This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
Earlier I (then using IP address 126.96.36.199) 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.
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. --188.8.131.52 (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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
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?--220.127.116.11 (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.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
'The 7 July attacks occurred the day after London had won its bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games, which had highlighted the city's multicultural reputation.'
Meaning what? That the white supremacist suicide bombings were planned to disrupt any celebration, should London have won its 'multicultural' Olympic bid??? Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Totally bizarre interpretation. Text reinstated. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I NEVER TOUCHED, the text.
Should we also include ... the number of shopping days there were left before Christmas? Which would be about as relevant as the inconsequential statement. Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Whether you like it or not, London's multicultural nature was highlighted in the bid, the irony of which in light of the bombing was subsequently highlighted. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
There was not a HINT of cultural chauvinism in my writing, Labour's Olympic pitch had no obvious connection to the statements attributed to Tanweer and Khan, which are seemingly in protest of the British government and those who support them. Therefore there is no such irony nor any good reason to defend the mention of these nearly coinciding events. Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I have looked at the revision history and see that for years the killers were described as, 'Islamist home-grown terrorists' (March 2014, March 2013 and March 2012. The March 2014 change is a challenge to the term, 'homegrown' but the editor also removed 'terrorist'. This appears inadvertent but went unchallenged at the time and has remained unchallenged, as far as I can tell. I am challenging this now as the killers and their murderous spree was not solely the outcome of them being Islamists but, more concisely, the outcome of them being Islamist, Islamic extremist - terminology which according to the Wiki lead includes, "the use of extreme tactics such as bombing and assassinations for achieving perceived Islamic goals". That is precisely what these killers did. I think to revert to the previous, longstanding 'terrorist' is insufficient as it still leaves 'Islamist' standing as the primary descriptor of the killers (it almost goes without saying that they were terrorist, after all). Just as there's a world of difference between Christians and Christian extremists... And that important difference (it's not minor) is made all the more important in a record of such a barbarous event.
Far from editing a description that has stood for years, I am correcting an edit from last year that to all intents looks inadvertent or superfluous.Selector99 (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
'(it almost goes without saying that they were terrorist, after all)'
Indeed, a mere 42 such mentions, contradicted by this: ' Alleged militants in the War on Terror who have lived in the United Kingdom ...7 July 2005 London bombings Hasib Hussain Mohammad Sidique Khan Germaine Lindsay Shehzad Tanweer Haroon Aswat' Beingsshepherd (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry. It's been batting backwards and forwards so much over the last few days that I thought it had ended up as "four Islamist Islamic extremists..." Nick Cooper (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)