll rehash it here: "terrorist" is an inherently non-neutral and vague term. While there is a literal denotation of the term "terrorism" that amounts to "violence against civilians to create fear", that definition is neither universal nor does it give a complete accounting of the term, since the term "terrorist" also has a strong connotation that colors the meaning of the term significantly. On its face, the term "terrorist" is a violation of NPOV, and until there is a consensus here to the contrary, the dispute tag stays. &mdash; Phil Welch 7 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)

(moving discussion from above)

I'm gonna wait until this calms down, but I think it's an immediate violation of NPOV to the term "terrorist". It's vague in meaning and non-neutral. I've put a dispute tag up accordingly. &mdash; Phil Welch 7 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)


 * That tag is totally unwarranted. From the Wikipedia article on terrorism, explaining the most commonly used criteria for determing who terrorists are:

* The motive is political or religious * The target is civilian * The objective is to intimidate * The perpetrator is non-governmental * The act was unlawful


 * Which of these do not apply in this case? What word would you use instead?   You haven't even offered another word to use in its place. That tag should be a last resort, in my opinion.  People have worked hard to build consensus on this article all day; then you swoop in and put a tag up there without offering an alternative word to use.  Moncrief July 7, 2005 23:52 (UTC)

I don't think we *need* an alternative word. Change "terrorist attack" to "bombing" or "attack", for instance. Further, while you are discussion the *denotation* of the term "terrorist", it is the connotation and not the denotation that makes it a biased term. &mdash; Phil Welch 7 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)


 * Terrorism is defined by Wiktionary as "The act of deliberately commiting an act of violence to create an emotional response from the victim in the furtherance of a political or social agenda." and by Merriam-Webster as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". The claims made thus far in the news and by political leaders appeal to these meanings (especially if the claims of being made by an Al-Qaeda-related cell are true).


 * Again, learn the difference between denotation and connotation. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)


 * If, as Philwelch claims,  "terrorist" is a vague and inherently non-neutral term, then the article on the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks should also have a template. -- Pipian 8 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)


 * I agree, but let's take this one at a time. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)


 * Considering you are the first person to consider "terrorist" to be NPOV, Phil, I think it's fair to say we already have consensus that this very commonly-agreed-upon word is appropriate to use in this article. You can have consensus with one person disagreeing.  Removing tag.  Moncrief July 8, 2005 00:02 (UTC)


 * Look at the section above. Another editor already starting replacing "terrorist" with "militant" earlier on and was reverted. Also, the tag was first put on there all of five minutes ago. There hasn't been any time for a consensus to form. Nor has anyone bothered to read and refute my arguments, so there hasn't even been a discussion. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)


 * They've been refuted: the fact that you don't accept it is not the same is not having been refuted. --Calton | Talk 8 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)


 * The fact (without any NPOV), is that my mom always told me that it was bad to put bombs in trains or bus in order to kill civilians. So yes, terrorist has a bad connotation, but shall we erase the word nazi of the article about the history of Germany because it has a negative conotation ? It's ridiculous.--Revas 8 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)


 * Nazis call themselves Nazis. Terrorists don't call themselves terrorists. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)


 * So should we not call racists racist? -- Pipian 8 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)


 * Actually, the German Nazis of 1933-1945 called them selves "National Socialists". "Nazi" is actually a pejorative term, just like "commie" for "communist". -- Natalinasmpf 8 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)


 * It's evident that without any personal feeling towards the methods or cause involved, the provided definition of terrorism fits this situation, and hence it can and should be employed. Shed a tear for the lack of moral objectivity the term can actually muster in practise if you like. -- GimpChimp 8 July 01:42 (UTC)


 * Not that I think anyone (Phil) will listen, but I'll say this any way: Terrorist CAN be a NPOV violation when it is used, for instance, to refer to the people fighting against the coalition in Iraq, because it can be argued that they are not terrorists, but counter-insurgeants (and in fact technically they are) or to refer to freedom fighters under an oppresive regime especially if it is used BY the oppresive regime. But in this case Terrorist attack is justified, because it fits perfectly with the facts. Robrecht 8 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)

Terrorism
Until you can cite a Wikpedia policy on calling terrorists "millitants", please stop changing from the former to the latter. Andy Mabbett 7 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)


 * It seems clear to me that terrorist attack here in the intro is NPOV and refers to the tactics used (ie attacking civilians during rush hour without warning in order to create panic and fear) Kfort 7 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
 * I agree. It should be called a 'terrorist attack'. What you call the people behind it is a different matter. Especially as we don't even know who is behind it yet... --Frankie Roberto 7 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)


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


 * If "officially" you mean "by the government", since when does NPOV mean the government's POV? &mdash; Phil Welch 7 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)

Does anyone outside of the UK or its former (or current) territories believe this nonsense? That the British army doesn't attack civilians, but "terrorists" do? Please...this is like the nonsense about bloodthirsty Huns from World War I. Give it a break. Ruy Lopez 7 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)


 * I suggest you condemn both, not neither. Evercat 7 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)

Come on folks, don't change it without discussing it here. The consensus in the media and the government is terrorism. Kfort 7 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)


 * NPOV does not mean "the POV of media and government". &mdash; Phil Welch 7 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)

HappyCamper why don't you step up and discuss it here instead of editing out a broad consensus view? Kfort 7 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of this section in the talk page, and I cannot seem to edit consistently without encountering edit conflicts. Regardless, I've added something to the bottom of this page if you are interested. I don't mind what people use or consider appropriate terminology. If my edits don't remain in the article, then that's okay too. --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)

The article quotes people and sources who call this terrorism, which is fine, but the omniscient narrator calling this terrorism is not fine. Ruy Lopez 7 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
 * I think you need to find yourself a dictionary and look up the word terrorism. It is the precise word for a deliberate attack on civilians. What some country did somewhere has absolutely nothing to do with how this common English word is properly used. --Lee Hunter 7 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)


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


 * This is ridiculous. The term 'terrorist attack' is being used by the entire world media - see this search in Google News. It is reasonable to assume that academics will commonly use the term 'terrorist attack' to refer to the incident.
 * [Terrorism is a term] almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently used to describe life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically-motivated self-appointed sub-state groups. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics 2nd Edition
 * At least in my opinoin, terrorist is not a POV here. This is without a doubt an attack (it is not an accident).  The average person would assume that this is a terrorist attack, and that is why all the [news outlets are calling it a terrorist attack].  Having a NPOV means representing all POV.  If there is another POV that you feel is not represented, please say so.  -- BMIComp  (talk) 8 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)


 * It is a bombing, and that's what the title says it is. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)


 * Isn't PhilWelch a minority of one here? TreveXtalk 8 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
 * PhilWelch has reverted at least 3 times, --Vsion 8 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)
 * I have never reverted. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
 * PhilWelch has reverted 4 times now, --Vsion 8 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
 * To revert is to go back to a later version of the article. I have never done that. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)


 * Legalistic bullcrap. "Revert" means to restore/delete the same material over and over again. You've done it five times now: stop, or you'll be reported. --Calton | Talk 8 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)


 * OK to use the term "terrorism": Andy Mabbett, Kfort, Frankie Roberto, Sonic Mew, Lee Hunter, 213.54.228.130, TreveX, Moncrief, Revas, BMIComp, Pipian, Vsion, Calton, PZFUN
 * '''Against term "terrorism": Phil Welch, Ruy Lopez, NoPuzzleStranger
 * Not sure/ambiguous: Evercat, HappyCamper
 * There seems to be a reasonable consensus here (13/2). I'm moving the POV template to this talk page. TreveXtalk 8 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is humanistic. --Vsion 8 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

There hasn't yet been a half hour of discussion and a great deal of difficulty, due to edit conflicts, to even join the discussion. It's premature to declare a consensus. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)


 * Well, there is already a consens, you look like a minority of one...--Revas 8 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)
 * Where is it specified that there needs to be a "half hour" of discussion? Moncrief July 8, 2005 00:15 (UTC)


 * There's no time limit. But generally, the issue needs to be addressed and discussed satisfactorily before making a decision. That hasn't happened. No one here has had a chance to fully read and respond to the discussion. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

There hasn't even been a discussion, Revas. Only a bullshit attempt to override my objections instead of actually responding to them. No one has yet bothered to answer my points. And due to the edit conflicts, it has been increasingly difficult to join the discussion. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)


 * It's not true, we did. Wikipedia speak about racist policies, even id this word has a bad connotation, because for many people, racism is bad. samething with putting bombs in a train. And you're a minority on your own, you can not force everybody to keep this template.--Revas 8 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)


 * If and when there is a discussion on this that lasts longer than half an hour and doesn't involve recurrent edit conflicts preventing people from joining the discussion, then there can be a consensus. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)


 * Your first comments about terrorism on this talk page were at 23:47. It is now more than half an hour after that. So we've had half an hour of discussion. It is not possible to measure the number of people trying to edit who can't.  12 people (versus 2) have already voted that it is ok to use "terrorist."  That sounds like consensus after half an hour of discussion to me. Moncrief July 8, 2005 00:28 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. Until everyone has the chance to read the entire discussion and form an informed opinion (instead of shouting down Phil Welch and not responding to his points), no consensus has occurred. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)


 * So first you said we needed half an hour of discussion. Now "everyone" has to read and respond to your "points." Which is it?  How do you determine if "everyone" has had a chance to read this?  Moncrief July 8, 2005 00:33 (UTC)


 * I never said we needed a half hour of discussion. I said, awhile ago, that there hadn't even been a half hour of discussion *yet* and obviously the issue cannot be settled so summarily. Furthermore, you have been absolutely spiteful in your edits. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)


 * Well, do you know many wikipedia talk with as much participants ? I don't (maybe because I come from the French one). But we dscussed it, we answered to you (but you did not bother to answer me), and you're a minority of one. We are twelve to agree, this article has been updated throughout the day and you're the only onewho wanna put this tag--Revas 8 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)


 * On something as emotionally charged and vague as the word "terrorism", in the context in which it is being used, I feel it is the most appropriate and non-misleading term. Unless somebody can propose a suitable alternative to the word, it seems appropriate to leave it in the article. Yes, there are certain perceptions that the bombings were not "terrorist" in nature, but unless someone is willing to throughly change the article so that it becomes consistent with the new terminology, it seems rather unnecessary at this point to place a POV warning on the article. If it is considered inappropriate that the term "terrorism" is being used, it probably is better to raise this issue after the frequency and intensity of edits has died down so that a proposal can be put forward to counter the systemic bias pointed out in the article. If the word "terrorism" is not meant to be in the article, the "way of the Wiki" will not keep it in the article. Having said this, considering that this POV warning is fairly recent, it seems reasonable to assume that an implicit consensus on the use of "terrorism" in the article was already reached and declared acceptable for use earlier during the day. The edit history contains a number of edit summaries where this was being discussed on the fly. --HappyCamper 8 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)


 * And we don't need to replace the word "terrorism" at all. There is no need for an alternative term as far as I can see. Just phrase around it. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

It is easy to resolve this, simply say that by the definition of terrorism these acts were terrorist in nature. Also say that the vast majority of the world's leaders condemns these attacks. Then add the caveat that of course the perpertraitors of the attacks may not necessarily view themselves as terrorists. --ShaunMacPherson 8 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)


 * That might be the start of a sensible compromise. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

Terrorism, part 2
Once again this dispute arises. People have also argued about whether the the 9/11 attacks should be called "terrorism." I don't think this should even be an issue. A fairly simple definition of terrorism is that it's deliberate violence unlawfully perpetrated against civilian targets for a political purpose. Blowing up public transport vehicles without warning is clearly an act of terrorism. The issue arises repeatedly because of the connotations and the emotional charge that the word "terrorism" has gained. Terrorism has become a "boogeyman" word. Some people feel that describing some particular act such as the London attacks as "terrorism" while not also applying that word to describe a government's violent actions (accidental or otherwise) against civilians says that one is okay while the other is this terrible thing called terrorism. But by its simple denotations, "terrorism" is the word to describe unlawful violence for a political purpose. One could easily argue that governments should not be exempt from having "terrorism" used to describe their actions, but it is nonsensical to argue that everybody should be exempt from that descriptor. If you can't describe a shadowy group blowing up buses full of innocent people as terrorism, there is little else that could qualify for the term. Mr. Billion 8 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)


 * See arguments on the September 11, 2001 attacks talk page -- Pipian 8 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)

That's my point--there is little use for the term "terrorism" on an NPOV encyclopedia. It's not denotation, it's connotation. Please READ MY FUCKING ARGUMENTS. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)


 * There isn't any reason to lose your temper. Moncrief July 8, 2005 00:29 (UTC)


 * I was speaking in the tradition of "read the fucking manual", but I think there's PLENTY reason to lose my temper. You people are shouting me down without reading, understanding, or responding to my arguments. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)


 * You stated: "...And we don't need to replace the word "terrorism" at all. There is no need for an alternative term as far as I can see. Just phrase around it. --> How might you propose that we phrase around it? We'll listen to any solid alternative you can provide, honestly. --HappyCamper 8 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)


 * Sorry, we read, and we answered. But we strongly disagree. We agree that terrorism has a negative connotation, but racism or homophobia too. But it doesn't mean that a racist, an homophobic (?) or a terrorist act should not be called that way. What is your answer?--Revas 8 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the handful of people who have been obsessively editing this article every 2 minutes have read and answered. My answer is to make edits that improve the article while addressing this issue, so that there would be no reason, other than spiting me, to put "terrorism" back in. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)


 * You did not answer to my question. Why should we ban the world terrorism and not the racism, or any descrptive but depreciative term ?--Revas 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)


 * These are case by case issues. If David Duke doesn't call himself a racist and denies that he is a racist, then Wikipedia should certainly not call David Duke a racist, for instance. We shouldn't ban the word terrorism, but Wikipedia shouldn't ever definitively say that a given attack is a "terrorist" attack due to the vagueness of the term. For instance, some consider the Blitz to be state terrorism. Should Wikipedia take a stand on that issue? One editor, reverting one of my edits out of pure spite, has done that. If NPOV is dead, then I can POV-push with the best of you. Thanks for letting me know. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)


 * The problem is that saying that whites are superior to blacks is racism. Even if the man who says that deny it. And wikipedia has to write it. If putting bombs in the tube at rush hour is not terrorism, then, I don't know what it is....Lobbying ?--Revas 8 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely nothing "vague" about the definition of terrorism. It is actually as crystal clear as any word in the entire English language. I've already cited half a dozen dictionary definitions which are very specific and fit the incidents in London perfectly. There is a dispute over who is a "terrorist" but that is a very different question that determining what is an act of "terrorism", even within the WP discussions cited elsewhere. It is the same thing with "rascism" and "rascist". Forcing a black person to move to the back of the bus is clearly rascism. Whether any individual is a "rascist" is a matter for debate. --Lee Hunter 8 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)


 * Frankly, noone is interested in your "arguments". This is an encyclopedia. Show us your supporting sources. Something like this: Terrorism defined by half a dozen reference works. You can't just make up your definitions of words. If you have a reference work that supports your view that the events in London were not terrorism lets see it. --Lee Hunter 8 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)


 * This is a neutrality dispute, not a factual dispute. You seem to have missed that point. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)


 * OK to use the term "terrorism": Andy Mabbett, Kfort, Frankie Roberto, Sonic Mew, Lee Hunter, 213.54.228.130, TreveX, Moncrief, Revas, BMIComp, Pipian, Vsion, Calton, Mr. Billion, HappyCamper, GabrielF, TheBainer, Rich Farmbrough.
 * Against term "terrorism": Phil Welch, Ruy Lopez, NoPuzzleStranger
 * Not sure/ambiguous: Evercat
 * Now 17/3! Phil, people have read and understand your arguments! I realise and agree with you that there are difficulties with the use of this word. On balance, however, there currently seems to be a consensus that the use of this term is reasonable in this instance. Please be gracious and accept this. TreveXtalk 8 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages on NPOV include the Words to avoid page. Terrorist is included. This elucidates arguments on both sides. There is also the Use of the word terrorism (policy development) page. The latter does not have a conclusion. -- Pipian 8 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)


 * FWIW, EVERYONE is using the word terrorist. I've heard it on CNN, the BBC and even from Ken Livingstone. Further, the absence of the word terrorist carries just as much POV in this case as its presence and also provides a less specific description of the event. A terrorist act applies a violent attack aimed at provoking fear and accomplishing a political point, a "bombing" or a "blast" can mean a lot of other things as well. GabrielF 8 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)


 * Gabriel, if you would, please add your name to the vote just above. Moncrief July 8, 2005 00:41 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing. I figured I'd go see if there was previous debate on the topic.  Clearly there was, and clearly it has never actually apparently reached much of a conclusion. -- Pipian 8 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking all those, Pipian. Mr. Billion 8 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)


 * Sorry - this page has been edited so many times it took me three or four tries to get my edit through and by that time there were several new posts, the indentation was referring to a previous post. GabrielF 8 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)


 * Gabriel, NPOV does not mean the CNN's POV or BBC's POV. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
 * Nor does it mean Phil Welch's POV. The BBC and to a lesser extent CNN try very hard to be neutral in their reportage. We're not talking about Fox News.  Moncrief July 8, 2005 00:44 (UTC)
 * No, but it is reasonable to suggest that when the media reaches a consensus about something that consensus can be considered reality rather than just the POV of a single network. GabrielF 8 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
 * You're accusing me of *not* thinking these are terrorist attacks? Assume good faith, Moncrief. Besides, media outlets have certain systematic biases as a rule. Needless to say, they also widely reported the attack on the USS Cole as a terrorist attack, even though it was against a military target. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)

As a question to Phil et al: how would you describe it if you don't want to use the word terrorism? My understanding is that the word "terrorism" applies to acts of violence intended to arouse terror in a general population, by non-government bodies. If it was conducted by a government, it would be an act of war. If it was done by a private citizen with no particular motive, it would be murder. Given that there were four bombs, it seems safe to rule out the latter. Given that there is no evidence of state involvement, it seems safe to rule out an act of war. The incident involved bombs detonated in public places, aimed at injuring people. This seems to fall well within the definition of terrorism. The fact that all international media and government sources that I am aware of are also classifying this as terrorism (as opposed to an act of war or individual crime) just supports this logical conclusion. --bainer (talk) 8 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)


 * "State terrorism" a term that's commonly used. Examples could include the reigns of terror after the French and Russian Revolutions and the Blitz (Germany's bombing of England in WWII). &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)


 * Are you implying that a government was responsible for the bombings? If so, then supply some sources and there will be no problems in changing the wording. --bainer (talk) 8 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)


 * I'm not implying that. I'm saying that your definition is not universally accepted, and that calling these bombings "the second largest terrorist attack" takes a POV that state terrorism is not terrorism (since the Blitz would make this the *third* largest terrorist attack). &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)

I fully agree with Philwelch. The word has an inherent negative connotation and is thus POV, and it is entirely superfluous for an objective description of what happened. There are plenty of neutral words available here. NoPuzzleStranger July 8, 2005 00:46 (UTC)

I tried to compromise, but you are reverting my edits out of pure spite. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)


 * Let me be a bit brave and propose a compromise? Clearly, the consensus is that the word "terrorism" and its related constructs should not be absent from the article. However, let us refrain or restrain as much as practically possible from the use of the word "terrorism" solely as an intensifier, and consider such instances as inducing a particular POV. Examples of this would be saying that the bombing was a "terrorist attack", a "terrorist incident", et cetera. Nevertheless, the presence of the word itself does not constitute a necessity for a POV tag. The article should clearly state who considers the events as constituting "terrorist". Clearly much of "Western media" has adopted this term, and as such should be included and remain in the article. --129.97.248.72 8 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)


 * Actually, other than in direct quotes from world leaders and a reference to the Wikinews article which uses it in its name, the word "terrorist" is used exactly ONCE in this article. So it's hardly being overused.   Moncrief July 8, 2005 01:02 (UTC)


 * Thanks to my edits, which you spitefully reverted. Before my edits it was used three times. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)


 * Counting all forms that arguably raise the "Terrorist" NPOV argument that are not quotes, we have "This is the deadliest single act of terrorism..." and "Arab sources monitoring terrorist networks...".


 * The following three: "...they had received warnings of possible terror attacks...", "Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair confirms fears that it is a coordinated terror attack", "calling the attacks a coordinated series of "barbaric" terrorist attacks", are only arguably NPOV arguments, as they can be construed easily as paraphrasings of quotes.


 * -- Pipian 8 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)


 * NPOV implies showing both sides, not omitting them altogether. I would be in support of what was suggested earlier, "...simply say that by the definition of terrorism these acts were terrorist in nature.  Also say that the vast majority of the world's leaders condemns these attacks.  Then add the caveat that of course the perpertraitors of the attacks may not necessarily view themselves as terrorists." -- BMIComp  (talk) 8 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)


 * And maybe bank robbers don't think of themselves as bank robbers NPOV to a point but come on. --Mitrebox 8 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)


 * I'm glad people are approaching this reasonably instead of trying to shout me down. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)

Look at all this time wasted dealing with the eccentricities and semantic ideas of just one poster. Wikipedia uses "terrorism" (see main page), as do every news outlet in the western world that I'm aware of (including NPR and The Guardian, if you want an example of an arguably left-slanting media outlets). Phil, you've had your say. We've responded and voted. Move on already. Moncrief July 8, 2005 01:06 (UTC)


 * When did I ever make this into a question of right vs. left? Moncrief, you are the single most spiteful and combative editor I have ever met here. You assume bad faith and revert edits out of spite. You are the one who needs to get over your eccentricities and move on. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)


 * You seem unable to make your points without resorting to using words like "spiteful" to describe other people's edits. That's your POV that my edits were spiteful.  15 other people, at least, voted that "terrorist," a widely-used term to describe precisely these sorts of attacks, was acceptable.  I was reflecting that opinion.  If you think that's "spiteful," then okay.  Moncrief July 8, 2005 01:21 (UTC)


 * It was spiteful to change "worst attack since Lockerbie" to "worst terrorist attack since Lockerbie" since that change made the sentence *less* informative. You didn't gain anything by changing that back. All you accomplished was to spite me. If you don't want me to resort to words like "spiteful" to describe your edits, cease making spiteful edits. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)


 * Um, they were the worst terrorist attacks since Lockerbie, which was also a terrorist attack. Moncrief July 8, 2005 01:50 (UTC)


 * Right. That changes nothing of what I said. They were also the worst terrorist attacks blamed on Middle Eastern terrorists since Lockerbie, which was *also* a terrorist attack blamed on Middle Eastern terrorists, but there's no need to get specific. Or is there? &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 01:53 (UTC)


 * Er... okay then. Moncrief July 8, 2005 01:56 (UTC)


 * My point is "worst attack since Lockerbie" was sufficient and far more informative than "worst terrorist attack" or anything more specific. Your edit to change it back served no purpose. I assumed you were spiting me, but if you just want to be specific, well, I've improved it further. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)


 * This article and its discussion page are about the terror attacks. If apost here includes the word "YOU" or includes anyones name it probally doesn't need to be posted.--Mitrebox 8 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

An enormous amount of time has been spent arguing over whether a spade should be called a spade. This argument is a waste of time. Mr. Billion 8 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)

I totally agree - "terrorist" is a very biased term, and I know a lot of people that think this. - Unsigned, written by (24.202.219.45)

Look, you win. Use "terrorist" all you want. I don't care. If "consensus" means "removing dispute tags without discussion and shouting down everyone who disagrees with you", then we have consensus. Wikipedia isn't worth it if this is how the vast majority of conscientious signed-in editors act. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)

suicide bombing
Radio 5 reported that two injuried victims from the bus bombing said that they saw a man exploded in the bus, giving strong indication of a suicide bombing.
 * I heard this from Radio 5, unable to provide Internet source. I'm not sure if it is suitable to put it in article. -- Vsion 8 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
 * I would say that it should probably not be put in the article until it can be backed up by a credible source that we can use and attribute to. Jtkiefer July 8, 2005 00:56 (UTC)
 * Some other reports indicate suicide bombing, but no strong confirmation: . There is a large discrepancy in the reported number of fatalities from the bus bombing, why ... ?   --Vsion 8 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)

The sun has this on suicide bombing but isn't necessary reliable --212.159.107.43 8 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)
 * I think there are two problems with this -we don't know whether that person they saw was next to the explosive device rather than wearing or transporting it. The eye witnesses would have to have been upstairs on the bus and the photos seem to show 2 stationery bodies on the top deck. Was there anyone else upstairs and would they have survived to have spoken to the sun? Secretlondon 8 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)

Underground lines
What sources have been used for the details of the Underground lines for where the bombings took place? The BBC says that the first incident was a Circle Line train:

But the Wikipedia article currently says Hammersmith and City Line.

Note that in this area of the network, Circle Line trains and Hammersmith and City Line trains use the same trains and run on the same lines. Hence possible confusion. The BBC source was London Underground, who should know...

Also, the article does not currently give details like which direction the trains were running in. Which it is now possible to add to the article (from the link above - click on links at that page to get the details of the other locations).

Also, what is the source for "5 trains" for the Edgware Road incident. This sounds unlikely. There are three Underground lines operating in close proximity there: District, Circle and Hammersmith and City. Unlikely to be more than three trains involved, though most sources are still unclear on the number of trains involved at Edgware Road.

[I think the "five trains" bit should be on a new line - referring to the total number of trains in all three train incidents - three trains at Edgware Road and one each at the other two underground locations]

Finally, the "bus driver dispatch" messages bit is interesting. Anyone have anything similar on what London Underground said to the train drivers? Or on how London Underground responded in general during the incidents - such as (non)information given out at other stations in the early hours of the emergencies.

Carcharoth 8 July 2005 03:00 (BST)


 * The source is this one : [] for the 5 trains stuff. --Revas 8 July 2005 02:08 (UTC)
 * Where on that website is the 5 trains stuff?? Carcharoth 8 July 2005 03:20 (BST)
 * 09.17 - Explosion on train coming into Edgware Road underground station, approx. 100 yards in the tunnel. There was an explosion on a train which blew through a wall onto another train on an adjoining platform. Five people are dead and others are injured. Five trains are believed to have been involved.
 * You gotta click on City of London Police and it's in the first paragraph, between "05.25pm" and "03.15pm"-Revas 8 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)
 * OK. But I'd watch for updates and be prepared to change this Carcharoth 8 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)
 * This source says 3 trains involved Carcharoth 8 July 2005 03:36 (UTC)

Both the Edgware Rd and Liverpool St trains are running on subsurface lines which are shared. BBC says Algate ->Liverpool Street (so anti-clockwise), and Edgware Rd ->Paddington (anti-clockwise). The deep level one was Russell sq -> Kings X (notherbound) Secretlondon 8 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)

Blamed on arabs?
is this appropriate wording? --Urbane legend 8 July 2005 02:07 (UTC)


 * It was less than elegant, but it was blamed on Arab terrorists, as was Lockerbie. &mdash; Phil Welch 8 July 2005 02:09 (UTC)


 * I'm also going to have to agree that the wording seems innapropriate, and at that this has not even been officially blamed on Arabs. What about attack by a terrorist organization? Or something of that sort. Jimbobsween


 * Even if they were Islamist fundamentalists they might not be Arabs. They could be Afghani, Irani, Indonesian, Pakistani, Chechen, Indian, British, American, French, Spanish, Uighur Chinese, etc--Lee Hunter 8 July 2005 10:50 (UTC)


 * My point exactly. --Urbane legend 8 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)

Quick Bits
Howdy, I've done some cleanup work on this article. Changed God to Allah in the translated statement, added a link to the Koranic verse translation, and added links to two bus bombings in jeruselem. I think wikipedia has come together very nicely to make an excellent article. Klonimus 8 July 2005 02:13 (UTC)


 * Why did you change "God" to "Allah"? "Allah" is "God" in Arabic, it isn't a name specific to God as worshipped by Muslims, even if there is a tendency on their part to leave it untranslated. See the Allah article. It is used by Arabic-speaking Christians and in Arabic translations of the Christian Bible. If we're to have a translation of the statement let's not leave certain words in Arabic to make Muslims sound dark and mysterious. "Allah" when translated to English yields the word "God". &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)
 * I agree that changing God to Allah was at best pointless, and at worst POV. God means any old god, not just the Christian one... Secretlondon 8 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)

Casualty location table misleading
The casualty location table is misleading. The casualties at Aldgate East were from an explosion that was only 100m outside Liverpool Street Station. The casualties may have been evacuated to Aldgate East or Aldgate - we need a definite source to confirm which of these stations casualties were evacuated to, if not both (both Aldgate stations would be accessible from the tunnels at that point in the network) - but the explosion (and location of the fatalities) would be better described as Liverpool Street. And in any case, picking one station for each incident in this location table is arbitrary when at least two of the incidents occurred between stations. eg. King's Cross or Russell Square, Liverpool Street or Aldgate (East)? Carcharoth 8 July 2005 03:30 (BST)
 * Changed, please check it out. Thks for highlighting --Vsion 8 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

The "various hospitals" section looks weird. How can one person die in various hospitals? And more importantly, that person must have been injured in one of the bombings. It would be more interesting to know which bombing s/he was injured in rather than whether s/he died at the scene or in a hospital. Are we sure that this person isn't one of those already counted in one of the bomb location categories? Mark1 8 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)
 * Removed the hospital entry on table. This make the tally of 37 equal as the current official figure. -- Vsion 8 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
 * someone put them back again, tally now at 38. -- Vsion 8 July 2005 03:39 (UTC)
 * This agrees with the BBC tally. Various hospitals was mostly specified presumably as the hospital death tally will likely increase. -- Pipian 8 July 2005 04:15 (UTC)
 * I wrote that, because a) I couldn't think of a decent way to phrase it, and b) At the time I believed the tally to be 40, as the timeline indicated that at 10pm a further two had been announced. In the following 5 minutes the last timeline entry got deleted, and my new table row revised back to 1. It was always my intent that the row should only be used to denote generic after-the-event fatalities until they could be accurately attributed to one of the explosions. Chris Smowton 8 July 2005 07:41 (UTC)

Aldgate or Aldgate East?
After a bit of confusion on this, most sources: and seem to be saying that the Liverpool Street incident took place on a train from Aldgate to Liverpool Street, on the Circle Line. If this is confirmed, all the references here to Aldgate East and Hammersmith and City Line need to be changed.

Note that the Transport for London press release (first link above) consistently refers to Aldgate (Circle Line), not Aldgate East (H+C Line), even though it unhelpfully confuses the two by saying "Aldgate station heading towards Liverpool Street station on the Hammersmith & City line".

Also, the BBC seems to be one of the sources for the original Aldgate East error (also see the archived Talk pages where someone says they saw BBC TV coverage of Aldgate station - not Aldgate East), but the BBC pages now mostly say Aldgate, though some still say Aldgate East.

But it doesn't help that Aldgate and Aldgate East stations are a short walk from each other, and that both stations use the same tunnels and trains.

An eyewitness report here says "We got off at the back end of the train and they walked us towards Aldgate station." This suggests to me that it was indeed a Circle Line train that had been travelling from Aldgate to Liverpool Street.

Finally, this source confirms all the above. I would say it is definitely Circle Line train from Aldgate to Liverpool Street, and everything needs changing in this Wikipedia article: NOT Aldgate East and NOT Hammersmith and City Line. Carcharoth 8 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

Bali Bombings
Why was this removed? Seems highly appropriate to be there.

Good eyewitness accounts
If anyone is unsure about anything in the article, try to find firsthand evidence in eyewitness accounts (try to find more than one account in case the eyewitness is unreliable). There are some good eyewitness accounts here. Carcharoth 8 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)

Israeli warnings
This should be worked into the text somewhere. I don't have time today:

Israel Warned United Kingdom About Possible Attacks Jul 07, 2005

Summary

There has been massive confusion over a denial made by the Israelis that the Scotland Yard had warned the Israeli Embassy in London of possible terrorist attacks â€œminutes beforeâ€ the first bomb went off July 7. Israel warned London of the attacks a â€œcouple of days ago,â€ but British authorities failed to respond accordingly to deter the attacks, according to an unconfirmed rumor circulating in intelligence circles. While Israel is keeping quiet for the time-being, British Prime Minister Tony Blair soon will be facing the heat for his failure to take action.

Analysis

The Associated Press reported July 7 that an anonymous source in the Israeli Foreign Ministry said Scotland Yard had warned the Israeli Embassy in London of possible terrorist attacks in the U.K. capital. The information reportedly was passed to the embassy minutes before the first bomb struck at 0851 London time. The Israeli Embassy promptly ordered Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to remain in his hotel on the morning of July 7. Netanyahu was scheduled to participate in an Israeli Investment Forum Conference at the Grand Eastern Hotel, located next to the Liverpool Street Tube station -- the first target in the series of bombings that hit London on July 7.

Several hours later, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom officially denied reports that Scotland Yard passed any information to Israel regarding the bombings, and British police denied they had any advanced warning of the attacks. The British authorities similarly denied that any information exchange had occurred.

Contrary to original claims that Israel was warned â€œminutes beforeâ€ the first attack, unconfirmed rumors in intelligence circles indicate that the Israeli government actually warned London of the attacks â€œa couple of daysâ€ previous. Israel has apparently given other warnings about possible attacks that turned out to be aborted operations. The British government did not want to disrupt the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, or call off visits by foreign dignitaries to London, hoping this would be another false alarm.

The British government sat on this information for days and failed to respond. Though the Israeli government is playing along publicly, it may not stay quiet for long. This is sure to apply pressure on Blair very soon for his failure to deter this major terrorist attack.


 * That would need some serious sources and corroboration if it were to be included. I'm sure everyone knows how much trouble including unsubstantiated rumours in articles has caused. --bainer (talk) 8 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)


 * The above article is a Stratfor (http://www.stratfor.com) premium report they're an intelligence analysis agency the report can be accesses here if you have a login(http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/premium.php) and is mirrored here(http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/stratfor-london.html) although without a login it's impossible to confirm it's an accurate mirror.


 * I got this article below from the website: http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/0889_what_behind_london_attacks.html

"The bombing of the London Underground was a false-flag operation designed to keep the West mired in war. Don't believe otherwise. By Matt Hutaff Jul 7, 2005

Only one word sprang to mind when I heard about the bombings that claimed the lives of dozens of Londoners today – convenient.

Is there anything convenient in death, or in thousands of lives destroyed from catastrophe? No – and words cannot express the sorrow I feel for the men and women changed by today's events. But governments with skeletons in their closets have a great deal to gain from a national tragedy bolstered by "terrorism."

As I sit in my office today, I hear the whispers of co-workers now utterly convinced our war on terror must continue. Despite American and British involvement in the Middle East birthing wave after wave of rebel forces, the Bush doctrine is now justified in the minds of millions. Petty grievances such as the Downing Street Minutes, the President's flagging support and Karl Rove's treasonous outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame are unimportant. A shadowy conglomeration is out to kill us.

Sound familiar? It should – the same emotional ploy was used to great effect on Americans in the wake of September 11th. Question nothing, particularly your cries for vengeance or that nagging feeling in the back of your head. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Unlike four years ago, however, I refuse to accept that the attack on London was anything less than a false-flag operation designed to enrage Western "civilization" against the Middle East. Why? Because there is no reason for "terrorist" groups to attack England. As recently as this week, the Ministry of Defense announced that plans were being drafted that would pull British armed forces from the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the British effectively admitting they're throwing in the towel, the only motivation to stay could come from an attack that compels the forces to stay and fight "global terrorism."

Think about it. The attack only benefits empires desperate to maintain a foothold in the Middle East without further eroding public opinion. Will Parliament shrug their shoulders and push their soldiers into longer tours of duty because of this? Obviously it's too early to tell, but if that happens, insurgents and rebels will have lost more than they could have ever possibly gained in destroying part of the Underground.

Brian Kilmeade of Fox News agrees, claiming the sabotage "works to ... [the] Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together." It doesn't just make "terrorism" an American problem. It makes it a worldwide problem. The Number One problem.

No longer do we need to concern ourselves with two world leaders (who have spawned more worldwide terrorism than any fanatical religious organization) going unquestioned in their lies that started a war. We can cast off our sluggish economies, lack of freedoms and pitiful descent into draconian law. Terror is on the rise.

I feel like I'm sitting in my apartment watching the World Trade Center collapse all over again.

Everything is the same, right down to the previously unheard of Islamic group (The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe? Are you kidding me?) taking credit – even though the translation falls apart under scrutiny and the Q'uran is improperly cited. Considering the only Al Qaeda cell to ever be uncovered was a front for the Mossad, you'd think the perpetrators could at least come up with a clever new booga-booga name to grab headlines. Their arrogance is startling.

As is the ever-present Israeli connection, a staple among false flag operations. Before today's attack, the Israeli Embassy in London was notified an attack was forthcoming. As a result, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remained in his hotel room rather than head towards a nearby hotel where he was to address an economic summit.

The embassy denies it had any prior knowledge, of course, but the story has changed dramatically in the process. If, as they say, Netanyahu was not warned, how did he know to stay in his room? How did he know the danger was so severe that he dare not venture out of the hotel?

Oops! The story's changed again – here Netanyahu says that British police had warned the Israelis (but not the rest of the city?) of a pending attack. Scotland Yard denies this; Israel's reply was to say Netanyahu received his warning after the first blast. How? It was initially reported as a power surge for hours. What is being hidden here? And why isn't there an investigation into these obvious discrepancies?

It's enough to make your head spin and your eyes cross with rage.

Regardless, I am making an appeal to Britons who are understandably wracked with grief at the moment – don't buy into the hatred the way we Americans did. Don't ignore the obvious evidence that this whole affair was orchestrated by your own government. Most importantly, don't let the deaths of the few, however tragic, plunge your nation into another fit of war and civic clampdowns.

Toying with your emotions is expected. Don't fall prey to ignorance. See the attack on your home for what it really is – a distraction that will keep your money, resources and troops mired in ceaseless battle for an ideology that betrays your democratic and civilized tenets.

Honor your dead with tears, not a cry for war or praise for a disgraced leader.

Canon Fodder is a weekly analysis of politics and society."


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Seems you have a few fanboys and sockpuppets, so I won't bother deleting since you'll immediately post back. Oh and BTW, you win, I won't bother edit this page anymore. I'll let it go to the dogs since so many of you are intended to do just that. Shame. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox Adidas 8 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)

Warning story deletions
This text, or similar, has been up on the page most of the time, but keeps being deleted by some. It is well sourced - as least as much as many other sections. If people object to it being there perhaps they could discuss their arguments below:

Issues Some news stories current a few hours after the attacks raised at least a query over the official position that there had been no warning or prior intelligence. It was reported on CBS News that a senior Israeli official said that British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before the explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city. [13] An Associated Press report carried on a number of news sites, including The Guardian, attributed the initial report of a warning to an Israeli “Foreign Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity,” but added Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom's later denial on Israel Army Radio: “There was no early information about terrorist attacks.” [14] A similar report on the site of right-wing Israeli paper Israel National News / Arutz Sheva attributed the story to “Army Radio quoting unconfirmed reliable sources.” [15]

Death toll apparently at 52
Yahoo!News Asia just got in that Australian Prime Minister Howard says the toll's at 52 though he's not giving his sources. Y!N is citing the Associated Press.

Kawa 8 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)


 * The extras are apparently the 15 more "it now appears" killed in the bus bombing.   But until they're confirmed (by UK govt/police/etc) we should stick to the confirmed numbers and mention the likelihood of more, as now. Mark1 8 July 2005 05:31 (UTC)
 * The Jerusalem Post is saying the same thing. 52 Dead. Klonimus 8 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)
 * The Times says the same thing, but again no reliable sources are cited. "Sources have stated" is the best they give. I think we should wait until the BBC says something. Chris Smowton 8 July 2005 08:13 (UTC)

Casualties & Peacetime
Under Casualties, the article says "second-most deadly peacetime terrorist attacks ever". I was under the impression that the UK was at war with Iraq. Is the war now considered to be an occupation during peacetime? Can someone clarify? --Westendgirl 8 July 2005 06:12 (UTC)

Unless the British actually went to trouble of declaring war, there is no technical war in Iraq since the U.S. and no other country that I know of have actually declared war on the country of Iraq. In Britain I assume it would be parliament that would declare war if you want to look it up. Jtkiefer July 8, 2005 06:17 (UTC)

General consensus is that not only is the war/invasion over, but the occupation, as the foreign troops are now there at the request of the elected and sovereign Iraqi government. The end of the occupation is recognised by the UN see Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005. Rich Farmbrough 8 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

The UK was at war with Iraq, but hostilities ended in May 2003 and certainly the UK is not at war with the new sovereign Iraqi government - in fact they are allies. The UK is currently, as of 2005, not at war with any country (apart, maybe, from one of those "unresolved treaty" things between the UK and (I think) Spain) - but seeing as they are both in the EU they probably are not even technically at war). Hence this attack was in peacetime. Batmanand 8 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. I didn't get the memo. :) --Westendgirl 9 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)

Aum Shinryiko
I'm going to remove the referecne to Aum Shinrikyo, since that was a chemical attack by japanese cultists and not an bombing by Islamists like the rest of the incidents listed. The incidents are completely different in methods and motivations. Klonimus 8 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)

Bad analysis
I cannot accept the analysis of the "Translated statement" that with regard to the quoted passage " Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters" - the analysis suggests that it "provides a hint that something went wrong", because "two explosions occured in the north, while none occured in the south" - these explosions occured within a couple of miles of each other in London and not " northern, .. eastern, and western quarters" of Britain. It may well be that the bomb on the bus detonated prematurely, but the statement provides no clue to this. That part of the statement is just "hyperbole" and nothing more. Jooler
 * We don't even know if this statement is real. Kings Cross/Russell Sqaure is more central anyway - Russell Square is WC1. The statement is clearly not to be taken accurately like that regardless... Secretlondon 8 July 2005 08:03 (UTC)


 * "two explosions occurred in the north while none occurred in the south" is wrong - they were *all* in the south. And "All this suggests the possibility that the bomber on the bus was in the act of transporting his bomb to a southern tube station (where it could have inflicted more damage)" is rubbish - the bus was going from Hackney in the east to Marble Arch in the west.  Not going south at all. DrHydeous 8 July 2005 10:22

Tense
Can we please change text about everything that has happened to past tense? I can't do it myself as I just don't have enough time. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 07:28 (UTC)

Pictures
Can we keep the images spread out throughout the article? It's a little confusing when they're all bunched up near a single paragraph. -- M e r o v i n g i a n (t) (c) July 8, 2005 07:42 (UTC)
 * I note that User:Pigsonthewing has taken this comment to mean remove all pictures from the article. His see talk comment doesn't refer to anything on the talk page apart from this. I guess we better put them back then. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 08:24 (UTC)

Survivor Lists
Personally I don't think it's particularly useful to link a 'survivor list' when the potential survivors include the entire population of Greater London who may or may not have been using the tube and/or buses that day. A list of known casualties is more reasonable, but since the list published only includes two people it's hardly a useful source for the reading public at large.

Also, if we are going to feature a survivor list, I don't think one giving "blog username" as a key piece of identifying data is a source of key public interest, so much as highly specialised to a tiny fraction of readers who happen to have blogs/journals. The same goes for linking the "Livejournal Rollcall". It's highly specialised and not a source of interest to any but a tiny fraction of readers who have LiveJournals, most of whom probably know of the call as members in any case. Chris Smowton 8 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)


 * I'm reposting because I got deleted (probably by one of the ludicrous blog owners). Bottom line is, survivor list were setup to promote various personal blogs that have no relation to the event. Survivor list in themselves are ludicrous because of the low number of casualty compared to the millions of travellers on the London transit system. I'm not sure what else to say - be responsible, human? don't promote your little blog piggybacking a tragedy. Adidas 8 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)


 * Looks like they were removed at around 10am anyway. Thankyou, mystery editor :) Chris Smowton 8 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)

Phone system
''The BBC had speculated that the phone system has been closed by the security services to prevent the possibility of mobile phones being used to trigger bombs. BBC later reported that mobile networks were running again.''

It has just being revealed at the press conference that this never happened. Even if it was considered, it was decided that it would cause too much disruption for the thousends of people tring to call loved once. The question is should this statement be completetly taken out or simply updated? if kept is it a good accounts of events? --219.88.187.75 8 July 2005 10:51 (UTC)

I updated it, maybe it should be deleted as it is a false speculation, but it might serve as reference to stop rumor --Mexaguil 8 July 2005 11:23 (UTC)

Let's keep it clean! (punctuation & copyediting)
Please remember. . . MPF 8 July 2005 11:16 (UTC)
 * (1) external link references go at the end of sentences, not at the start. Put the fullstop after the link, not before it.
 * (2) use ordinary quotes ' and ", not smart quotes
 * (3) correct quotation: generally, quote marks go inside punctuation, not outside, unless the punctuation is part of the quote (see the wiki style guide).


 * I disagree. Punctuation should be inside quotations and before external links. ' is a hyphen, not a single quote, use ‘ and ’ for that purpose. " should be discouraged in favour of “ and ”. All of this is correct typographical practice, widely attested in English&#8208;language publications across the globe. Nicholas 8 July 2005 11:24 (UTC)
 * From the Wikipedia Manual of Style:
 * When punctuating quoted passages include the mark of punctuation inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the mark of punctuation is part of the quotation. This is the style used in Australia, New Zealand, and Britain, for example. (A fuller treatment of the recommendations given here can be found in Fowler's Modern English Usage and other style guides for these countries, some of which vary in fine details.) "Stop!", for example, has the punctuation inside the quotation marks because the word "stop" is said with emphasis. When using "scare quotes", however, the comma goes outside.
 * For uniformity and to avoid complications use straight quotation marks and apostrophes ( ' " ) not curved (smart) ones, grave accents or backticks ( ‘ ’ “ ” ` ).
 * If you are pasting text from Microsoft Word remember to turn off the smart quotes feature by unmarking this feature in AutoEdit and "AutoEdit during typing"! Many other modern word processors have a smart quotes setting—please read the appropriate documentation for your editor.

- MPF 8 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)

Your claim regarding links is also incorrect. See Manual of Style (links). - MPF 8 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)


 * Then the Manual needs amending. I shall see to it. Nicholas 8 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong. The Manual of Style has been extensively researched by hundreds of wikipedians over a long period, and should not be altered without detailed discussion first. You can't force your (frankly, weird) style ideas on the rest of Wikipedia. - MPF 8 July 2005 11:50 (UTC)


 * Technically, punctuation should go inside the quote if the entire sentence is a quote, and outside if only part of the sentence is a quote. For example:


 * Proto said "Calling this event 7/7 is really lame".
 * and
 * "I think calling this 7/7 is really lame."


 * I don't know if that ties in with the MoS or not. Proto t c 8 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)

Wikibook on London
The Wikibook on London now includes a short bit on the events with a link to this page. The information is at Wikibooks:London:History, under the 21st century section. can someone add info on the Olympics 2012, also at this page? Charlie123 (Talk) 8 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)

Blog section
In order to prevent an edit war, we should discuss here if we should restore or not the blog section :

'' Blogs ''- *perfect.co.uk - Liveblogging from the beginning ''- *Swindon Blog - Mollten.com ''- *NowPublic.com - Live Reports from People on the Scene ''- *London Underground Blog - Updated regularly with news ''- *Livejournal community - With contacts and local news ''- *dcinput blog - Posting what I'm seeing on the net and hearing from inside Jim Henson's Creature Shop in London ''- *podbat blog - As it happened. Also a google maps API implementation showing how events are unfolding '' --Revas 8 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)

Previously there was a blogs section. How to people feel about re-adding it? I've put a copy on this page. SimonLyall 8 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)

We already have loads of external links. Does this random selection of the blogosphere add anything to the article? Secretlondon 8 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)

I patrolled every edit to this article for a few hours last night and it was really amazing how many linkspammers turned up. Some of them just tucked their fairly irrelevant blog posts away in the external links, but others added whole paragraphs in the reactions section with ludicrous stuff like "One prominent blogger from Nowhere, Kentucky reacted to the attacks in his own inimitable way by creating a special icon in Photoshop which you can use on your website" etc. I would really rather we kept the external links section pruned as much as possible. Unless someone was inside one of the trains and has posted a detailed account of their experiences or something like that there is not much point linking to them. I also twice speedied a seperate page as being entirely composed of external links. It was called something like "7 July 2005 London bombings - views from the blogosphere" and the section quoted above looks very much like a reincarnation of it. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)


 * Linkspammers, is that how they are called? yes, tons of them riding this tragic event as if it was a promotion opportunity. Adidas 8 July 2005 13:15 (UTC)

Missing Persons section
Please add a "Missing Persons" section. Over 24 hours people are getting desperate

Laura Susan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/4664091.stm Jamie Gordon: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4663321.stm Other?

Monika Suchocka: http://www.rjb.za.net/archives/2005/07/08/missing-person-london/

Why these three? There must be hundreds if not thousands of people who are considered missing by someone - not all my relatives know I'm okay. This is an encylopedia. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 12:52 (UTC)

These are not just people who have not called their parents back home... These are people who where in the area. DID NOT COME HOME and have not reported back to work. The more eyes that see these people the better.

RE: "This is an encylopedia." sure ... and milk cartons are about selling milk! Would love to heard what measures you would take if you where going from hospital to hospital looking... AKA: Monika Suchocka and others

Phone the police if you're worried. This is not what wikipedia is for. Proto t c 8 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)

Proto, you are a fool. Thanks for the concern. Put yourself in someone elses shoes for a moment.

Please - The casualty bureau number: 0870 1566 344. If someone was hurt in the blasts, they now know where they are. Please do not flame/flaimebait on this page. Again, Casualty bureau number: 0870 1566 344 - there is no need for a missing person section. Adidas 8 July 2005 13:26 (UTC)

Adidas, why is there no need? Does the Casulty bureau have a list of all the dead people too? Your opinion is that there is no need, but my opinion and the opinion of others is that there is a need. And do not remove this post. You have zero right.

Why would I remove your post mr anonymous? This is frankly a bizarre thing to say. Well, i stick to my guns, the casualty bureau has a list of the wounded and deceased. Add your list all you want. Or maybe you could go on wikinews and add it there as well. Whatever :) Adidas 8 July 2005 13:40 (UTC)

My post disappeared, I looked at the history, compared the two versions and Adidas removed the post above. Strange. Anyway, apologies for the anonymous posts, I keep forgetting :P Twyford 8 July 13:43 UTC


 * This is most likely due to a bug in the software that causes some edits to be overwritten when pages are being heavily edited. I have seen myself a few times appear to inadvertently remove people's comments because of this problem. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)

Wikipaedia should not be a reference location for missing persons. People concerned should consult the Metropolitan Police. I asked for the Missing Persons List to be deleted for this very reason. The scale of this incident is such that it is well within the reach of the emergency services' capacity, and referencing or creating our own unverifiable list of possibly missing persons is at best useless and at worst counterproductive. Chris Smowton 8 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)