Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings

Article Title

Is it a Wikipedia standard to represent dates in the format 1 January rather than for example January 1 or 1st January ? Springald 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a Wikipedia standard to follow relative local dating standards. This article refers to an event in the United Kingdom, so the UK format (dd/mm/yyyy) is used. The events of the eleventh day of September, 2001, in New York, are referred to in the US format (mm/dd/yyyy). Liam Plested 12:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that it is the local dating standard in the United Kingdom to represent dates as "1st January" rather than "1 January", which is considered an Americanism. I, having just searched for "7th July 2005" and found no results, would prefer this article to be titled "7th July ..." as opposed to "7 July ...". Any objections/reasons for it to be otherwise? Blindsuperhero (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How can "7 July" be an "Americanism," when the American version would be "July 7th"? In either case, the suffix is not now seen as obligatory. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should be 7th July 80.2.18.139 (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed - the UK usage is 7th July 2005, not 7 July 2005. Why is the page move-protected when there is consensus against the current title? Little Professor (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can and should the the article not change its name from 7 July 2005 to 7th of July 2005? Failed search (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Americans. And they don't even realise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.81.157 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a few years late, but read WP:DATE#Dates. Wikipedia never uses a "th" suffix on any dates, British or American, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 09:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

From article

Moved here, because it didn't fit and I didn't know where to put it:

01 March 2006. BBC News 22:30 PM The Metropolitan Police admit that it was a mistake to shut down the mobile telephone networks in the immediate aftermath of the July 7th attacks. This directly contradicts statements by the mobile telephone network operators and the Police at the time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4763350.stm

"Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair has criticised his City of London colleagues for shutting down the mobile phone network on 7 July"

æle ✆ 00:07 11 April 2006 (UTC)

PROTEST:

Some very important FACTS about the 7/7 London bombings are left out and place on a page called: "rumours and conspiracy theories" while the main page contain the rumour (which is the official story) that this was an al-Qeada like attack, which is non-factual and contrary to evidenc that it was an act of state-terrorism

Note 1: Wiki pages covering a subject should first of all be based on facts. I see there fore no reason (for the merit of being factual) of leaving out very important information which proves that, amongst others:

• The bombings occured at exactly the same time and location as a previously planned counter-terror drill occured.

This fact alone, which is well documented and of which video footage exists, already shows a very imortant fact, leading to the conclusion that this was not an 'authentic' terrorist attack, but must be planned by government secret agencies. Very much like Gladio performed several of such bombings and terrorist attacks in the 80-ies (Bologna, for instance).

Note 2: By placing such important facts and not distinguish REAL rumours from FACTS and also by using the term "conspiracy" (as if the official story is NOT a conspiracy!!!) is a biased way (showing POV by the way, and therefore inclining Wiki's own policy!!) of covering this bombing event!

There is sufficient PROOF that the 7/7 London bombing was an act of STATE TERRORISM! The current page with the (wrong/biased) title : "rumours and conspiracy theories about July 7 London bombings" contains (apart from some also mentioned but not yet established facts and/or rumours on that page, which could stay as long and in sofar as they are not factual) a series of documented facts about the drills, the behaviour of the 'terrorists' which do not match suicide bombers, and the established fact that the train tables (as in the official story) can't be right (are physical impossible).

The RUMOUR (that is: government and media lies) is that this was an al-Qeada alike attack, nd this should of course be distinguished from the ESTABLISHED FACTS!

I PROPOSE therefore that the REAL facts are placed on this page, which are the ESTABLISHED FACTS which show that it was an act of STATE TERRORISM, and that the government/media rumours and lies, are translocated to a seperate page, listed as: "goverment/media rumours and lies about the 7/7 London bombings".

As a remark to this: I think it's very strange that such biased opinions on this subject keep appearing here on Wiki, that government lies and media lies keep appearing and that the world community does not correct them. That is, the real story and facts do appear, but in such a way that it is hidden and is made to be ridiculed and not treated as very serious and also factual information!! It's a shame for Wikipedia, which was intended to refrain from such government and media lies, and show the real facts which can be known and should be known by the public.

This subject is highly important! The repeating of government lies and media lies, should be stopped, and Wikipedia should re-establish the REAL facts, which can be controlled by the mass population, it is one of the weapons we still have to beat these LIES!!!!

We should be aware of such things, and keep Wikipedia standards up, and not lowering it because of the repeated propaganda from media and government stories!

Heusdens 04:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, what is on the "Rumours" page is the usual mish-mash of lies, distortions, halt-truths and a smattering of misleadingly-cited actual truths that conspiracy theories are invariably composed of. The fact that these theories exist and are circulated merits their documentation, but that does not - and should not - imbue them with any legitimacy.

The often claimed "evidence" that there was a "similar" anti-terror exercise or exercises in progress at the same time or just before the attacks, for example, overlooks the fact that dozens of such exercises take place every week. And of course it should not be a surprise if the planners of those exercises envisage similar or the same sort of attacks that would occur to potential terrorists. Nick Cooper 10:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A anti-terror drill on the same day. Well Ok, that is probable, if those drills occur frequently. But on the exact same time and location? Have you done any statistical analysis of how (un)probable that is? Not impossible, but very improbable.

Heusdens (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Heusdens, a little bit of info for you. Prison Planet is run by an american white supremasist, post 9/11 his sad "theories" have become popular with muslims and moonbats alike. Please go away and stop bothering editors unless you have real information from decent sources.Hypnosadist 11:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, no wonder the world is in such a mess, with apologists like that trying to excuse the bombers. If you have verifiable, independent evidence ot your allegations then provide it instead of keep claiming you have it it, oh and not just evidence from lunatic conspiracy sites!

FYI: I do NOT "excuse" any of the bombers!!!!! The only point is if we really know who the bombers are and what their intent was!

Heusdens (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hypnosadist (what a choice of username!) FYI this is a DISCUSSION page, not the editorial page. There are credible sources that might be of interest. Please check this video documentary: Ludicrious Diversion and this video documentary Mind the Gap Heusdens 09:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, discussion of the established FACTS which should - or should not - be included in the article, not wild conspiracy theories woven out of lies, misinterpretations and coincidences, all of which can be rebutted with rational analysis of what really happened. Nick Cooper 12:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

london bombing

hello, i would like know how this affected the travel and tourism industry ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.137.207 (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

death count

the box on the side says 56 people died, the introductory text mentions 52 - this should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.33.170 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

52 + 4 bombers = 56. Fences&Windows 21:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Numbers killled

The existing text matches is similar to that used for 9/11 which is "2,973 victims and the 19 hijackers died as a result of the attacks". I would support a change to that form of words, but do not support the "were killed by the bombers" that SlaterStephen has sought to introduce. If the sourced number is 56 not 52 then change the number, that is a different issue. --Snowded ^TALK 06:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No problom with changing it to 56, I just felt it better ti keep the text as unchanged as possible. Actualy it does not match the above text. It says that 52 people were killed, the line about the bombers is seperate and there is no indication that the figure 52 does not include them, unlike the text above.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we change it to the above form. Its better than the current but avoids the "they killed them" words. If no objections I will make that change later --Snowded ^TALK 14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Conspiracy"

This was once covered by a lengthy and separate "alternative theories" page, but that page with all its (admittedly dubious) detail has been squashed into this article as a five-line generalised and dismissive paragraph. The current section imparts very little information, and there are no links out to any related material either. Those coming to this page to get such information are thus bereft of any leads at all for further reading. I have noted the above discussion section "No conspiracy drama please" that insists that there ought be no such links as "they are conspiracy theory sites and sprout the usual conspiracy nuttery". That is hardly NPOV!, and there may be may readers who are interested in discovering more about these "nutty theories" that, according to this very article, 24% of UK Muslims agree with, in the same way that there are no doubt those who want to know a bit more about, for example, "flat-earthers" (who do have their own article). As there is an aversion to having informative content within the article itself, I am going to provide a link out to a single, dedicated site (http://www.julyseventh.co.uk) that analyses many of these theories in detail (and, for what its worth, discards most of them: the focus of the site is on the unknowns and getting a public inquiry, rather than wild speculation), together with providing a huge quantity of media reaction and undisputed factual data from official sources. I'm also not too sure how to put this politely, so I apologise in advance: I don't expect the link to be removed, unless of course it is replaced with proper article content, without some proper reasoning ("conspiracy theories are nutty" or some variation thereof is simply not good enough), and will revert/dispute as necessary, as this seems to be yet another article (as per discussion above) with controversial aspects excised by an opinionated clique. 188.126.84.67 (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded the CT / inquiry paragraphs, and merged them to make their content flow better (they ought to be dealt with together: the perceived element of doubt in the official narrative fuels both the CT and the calls for an inquiry). I'm not entirely satisfied with the result (it is structured in such a way as to read slightly pro-CT), but it seems much improved. I have also included a link to the site I mentioned above (to my knowledge, it is the most balanced and detailed site that deals with the possibility of CT): I am not keen on the way I have included it in the body of the text, but am mindful that a link will have less prominence within a CT-only section than putting it with the other external links at the bottom of the article. Amendments and comment welcome :) 188.126.84.67 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)