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)

Which policy is being violated?--Flexdream (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia:No original research. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How is it original research?--Flexdream (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be the part of the policy right at the top reading "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" [emphasis in original]. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And so your reason for leaving the PIRA bombing reference in is? --Flexdream (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

PIRA? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to the part of my comment reading "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..." Your attempt at removal was reverted here, therefore per WP:CONSENSUS the onus shifts to you to discuss it. Obviously the same doesn't apply to new content you are adding, if that is reverted the onus is again on you to discuss it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So you don't think the PIRA reference is relevant but you wont delete that one?--Flexdream (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I won't. The initial removal of long-standing (I assume, feel free to find out exactly how long it's been there if you want) content was reverted (not by me, obviously), so it's up to those seeking removal to gain consensus. As I've already said it's problematic content and I'd like to see sources supporting its inclusion, but that isn't dealt with by adding more problematic content. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

They're both facts, supported by the numbers of those who were killed. It's common to compare terrorist attacks to other terrorist attacks that have come previously to give them some context. Are you denying that the Omagh bombing killed more than any one bomb, or just that it's not relevant to mention it? — JonC^ॐ 09:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" [emphasis in original]. If no sources are forthcoming supporting the inclusion of the former, I'll be glad to remove it myself in due course. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)