Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings

Intro/grammar

It is grammatically incorrect to start any sentence with a numerical number. Therefore:

Wrong - "52 other people were killed and around 700 were injured."

Right - "Fifty two other people were killed and around 700 were injured."

I cannot do it myself because of a page lock.. Besides the whole paragraph should be rewritten the more I think about it.

"The explosions appear to have been caused by home-made organic peroxide-based devices, packed into rucksacks and detonated by the bombers themselves, all four of whom died. 52 other people were killed and around 700 were injured."

How can they "appear to have been"? That's ambiguous nonsense? The bombers were either using organic peroxide or not. Were they using peroxide bombs as found from the forensic evidence? If they were, then state it because it was not another kind of device. Furthermore this entire sentence is over packed with too many clauses and facts. It reads like a grammatical-overstuffed mouth. Good writing keeps it clear and simple. This rewrite would be better:

"All four bombers died when they detonated home-made bombs concealed in their rucksacks using explosives created from organic peroxides. In total 52 people were killed and around 700 more were injured in the four blasts."

Please sign your posts with four tidles. This is Mkbw50 signing out! 16:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Writing False History

This article is a perfect example of how Wikipedia can be used to help write false history.
As of writing this, the article contains the following statement:
"On the morning of Thursday, 7 July 2005, four Islamist home-grown terrorists detonated four bombs"
This statement is based on information from sources which may or may not be trustworthy, and there is a great deal of evidence which indicates that the events of 7/7 were likely part of a false flag operation and not the work of "Islamic home-grown terrorists", yet here we are stating -- as though it is definite fact -- that it was the work of Islamic terrorists.
We should not be stating something as definite fact just because others have stated that it is definite fact. Doing so allows for a situation in which press statements from a small number of corrupt officials can completely change what the world believes about an event.
Rather than making these definite statements about events, we should be making very neutral, objective statements accompanied by cited quotes. -Kimyohan (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No, we are reporting what multiple investigations have shown it to be, i.e. a criminal attack by four home-grown Islamist terrorists. We do not indulge is conspiracist fantasies here.Nick Cooper (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Nick Cooper on this. If anybody is writing false history it's you and others who deny Al-Qaida involvement and make false accusations of a false flag operation. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this some kind of truther teach the controversy? SK (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"Operation Osiris"

It seems that some conspiracist nonsense has snuck in r.e. this security operation, which - as per the cited source - clearly took place in 2003, and therefore has absolutely no connection as claimed to Peter Power and Visor Consultants. I am therefore deleting reference to it, and the copyright-infringing YouTube links, and putting it back in the conspiracy theories section. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

complete nonsense

the firm hired by the government admitted that the attacks were the exact drill they were running.

there is no math you can make up that puts this probability with less than 20 zeroes.

its unreal how mindless and corrupt the entire establishment really is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn1ep2tS-HM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.152.217 (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, what's unreal is how many delusional revisionist turds there are who insist on using articles like this to fabricate history and reality for their own personal gain. -------User:DanTD (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll drink to that. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Muslims just dont want to accept that their religion leads to people doing actions like this, even though this is a daily occurence worldwide by Muslims... 107.222.205.242 (talk)

Victim list

Earlier I (then using IP address 50.100.184.151) made an edit which I summarized as:

Move table of victims into victims section where it belongs. Delete list of names (which was incomplete, too): this is an encyclopedia, not a memorial."

This was reverted by Flexdream on the grounds that "This article is not a memorial. It can include the names as an encyclodia should be comprehensive."

First, after checking with the Village Pump, I find that Wikipedia has no specific policy on this point. We have to rely on our sense of what it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to include. And my sense says that lists of names of people who are otherwise not notable just don't belong. If you include them, I feel, you are indeed turning the article into a memorial, and that is inappropriate. See WP:VL for an essay that sets out the justification for this view in a better fashion than I could do it myself. It seems to me that most Wikipedia articles about disasters do not include victim lists and I suggest this is evidence that most people agree with the position that they do not belong.

Second, reverting the edit restores the two other problems I mentioned in my edit summary. The table is again misplaced and the list is again incomplete, showing only 11 names of the 13 bus fatalities. (The table could also be improved, adding a column to give the number of people injured.)

I stand by my position that the list is inappropriate, and I'm unreverting, i.e. deleting it again as well as moving the victims table. If someone wants to voice agreement or disagreement, I suggest doing it here. And if someone does reverts the change again, then please address the other issues I mentioned in the last paragraph.

--67.71.98.166 (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC) (formerly 50.100.184.151)

Agree with IP and support removal of victim list per WP:NOTMEMORIAL Mo ainm~Talk 08:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL has nothing to do with victim lists, but rather it is to stop people starting pages about specific non-notable people as a memorial to them. I am therefore reinstating the victim list. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nick's first statement is correct; as I said, there's no specific WP policy on this. It does not follow that it is correct to include the list. I still say, as a matter of personal opinion, that it's not. And again, if the list stays then please address the other issues I mentioned. --67.71.98.166 (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

what does the long-form victim list add?

does it improve the article for the average reader? for any reader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.190.37 (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

al-Qaeda?

The article makes a handful references to al-Qaeda and its connection to these bombings, most of which cast doubt or outright deny such connection, while those that suggest there is a connection are stated as speculative. On the other hand, the article has the Template:al-Qaeda box template at the bottom in which the London bombings are listed in the timeline of attacks. So which is it? Should this article be listed as an al-Qaeda attack with such weak supporting information, or if it is so obvious that it is indeed an al-Qaeda attack then why isn't there more information to clarify this in the article?--67.250.35.250 (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the absence of evidence linking this attack to al-Qaeda I am removing the al-Qaeda info box.--67.250.35.250 (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)