Talk:London

The timing of the 7/7 bombings in relation the awarding of the 2012 Olympics.

​ The last sentence of the "Late modern and contemporary" section of the History part of the article currently reads "A day after the July 7th terrorist attacks London was awarded the 2012 Summer Olympics, making London the first city to stage the Olympic Games three times." when in fact the Games were awarded to London on July 6th 2005.

Please change "A day after the July 7th terrorist attacks London was awarded the 2012 Summer Olympics, making London the first city to stage the Olympic Games three times." to "A day before the July 7th terrorist attacks London was awarded the 2012 Summer Olympics, making London the first city to stage the Olympic Games three times."

I found a source for that.  Doing... A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have this news event at all?

Look at the New York page. You will see no mention of a much more significant event, the September_11_attacks. I think the NY article has got it right, cities are not defined by terrorist actions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You were confused which article you were reading. New York is about the state, and says so at the top of the article; the article about the city is New York City, which does mention (and link to) the September 11 attacks. David Biddulph (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The attacks of September 11 killed over 3,000 and changed the course of world history including two major wars, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, restrictions on civil liberties and changes to airport security. They also involved the destruction of three of the largest skyscrapers in the world.

The events of 7/7 are simply not comparable in terms of scale and I'm not personally convinced that they warrant a mention in this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The two attacks are not comparable in scale and world-changing power, no. The 7/7 attacks did not kill thousands. Neither did they remove a noticeable landmark from London's cityscape. But this is not an article about significant criminal events, or even about ways in which London has changed the world. This is a page about London. In particular, this is a section about the history of London.

The 7 July 2005 was a very significant day for London and Londoners. As far as I am aware, it was the first successful terrorist attack on the British mainland since the days of the IRA. It had a profound impact on the psyche of London's people. Its timing, just one day after the announcement that London had won the right to host the Olympics, was impeccable in bringing the city crashing back to the real world. It did affect security at the airport; before it we never had to take our shoes off or dispose of baby's milk bottles when boarding a plane. There were never constant announcements on stations about leaving ones baggage unattended and there were not frequent security alerts brought about by such unattended items until after July 2005. So, our civil liberties have been adversely affected by this event.

The attacks made the people of London and the country as a whole realise that terrorists did not have to come from far off lands or war zones. The perpetrators of these attacks were British, they lived in this country. It alerted people to the fact that there is a very real danger of the so-called radicalisation of young men and women from the UK.

Politics aside, I would argue that few events have more defined the recent history of London. Go and ask random people in the streets of London what happened to the city on 7/7 and I'd wager that 9 people out of 10 would respond correctly. Citing other events in the 'late modern and contemporary history' section, how many of the ten would know why Canary Wharf was built, or when the Thames Barrier was constructed, or indeed what year the race riots in Brixton took place? Not very many I think.

A comparable event, the massacre in Norway of last year, is mentioned in the page Norway's history section. This event had little impact on the world as a whole. Yes, it appalled us and it reminded us all how dangerous the followers of Nazi-style ideologies can be, but it didn't exactly bring about any profound change in the world. Yet it did affect the people of Norway in a massive way and will continue to do so for many years to come, just like 7/7's legacy will continue to haunt Londoners for decades.

Norway's article has a concise and tastefully brief mention of Anders Breivik's actions: "In 2011 Norway suffered a pair of devastating attacks conducted by Anders Behring Breivik which struck the government quarter in Oslo and a summer camp of the Labour party's youth movement at Utøya island, resulting in 77 deaths and 96 wounded."

There is no reason why London's worst massacre since the 1941 Blitz can't have a similar mentioning. Granted there shouldn't be a big thing made of it, because although it was significant it wasn't exactly the event of the century, but it does deserve to be included (after the Olympics announcement for continuity's sake).

I'd just like to end this rather essay-like response with a final thought. A good way of judging whether to include a particular event in a brief summarised history of events is to consider whether the event in question will be taught in history classes of the future. I would be very surprised if these attacks do not one day feature very prominently in 21st century British history modules in secondary schools all over London and the UK.

Anyway, that's enough from me for now. Goodnight all and enjoy the rest of your weekends, whatever they may consist of. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

ThunderingTyphoons, I have to disagree with some of your statements and implications above. Firstly, is there any evidence to show that the attack was timed to coincide with the Olympic announcement? This seems extremely unlikely to me since, until the announcement, no one knew that London was to host the Olympics. The attack had clearly been planned in advance.

Checking of shoes and liquids at airports was not a result of the 7/7 attack but of the shoe bomber and a foiled attempt to detonate a liquid explosive on an aircraft.

You say, 'few events have more defined the recent history of London'. I do not thinks so, these events have had no lasting effect and I do not think there are specially in the minds of Londoners.

The radicalisation of Brits has no special connection with London. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I was there in London on that day and the attacks certainly had no lasting effect on me or my view of London or the UK. Life went back to normal very quickly. The riots last year, despite not killing anyone, were in my view a more significant event, although I wouldn't include them either. This is a history of the city over its entire very long history and these events are in the scheme of things minor. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No there is no evidence for the timing of the bombings being for the Olympics, but that wasn't really what I was saying. I was more referring to how their coincidental timing was sufficient to overshadow the 'Olympic feel-good factor'.

I will concede that Martin's version of how the horrendous airport security checks came to be sounds more plausible than my own, so I won't labour that particular point anymore. However, I remain skeptical at both your conclusions that the event does not qualify as a significant historical event. Rangoon11, you state that the riots were more significant despite not killing anybody. Why do you think this? Is it because they were more widespread, or more recent so you remember the atmosphere they created more vividly than the bombs?

Both of your assertions that the bombings have caused no lasting effect are understandable, but is that the only thing that makes events interesting or valuable to a wider historical picture? I would also like to hear of all of these events that "have more defined the recent history of London". The Para-jubi-lympic summer, the financial crash and the millennium celebrations certainly have, but what else? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say that a significant historical event should be one that changed the look or skyline of the city, the way it works, the way its inhabitants feel about it, its relationship with other cities, or the way that it is perceived by the outside world.

The only one of these that might IMO be relevant is how London is percieved by the outside world. Had London been free from terrorist attacks until 7/7 there might be an argument for saying that the attacks changed outsider's views of the city (even though similar terrorist attacks have occurred in many other capital cities), however, the IRA attacks had already had a larger impact on London life and how the city was seen by others. I do not think the 7/7 attacks produced any significant change in attitude towards London. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I might like to argue that the attacks could have potentially changed the way Londoners felt about their own city, that despite it becoming a less safe place to be, it and its people were determined to not be scared into submission. However, this reaction is unlikely to be particularly unique or distinctive to London and judging by the previous posts on this thread I'm unlikely to change either of your opinions.

With this in mind, unless there be any forthcoming postings from users that share my position, I'd like to withdraw my opposition to the attack's exclusion from this article. I haven't changed my position on whether it should be in there (it certainly should, IMO) but I can see that I'm in the minority so will (hopefully graciously!) admit defeat. I'll be back... :D --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10-1-12

I do not know where else to put my edit insertion suggestion.....as there is no previous editing about London's religions.

I would, myself, edit that whole first paragraph about London's "Christianity" (and other beliefs) but it would be a major undertaking, and I do not have that much time. So I will give you the updated facts here, and hope at some time that I see my edit incorporated into the "London" page.

Per my church's previous Assistant Pastor's wife (who worked for the Christian organization Biblica - before she resigned for reasons she would not disclose to me).....when I talked with her about being upset after reading how totally out of control Britain has become regarding the newspaper-reported rampant teen pregnancies, and since then also reading that the British government has allowed followers of Paganism to become an official religion - Cheryl told me that Britain (and possible the whole British Isles) has been "Post-Christian" ever since Henry the VIII killed the head of the Catholic church, and had many of the catholic churches throughout Britain burned. And I have since read that the Anglican church (which may also be the Church of England) is not based on the Bible at all. The ONLY thing the Anglican "church" follows is 2 books of someone's prayers. THAT'S IT !!! And considering that Henry VIII started the Church of England on what he wanted to do and believe......there is almost no biblical foundation to that religious entity either.

Per CRU's (formorly Campus Crusade for Christ) general website, and newspaper articles......Britain is 87% atheist, 7 to 10% agnostic, leaving only a very few percent other religions, and Chrisitanity (however vague it is over there) at only 5 - 6%. Therefore, Britain is NOT Christian.

However, there IS a small, but growing Christian happening throughout the British Isles, especially in Britain - this new Christianity IS based not on following the dogma of theocratic religion, but with the emphasis of each person learning about how Jesus did His ministry against the Romans, and acceptance of Jesus as Savior. (Jesus' rebellion against the Romans seems to "hit a nerve" with Brits, especially the younger ones - they relate to Jesus more through that angle). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroPointGirl (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Any such section, as indeed any and all content on Wikipedia, would need to be accompanied by reliable sources, per WP:RELIABLE, rather than personal observation. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"Cheryl told me that Britain (and possible the whole British Isles) has been "Post-Christian" ever since Henry the VIII killed the head of the Catholic church, and had many of the catholic churches throughout Britain burned." - You may want to read our articles about Henry VIII and the English Reformation, rather than listen to 'Cheryl'. The Church of England has many problems, and is not now nearly as dominant as it used to be, but I don't think its dominance over much of the period since Henry VIII would allow one honestly to describe the nation as 'post-Christian'. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 December 2012

Religion demographics section needs to be updated with 2011 census data. It has been updated in the main article Religion in London. Census data can be take from there or is available from the government weblink

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-286262

Hussaintutla (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rivertorch (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

snow

london averages at least 12 inches of snow per year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.19.183 (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

French community

It's been estimated that there are between 300,000 400,000 French people living in London (see here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930), but this article reports only 66,000. What explains the discrepancy? 108.254.160.23 (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2013 London

Hello Editors for London page,

My Zns Smith and I would like to request to edit info on London’s page. This additional text I have provides important overlooked historical facts regarding London. Thank you.

Zns Smith (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)