Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Condolences

I am so sorry to hear about this terrible and barbaric act of terrorism. My thoughts are with the British people. --mav 7 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Mine too. My thoughts with those who have suffered in this nightmare -- Grace Note

Condolences to the families and everyone affected. Best wishes to the injured and emergency staff to prevent more loss of life. --213.54.220.28 7 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)

This happened to the British because they were good/brave enough to help us in the fight against Al-Qa'ida. I haven't lost sight of that and hopefully neither has the rest of the nation. Thank you Britain.--Daveswagon 7 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)

I offer my condolences to those who are dead, dying, or hurt, and to the families of the before mentioned. --Admiral Roo July 7, 2005 16:05 (UTC)

I would also like to offer my admiration for the British people and our many fantastic British friends on Wikipedia. As a New Yorker, I stand with you. As silly as it may seem, I even think that Wikipedia can be a symbol of peace in this crazy world. Tfine80 7 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

Deepest condolences from Slovenia. Terrible not only for London, but for whole Europe. I stand with you. --Eleassar my talk 7 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

My condolences go out to the British people on this tragic incident.Kiwidude July 7, 2005 21:05 (UTC)

I also wish to send my condolences to the British people. If you guys need anything, you will know America will stand by your side, like you did for us after 9/11. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 7 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

Condolences from Slovakia. I am so sorry to hear about this barbaric act of terrorism. Our thoughts are with the British people! --Ondrejk 7 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)

This is truly a horrible event. My condolences go out to the victims and their families. --Ixfd64 2005 July 7 19:08 (UTC)

Count me in as one who's thoughts go out to all Londoners, and especially those that were touched directly by these horrible events. AlvinMGO 7 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)

My thoughts and prayers go out to the British people and all affected by this tragedy. Columbia July 7, 2005 22:37 (UTC)

Condolences from Morocco for this crazy act of terror to famillies and everyone affected. I am so sorry for the victims, injured and wounded londoners. My thought for all thouse experiencing this, it's so penfull to be victim of absurd war, --Mjiyed 7 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

Sniper?

I saw a reference somewhere to a (government) sniper being deployed to one of the underground lines, anybody have a clue about this? - Evan

please be serious. The marksmen were deployed at buckingham palace.Adidas 7 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

Please edit a section not the whole article if possible.

Rich Farmbrough 7 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)

It's possible that section editing is causing the duplication we're seeing though - there used to be a bug in this and it looks like it might have come back... Evercat 7 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)
I think it is - edit a section - get a conflict and you're offered the whole article. Rich Farmbrough 7 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)

Tourist/Transit bus

Which was it? If it was a tourist bus it may not have had a roof to start with.Rich Farmbrough 7 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)

BBC News states that it was a tourist bus, but in this case this means a standard transit bus that has been used for sightseeing tours - it was a standard double decker. In addition, the roof is visible in camera shots. -- Michael Warren | Talk July 7, 2005 10:45 (UTC)
Sky have shown a picture of the bus which clearly shows the roof on the road in front of the bus, and the upper deck side panels virtualy peeled and bent forward. I wouldn't like to have been on the top deck of that bus, poor devils. -- Arwel 7 July 2005 11:41 (UTC)

Well done

Our coverage is running well ahead of the BBC website. Another triumph for the webosphere. Adam 7 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

We're also producing erroneous reports- only 6 explosions have been confirmed according to BBC News, but the site has stated 10. Confirm your sources, guys. --Psyk0 7 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

please someone fix the duplicate sections -- user:miguel

They have been fixed. Y'know what would make a nice gesture? A new form of barnstar or other form of WikiThanks, either for help on this particular incident or on this and other similar ones in the future (*shudder*). -- Kizor 7 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)
Maybe propose something on the barstar awards page? I forget where that is located, but maybe someday there could be barnstars for editors who stay cool, levelheaded, principled, and rational during the editing of current events. --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)
For the record, there's something up there now. --Kizor 7 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)

Prince William is touring New Zealand will he be recalled?

One thing to watch is whether Prince William and/or Alastair Campbell (Tony Blair's spin doctor) are going to return early from New Zealand. I expect a decision will be made tomorrow NZ time (this evening UK time). Ben Arnold 7 July 2005 10:55 (UTC)

Category

Let's not put this article in the Terrorist incidents catgory yet. We still need undeniable confirmation. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 7, 2005 10:50 (UTC)

How about a statement from the Prime Minister? --Psyk0 7 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)
It looks like we're coming to a conclusion about this; if the category link still exists, I won't remove it anymore. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 7, 2005 11:23 (UTC)

Main page: 'probable terrorist attack'

Anyone else think that this heading on the Wikipedia main page is somewhat misleading? What with no official report and all. --Psyk0 7 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)

I dunno, there's a grey line where speculation ceases to be such and becomes stating the obvious — PhilHibbs | talk

contacting friends / families etc.

Does anyone know of a coordinated attempt to get word of people who are safe to their friends and relatives - something similar to what was used during the tsunami etc. ? -- User:Jdowland

There's two people confirmed dead, not two hundred and fifty thousand confirmed dead ... not quite the same scale. Proto t c 7 July 2005 11:59 (UTC)
I'm not drawing comparisons with the events, merely the system used to reassure people. Those 2 dead could be anybody's friend or family member they haven't heard from. Let alone those who are injured and the unconfirmed dead. The system used during the tsunami was supposed to be an enormous success and re-assured a great number of people. The same principle could be applied to this and other events. -- Jdowland

Main Page headline

The main page says this is a 'major terroist attack'. Is this really any bigger than any of the IRA bombings? This is relativly small compared to other recent attacks such as Madrid. --Nidonocu 7 July 2005 11:15 (UTC)

It's horribly misleading and needs a change. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 7, 2005 11:16 (UTC)

How do you judge major, minor, etc.? Most of the ways I can think of involve solid information that we just don't have yet. -- Jdowland

Quite, but we can agree that this is on a considerably smaller scale than, say, 9/11. I say cut out the "major". --Kizor 7 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)
By the looks of it, 'major terrorist attack' is a direct quote. See the article. --Psyk0 7 July 2005 11:21 (UTC)
I'd say you can judge by the servarity quite easily if its major from the volume of casualities, explosive size, etc. Either way, to judge its size right now proberly is incorrect and to call it major is just plain wrong. Nice to say Main page is updated though. --Nidonocu 7 July 2005 11:22 (UTC)
"Major terrorist attack" is a direct quote from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on television a short time ago. If anyone should have an idea of what constitutes a major attack, I'd think he should! -- ChrisO 7 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)
Its all to do with how you relate it to other attacks. Compared to say 9/11 this is small, compared to the old IRA bombings, its a little bigger. Eitherway, the current headline is fine as it carries the fact and not any opinion. --Nidonocu 7 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)
Compared to the bombings being carried out by the nutters in Iraq at the moment, it's minor. It's also a far smaller incident than the one in Madrid last year. The terrorists (whomever they may be) are either rubbish, or they've gone for disruption rather than casualties. Unless it's all to distract everyone whilst the big attack happens. Dum dum DUM! Proto t c 7 July 2005 12:02 (UTC)

Possibly "major" because there were several incidents, and given the amount of disruption that has occurred.

And, as they say, how many people are killed/injured in road traffic accidents each day?

Whatever most of us know about Islam surely such violence is contrary to its tenets - convincing someone with words/good deeds is better than coercion by violence. Also, look at the Brick Lane, London incident a while back - several right wing groups claimed responsibility immediately after the event, but it turned out to be a lone nutter.

New section for transport/infrastructure status?

EG. all tube down, Gatwick express down, national express buses not going into london, no zone1 buses etc- hopefully later more info about other train services etc Gmcgreevy 7 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)

Link to claim of responsibility?

"BBC reports a Europe-based terrorist group related to Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the attacks in a 200-word message on their website" Anyone got a link? 60.234.144.135 7 July 2005 11:19 (UTC)

If this is true, then it is correct to list it on the Main Page so. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 7, 2005 11:21 (UTC)

https://www.qal3ah.org/vb/index.php?/vb < the link leodalord
I believe it to be irrelevant as to whether there is a link or not. The BBC reported it at that time and therefore it should be included in the timeline. DarthVader 7 July 2005 12:04 (UTC)

No link, but it was mentioned on BBC News 24. Apparently the BBC (and presumably the govt) are currently looking into the authenticity. the wub "?/!" 7 July 2005 11:24 (UTC)

It is a "Latest" banner on the BBC news website but as yet it just links back to the News Front Page. Andreww 7 July 2005 11:26 (UTC)

this is supposed to be the letter, can we have a translation? [1] --Markit 7 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)

The claim is attributed to something called "Secret organisation - Al Qaeda in Europe". It appeared on the "al-Qala'a" internet forum, which apparently has been a source for genuine claims in the past. The letter also warns other governments involved in Iraq, mentioning specifically Denmark and Italy, warning governments to leave Iraq and Afghanistan. Rd232 7 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)

BBC just announced 'no claims'. Isn't that directly contradicting the website claim announcement? --Eiphel 7 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)

There is a screenshot on the graphics page.

Effects of G-8 Confrence

Any word as yet on how this might affect the G-8, less "We owe them nothing" </paraphrase> from Bush on climate change and/or Africa?--ElvisFromUncyc 7 July 2005 11:29 (UTC)

--> especially since Blair was going to be the main leader pushing for change in Africa...

Blair will leave the summit in progress today to London but return this evening; the aim is that the summit will not be disrupted (as is no doubt the aim of the attackers). Tjwood 7 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)

Contact numbers

Perhaps this could be moved to a seperate page - it wouldn't take up space here and we could re-use it in future whenever there's some major event. Evercat 7 July 2005 11:30 (UTC)

They're rather compact at the moment. Should they pass, say, a dozen, then that'd likely be a good idea. Leave the English one on the page, though. --Kizor 7 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)

Clarke Statement

Has Charles Clarke given his statement yet? --Merovingian (t) (c) July 7, 2005 11:30 (UTC)

It's been put back to 12:50 BST -- Michael Warren | Talk July 7, 2005 11:34 (UTC)
Thanks. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 7, 2005 11:35 (UTC)

Airports?

Has there been any reports on whether airports are operational? I have a friend who is supposed to be flying in, in a few days.

No word on them not being operational, so I'd assume they're fine. --Psyk0 7 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)
Gatwick Express is halted for now, flights are still currently running I believe. --Nidonocu 7 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)
The radio just mentioned that, I think they are staying open. Your friend should have no trouble.-- Kizor 7 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)

911 horoscope

A huge post containing two large horoscopes was posted here by TracyRenee. It was removed by two others for being cumbersome and largely irrelevant, but in an attempt to not seem too mean I've stuck it here, where it's viewable. -- Kizor 7 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)

When comparing the two events, one thing that is of interest to the two charts is the first impact on 7 July 2005 occured at 8:49 while the first impact on 11 September 2001 occured at 8:43.

I fail to see the relevance. While I sympathise with what sounds like bullying this is not the time or place to bring up old arguments--Darxide 7 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)

That's because just before 9 am is the busiest time of day for commuters in major cities. Nothing more. Proto t c 7 July 2005 12:00 (UTC)

I personally think that what happened with the Twin Towers is very relevant to what happened today. I also think that what has happened the last two days in Wikipedia with regard to the terrorist attack in the Twin Towersis quite significant because there was a lot of psychic energy flowing, even if some people do not want to admit it. --TracyRenee 7 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)

valid or not, the main page for this incident is not the place for it. I'd love to see an article called astrology and terrorist attacks or something like it. --Crucible Guardian 7 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

Then start a page linking the bombings together and explaining the intricacies of the astrological connection. I for one would be most interested in reading such a page. When I'm on this page however I want to know what happened with the explosions in London. I'm sure you agree that such streamlining is best. --Darxide 7 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)

It will just get voted for deletion under Wikipedia:No original research. Proto t c 7 July 2005 13:23 (UTC)
More like speedy delete. We are an encyclopedia, not a pyschic hotline! - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

Introduction

Please stop adding the "introduction" section. That is what the introparagraph is for. To introduce the topic. Páll 7 July 2005 11:39 (UTC)

The header is there to lower the number of edit conflicts. Small rules can be adjusted for the situation. — 12.207.151.144 7 July 2005 11:42 (UTC)
I agree. Evercat 7 July 2005 11:47 (UTC)
Thirded. Adding a note to the page. -- Kizor 7 July 2005 11:53 (UTC)
Fourthed. So why did Mav delete it? What is MoS that he refers to? Fuzheado | Talk 7 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)
Manual of style, or, How Things Are Done Around Here-- Kizor 7 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)
Ah, duh, I knew that. Left a message on his talk page. We should keep that section 0. Fuzheado | Talk 7 July 2005 11:59 (UTC)
Mav added a hyperlink that serves the same purpose. Please use that. — 12.207.151.144 7 July 2005 12:01 (UTC)

Messed up layout

Many sections were repeated, maybe someone should clean up the layout? --Lemontea 7 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)

Lock

This page can't stay locked, but I suppose we can lock it every time it gets duped, fix it, then unlock... Evercat 7 July 2005 11:47 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that. --Merovingian (t) (c) July 7, 2005 11:50 (UTC)


Who's fixing it now? Rich Farmbrough 7 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)

I don't know, I've been told off for reverting people's edits, so... Evercat 7 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)

Removed section

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_London_transport_explosions&diff=18322817&oldid=18322740

Why was this removed? --Tom Edwards 7 July 2005 12:00 (UTC)

To fix page duplication. All the sections removed were already in the article, and had been duplicated as a result of edit conflicts. -- Michael Warren | Talk July 7, 2005 12:05 (UTC)

Charles Clarke Statement And Discussions In The House

The comment on the statement "this wouldn't have happened if we'd have had id cards" is pretty crass. Also are the statements from the opposition and lib dems going to be added?

-True, but nevertheless an exceedingly good point.

I predicted Clarke would say that. And it's a very bad point. Madrid had cards. Rd232 7 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)
I was joking with my workmates when I said they would immediiately blame a lack of ID cards does Clarke have no shame?--ElvisFromUncyc 7 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)

Hotline number

The hotline numbers quoted on Wikipedia and Wikinews are different

  • wp: HOTLINE NUMBER: 0207 766 6020
  • wn: +44 (0) 20 8358 0101.

are they both correct?

Yes - the wikinews one is the london transport police hotline, which has been subsumed by the dedicated Met police hotline number (the one on wikipedia) Proto t c 7 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)

G8 summit speech

Wasn't that Manmohan Singh there? I never saw anything saying India was going to come. I saw some other people too that didn't seem like they should be there. Interesting... Jimbobsween

George W. Bush looks damned awful in a brown suit. --Psyk0 7 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)
haha yeah I noticed that. It was good they had something in the news reports to lighten the mood though
FYI: Several leaders from non-G8 nations where also invited, and are present at the G8 summit, as is the UN secretary general. --Sherool 7 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)
Yes, among others there are PM Singh of India, President Hu of China, President Fox of Mexico, President Lula da Silva of Brazil, and President Mbeki of South Africa. -- Arwel 7 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)

article structure.

Somebody want to start a discussion subpage on article structure? , sections, etc SimonLyall 7 July 2005 12:20 (UTC)

foreign news / stream sites

do we want those here? the number of links will become extremely large and are often only useful for a smaller group of people, this is the english wiki. if people want to post such links post it on their countries wikis. Boneyard 7 July 2005 12:24 (UTC)

Partial translation of Al Qaeda page

Partial translation of a terrorist statement received from someone on IRC:

  • [14:27] <RPG> Thursday 7/7/2005
  • [14:27] <RPG> The secret organization group
  • [14:27] <RPG> The organization of the Jihad base in Europe
  • [14:27] <RPG> Introduction blah
  • [14:27] <RPG> It's time for revenge from the Crusader Zionist British government
  • [14:27] <RPG> In response of the massacres being committed by Britain in Iraq and Afghanistan
  • [14:27] <RPG> The brave Mojahedin did a successful raid in London, and here is Britain burning in fear and terror in north, south, east, and west.
  • [14:27] <RPG> We have warned the British government and people over and over.
  • [14:27] <RPG> And he we are today fulfilling our promise and doing a blessed military raid in Britain after great effort by the Mojahedin heroes, efforts that took a long time to guarantee the success of the raid.
  • [14:27] <RPG> We still warn Denmark, Italy and all the Crusader governments that they'll receive the same punishment if they don't take out their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, this is the final warning.
  • [14:27] <RPG> Blah blah
  • [14:27] <RPG> The secret organization group
  • [14:27] <RPG> The organization of the Jihad base in Europe

From al-Qaeda in Europe Organisation

Rejoice oh Islamic Community, rejoice oh Arab community as the time of revenge upon the Crusader, Zionist British government has come.

In response to the butchery that the British perpetrated in Iraq and Afghanistan the heroic Mujahideen have carried out a blessed attack in London and it is now Britain that is burning with fear, terror and panic, from North to South and East to West.

And we had warned the British government and the British population repeatedly.

And we held our promise and we carried out a blessed military attack in Britain following arduous efforts from the heroic Mujahideen, who persisted for a long period to guarantee the success of the attack.

And we continue to warn the governments of Denmark, and Italy and all of the Crusader governments that they will suffer the same punishment if they do not withdraw their forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and he who warns is excused.

- FrancisTyers 7 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that this is the site where the text can be found: https://www.qal3ati.com/ --Michiel Sikma 7 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)

Page top

The top of the page is much better aesthetically now. Thanks to whoever worked that out. Evercat 7 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)

Link to statement from terrorists

Anyone who can post the site with the statement of the terrorists? Spiegel has posted a screenshot so far...

It was above, but I'll repost it for clarity https://www.qal3ati.com/, you might want to check the version archived on archive.org as well. I've taken several souvenir shots of the login page. I think about a hundred people are hitting there each second. -- Natalinasmpf 7 July 2005 13:15 (UTC)

Thanks

redirects

fix the double redirects when moving this around, you are breaking the link from the Main page! dab (ᛏ) 7 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

Why was this moved from 7 July 2005 London bombing to 2005 London bombing? The former is the format used by similar articles; we don't know that there wont be abother bombing this year. Andy Mabbett

Shouldn't it be "bombings" rather than "bombing"? Ben Arnold 7 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)

imho, yes. I'll move it there and try and protect it against further moves. Thryduulf 7 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)
One boming, several bombs. If it happened again next week, there would have been two bombings. Andy Mabbett 7 July 2005 13:09 (UTC)
It should also be "July 7", not vice versa - though it may be best to wait until the editing has died down before moving it again! Andy Mabbett 7 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)
No, the British standard is to use 7 July, and as this article is related to British events, it should stay like that. I would also agree that bombings is correct. ed g2s • talk 7 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

Protected?!

Who the hell just protected the page? People are trying to update! --Nidonocu 7 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)

Me. Page was duped. Evercat 7 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
Duped? --Nidonocu 7 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)
See the page version prior to my last revert. Evercat 7 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)
Because too many people were editing at once and this created edit conflicts, the result is that the whole article was repeated and some section structure were damaged. --Lemontea 7 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)
Ah, I see. If I get an edit conflict, I hit back, copy out the text I just added and rehit 'edit' to paste in and quickly save so not to conflict. --Nidonocu 7 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)
I have a proposal. On such hot topics in current events such as this, I think that subpages should be created for adding/editing content and when an admin thinks such content should be added, he/she cuts the text and code to the main page and deleats the text and code from the subpage so it can be used for another person. This should cut down on edit conflicts. --Admiral Roo July 7, 2005 14:30 (UTC)

Repeated sections

Was going to edit it but page got protected. Please fix. Alex.tan July 7, 2005 13:18 (UTC)

Please add link to Romanian version (in creation): ro:Atentatele din 7 iulie 2005 de la Londra

Reverts

Sorry all, but when it's duped I think the fastest way to fix it is to revert and get everyone to add all their edits again. Please try not to edit the page while it's in a borked state. Evercat 7 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)

Glasgow Subway

Given the info about NY subway, etc. does anyone have any info about the glasgow one? --ElvisFromUncyc 7 July 2005 13:37 (UTC)

BBC Tmeline

Not [2]. (I'm not going to have time to work on it for a while.) Andy Mabbett 7 July 2005 13:59 (UTC)


Talk page messed up

It's that edit conflict again... I've traced down the first edit that duplicated this talk page "13:54, 7 July 2005 TracyRenee (BST)" --Lemontea 7 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)

Related articles

With statements coming from various countries around the world, should we set up an article such as Foreign statements on the London bombings. Some others would also be useful as this article gets bigger. NoSeptemberT 7 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be better in Wikiquote? - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

BBC Latest

BBC News 24 was reporting 6 underground explosions and 2 bus explosions at about 10 past 2 BST.

They were also stating that there are 2 confirmed deaths and over 150 injured.

That's all I've heard so far.

For the record, I am in Britain right now, but not in London.

UNIverseVERSE 7 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

Its 3 underground explosions

  • Edgeware road (circle line)
  • Half way between Liverpool Street and Aldgate (circle line)
  • Half way between Kings Cross and Russell Square (piccadilly)

Thus the earlier reports of 5 tube stations being hit.

Its really rather empty in London now. The national gallery is still open though. ~~~~ 7 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)

Wow!

Does everyone realise that we have had one edit a second on this article since it was started?! Sometimes more than one edit a second! - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)

I think you exaggerate. Evercat 7 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)
Oops... very tired. It's more than one a minute. Doh! Exaggeration not intentional. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)
Wikipedia IS doing a superb job here. Good response to bad circumstances --24.18.247.210 7 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)
So true. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)
Though to be fair it was very chaotic to begin with. The project was certainly one of the most up-to-date news sources but with no guarantee of what you'd be seeing at any given moment. With more substance and less confusion, the article has moved towards stabilization. -- Kizor 7 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)

Spanish leader.

"I absolutely share the stated by my colleague Tony Blair." Erm some omission surely..... Rich Farmbrough 7 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)

look it up and fix it then! :D jamesgibbon 7 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)

Way too much like news

This article looks like a news report, not an encyclopedia entry. — PhilHibbs | talk

One, normal encyclopedia articles don't cover subjects currently in the news. Two, we like to think that this is a significant information source for the event, and as such the conventions can temporarily go hang. -- Kizor 7 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)
As the bombings occured just a few hours ago and reports are still coming in, it isn't possible nor worthwhile for this to be an encyclopedia entry. Right now this is one of the most up-to-date and informative pages on the internet about the attacks, and in the coming days when facts become clear and current information (emergency numbers, unconfirmed reports, etc.) are available, I'm sure the entry will be rewritten. -ctm
That's what Wikinews is for. This article should contain the condensed facts; the telephone numbers, situation reports and speculation should be in the Wikinews article - maybe a template needs to be constructed that would divert more traffic in that direction. I'll go and look at the {{current}} template and discuss it there. — PhilHibbs | talk 7 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)
Don't stress, this will get consolidated once the fuss dies down. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 15:35 (UTC)

Qal3ah, Qal3ati, etc.

Well, I created an article on it - Qal3ah, you might find it useful, does anyone want to link to this in the main article? -- Natalinasmpf 7 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Article borked @ 16:40 BST

It looks like if there is an edit clash when editing a subsection, the entire article text is presented, rather than just the section being edited. Saving the subsequent edit from the edit clash page looks to be the process that duplicated large portions of the article. Is this a bug? WLD 7 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)

Yes. There's something about it at the top of this page. I think editing a section can overwrite the edits made to other sections, too, but can't confirm. -- Kizor 7 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)
Repaired as of 16:54, editing the entire page. It seemed as if a copy of the entire page had been inserted under "Air"
That was probably me - or rather, the bug manifesting itself as I was trying to edit "Air" - believe me, I *didn't* cut'n'paste the entire article - but I did hit an edit clash, which I thought I hadn't tried to save. WLD 7 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

Calling this terrorist is POV

The UK is who invaded Iraq, this is just retaliation against British imperialism. I do not know why it is repeatedly called terrorism. The UK decided to attack Iraq and it has received its just desserts. Three days ago, on July 4th, we in the US celebrated men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton who attacked the British 200 years ago and won their freedom. Calling people opposed to British imperialism "terrorists" is silly. It's like Margaret Thatcher's big "criminal" thing. Please. The only bad guys here are the British army, and the people who voted to support someone who made them into an imperial force in yet another country. Ruy Lopez 7 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

As I've already repeatedly said to have edit conflicts wipe it: I appreciate the way you're speaking your mind, and would ask other wikipedians to hold the flames because what good is it going to do? Seriously? Now, from my point of view, killing civilians to make a political point comes under the definition of terrorism. Calling people who oppose British imperialism terrorists would be ridiculous, but calling people who do that by leaving bombs on public transports... well. What the other side did doesn't much enter into it. Furthermore, regardless of who's right, in the circumstances the overwhelming majority opinion - that this is terrorism - is sticking, so the point's a bit moot. -- Kizor 7 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
How is bombing ordinary commuters during rush hour unannounced not terrorism? ~~~~ 7 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)
"Retaliation" and "terrorism" are not mutually exclusive terms. Terrorism is exactly correct for this incident regardless of the movitivation of the perpetrators. --Lee Hunter 7 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

Deliberate attacks on civilians are usually regarded as terrorist acts. You can argue that we've done similar things, but that's a separate discussion. Evercat 7 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)

I agree, it's definately a 'terrorist attack', as most people understand the word. Whether or not the people behind it are terrorists, and the motives they have, is a different question. It's a (so-far) unclaimed attack on a civillian target with no prior warning or declaration of war. Calling it a 'militant' attack is just confusing. --Frankie Roberto 7 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)
Oh come off the "deliberate attacks on civilians"...there have been hundreds of deliberate attacks on civilians by US/UK troops in Iraq. Deliberate. As in deliberate. Just because the BBC or US corporate news doesn't report it regularly doesn't mean it doesn't happen. What a joke. Ruy Lopez 7 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)

Please stop trolling, Ruy, SqueakBox July 7, 2005 15:55 (UTC)

I understand your point, Ruy, but unfortunately your change has caused other problems. At 33 deaths, this is not "the most deadly attack ever on London." I think the Blitz has that honor. It is, however, the most deadly attack against civilians by a non-governmental agency for a political purpose (one common definition of terrorism). The whole sentence, and indeed the whole scope of the attack, makes no sense without at least saying that this attack is nearly universally referred to as terrorism. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) July 7, 2005 15:57 (UTC)

While I and virtually everyone else would certainly regard this as a terrorist attack, I would really rather the article wasn't full of "and then the evil terrorists did this" kind of talk. I remember there being a similar argument on the Beslan school siege article. Wikipedia isn't here to make policital judgements, so let's report what happened in a detached and objective manner and let the facts speak for themselves. Civilians were deliberately slaughtered. As long as that's clear we don't need to go overboard with the word "terrorism" all over the place. The article as it stands at the moment is pretty good in this respect. — Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

Stop feeding the trolls or delete the whole block. Adidas 7 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)
Don't be absurd, precisely what I'm doing is trying to prevent trolling. — Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
Hey trilobite, sorry you thought I was directing that comment at you. I wasn't and actually I agree with you. I was making a general statement.
Ooops! Sorry for misunderstanding and snapping at you. — Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)

Saying this isn't terrorism because it's retaliation is preposterous. Al Qaeda does not, and has not, ever, represented any legitimate government, anywhere, at any time, not even in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is nothing more than a well-financed and organized gang of terrorist thugs hiding behind a sham of supposedly noble religious legitimacy. Tomer TALK July 7, 2005 20:41 (UTC)

I think Ruy is missing a key point: al-Qaeda aren't Iraqis, so this can't be retaliation. I think it's pretty clear now that al-Qaeda are primarily Saudi Arabians. The American Congress couldn't find links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and we can presume that they tried pretty hard. Ground Zero 7 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

  • give me a break, retaliation? How can you name this a relaliation, mr. Ruy Lopez? A war is one thing, civilians are another. --Pedro 7 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

Protection

As the page has been protected, could someone add that the american embassy in grovesnor square has been sealed off, and roads leading to it closed ? ~~~~ 7 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)

Air

Wikinews says "Air links are now closed at Stansted, Heathrow, Gatwick and London City airports." [3] 'pedia disagrees. Which is right? Rich Farmbrough 7 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

Well, I can hear the planes going overhead, and the BAA website (the airport operator) says "Our UK airports Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Southampton, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen - remain open and all flights are currently operating normally." WLD 7 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

Map

Could anyone edit the bombing places or locations with the maps.google.com ?

That might be a copyright violation. Also re maps: the map that's linked at the top of the page is out of date. Shows seven bombs rather than four. --Lee Hunter 7 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

I removed the map as it was prominently featured and inaccurate. 64.142.81.56 7 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)

Page protection

Please umnprotect this page now. There is no reason to protect it other than to stop legitimate editing and to weaken wikipedia credibility as an up to date source of info, SqueakBox July 7, 2005 16:00 (UTC)

This is not true. There is a wikipedia bug that is causing edit conflict detection not to work properly, so the deluge of edits is causing problems. Note this is not supporting the protection of the page, just noting that there is a reason for it. Morwen - Talk 7 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)
Due the the volume of edits, the page is being duplicated quite often. Also, I'm finding that the edits I'm making are not corresponding to the ones that are actually being attributed to me in the history. This is another bug to be aware of. --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)

I just protect it for a minute to stop people adding new stuff to it while I find the last sane version. If it wasn't protected, any edits made would be lost anyway. I can't see any other practical way of dealing with this problem. I have put a rather prominent note at the top of this talk page... Evercat 7 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)

Protecting for the odd minute is not a problem. We don't want a repeat of the 2 Popes situation where the pages were locked with the intention of being locked for a few days at the height of publicity. That would not be acceptable, SqueakBox July 7, 2005 16:17 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to my page protection. I protected it for the same reason as Evercat, and thanks to an error while saving it needed 5 minutes and not 2. Sorry for that, but I see no other way around that. --Conti|✉ July 7, 2005 16:21 (UTC)
I agree that this page blocking is appropriate if it is used to ensure that the article is not duplicated in any manner. --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)
It's not to prevent duplication, it's to prevent edits being lost while the duplication is sorted out... Evercat 7 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)
Oops, that's what I meant. --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)
(To SqueakBox) I followed all the Pope edits and that wasn't what happened at all - they weren't locked for an extended period at any time, as I recall. Pages receiving a very large number of edits in a short space of time are vulnerable to duplication because of the software bug. When this happens the page has to be protected for a couple of minutes so that it can be fixed without risk of further edit conflicts, then it's unprotected again. — Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Updates

Now that the flow of news has slowed, these need to be ncorprated into teh main article, or dropped.

  • 15:22: Confirmed by London ambulance services - 45 dead and over 1,000 injured. Amongst the injured are victims experiencing burns, loss of hearing, fractured limbs, facial lacerations, and loss of limbs. Several casualties are on the danger list.
  • 15:46: London police say there have been no arrests but they are "keeping an open mind as to who the perpetrators might be."

Andy Mabbett 7 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)

The 1000 injured figure does not seem to be substantiated by the London ambulance services at this moment. Hence, I have removed it from the article. --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/_/j/Talk%7E7_July_2005_London_bombings_Archive3_1562.html"