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."

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.canadianheritage.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/berne-halfmasting/index_e.cfm
  • In Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford on 2011-03-17 04:14:28, 404 Not Found
  • In Half-mast on 2011-03-22 19:27:17, 404 Not Found
  • In Half-mast on 2011-04-15 21:55:07, 404 Not Found
  • In 7 July 2005 London bombings on 2011-06-19 21:11:33, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:London newspapers 7 July 2005.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:London newspapers 7 July 2005.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of IRA bombings

How can it be relevant that no single PIRA attack killed as many people, but not relevant that the RIRA bomb at Omagh killed more than any of the 7/7 bombs? --Flexdream (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What sources support the inclusion of the latter? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 08:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WIkipedia link.--Flexdream (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proving you have no argument. And should you wish to know which reliable sources support the inclusion of the former, you'll find that's the question you should have asked when your initial edit was reverted. Then if none are forthcoming, remove the policy violating material. You don't add more policy violating material... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)