Talk:2007 London car bombs

message: Wikipedia is not a newspaper this article either needs to be merged with a broader encyclopedic topic ("Terrorist plots in London" or similar), or the efforts focused on this moved to Wikinews. --Monotonehell 10:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to understand that wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopaedia, not a place for you to get information because most news reports are too sensationalised. The place for that would be wikinews Nil Einne 12:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually on the contrary the primary reason why there should be a centralised article is because they're rare enough that they can be covered in sufficient detail in one article. Nil Einne 12:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nonsense, not least because combining just 7 July 2005 London bombings and 21 July 2005 London bombings would result in an unmanagably large page, quite apart from the fact that both already have other spin-off pages. In addition, centralising - for example - totally unconnected subjects like David Copeland, 7 July 2005 London bombings, Wood Green ricin plot and this page makes no logical sense. We already have List of terrorist incidents in London as an adequate index, and that has sufficed until now. Nick Cooper 13:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a news article 

message: Is the car metallic green, as cited on sky news or silver (as cited by the BBC)? It looks metallic green to me. --Yini3 12:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definitely light green metallic, rather than silver - 've modified the article to suit. Regards, Lynbarn 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Car Colour

message: The title seems a bit odd, like someone half-remembered the 1888 Haymarket bombing in Chicago.  Also, the title seems to imply that the bomb was meant to be exploded at Haymarket, which doesn't actually seem clear.  Any better suggestions?--Pharos 13:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about 2007 London car bomb? --Evilclown93(talk) 13:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I moved it to 2007 Haymarket car bomb before I saw this discussion. I didn't realise there was a Haymarket in the USA. "London" feels a bit too vague to me, but might work. Carcharoth 14:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm... I'm thinking now maybe 2007 Haymarket car bomb discovery.  Because the 1888 Haymarket Riot and bombing was a highly notable historical event, it did strike me as a little odd at first, but now I don't feel there's anything really wrong with using "Haymarket".  And "discovery" is maybe more precise than "incident" or just plain "car bomb".--Pharos 14:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Why not go back to the original name, 2007 Haymarket bomb plot. --Philip Stevens 14:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, as explained above, it's not 100% clear it's a "plot", and if it is considered a plot it's not at all certain that Haymarket was the target.--Pharos 14:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: PLEASE can we just leave it where it is for a while? - I've been chasing all over trying to keep up with it! Thanks, Lynbarn 14:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again - PLEASE can we just leave it where it is for a while? - I've been chasing all over trying to keep up with it! Thanks, Lynbarn 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 2007 London Bombing Plot?--trey 15:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically it is not the "three times in one hour" that triggers the move protection, it is the admin (Steel359 in this case) noticing that a naming dispute is in progress and quite rightly protecting. In support of my proposed name, which in the spirit of m:the wrong version is where the page is now, I would say that bomb is distinct from bombing. Words like "incident" and "discovery" are vague. The key event here is the existence of a car bomb and its location. The year is a quasi-effective naming convention that some people like and some people hate. Carcharoth 15:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I hope I didn't go against the spirit of the move-protect in updating it.  I tried to be careful to retain the same form of the name.--Pharos 20:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Is the U.K. really nessasary? It's a major world city, people know where it is. Zazaban 14:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Southern Ontario, yes, in Australia or India for example, no. London, Ontario, is a quite big city as well, and Canada has been under terrorist threats for the past 3 years, at least. --Evilclown93(talk) 14:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There are more Londons than you might think! - London (disambiguation) Regards, Lynbarn 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Proves my point. The Ontario is biggest one (half million people), and I leave reasonably close to it, so that's why I automatically differentiate. : ) --Evilclown93(talk) 15:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Biggest one"?  Seven and a half million people live in Greater London. Vashti 21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Biggest one after London, UK, that was my intended meaning. --Evilclown93(talk) 12:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  London, U.K. 

message: This is the nightclub's webxite.  I'm not sure if anything useful can be done with it.--Pharos 15:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I see absolutely no reason to include the link in this article. Perhaps in an article about the club. Can't see any reason to place it anywhere else. --|EPO| da: 20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nightclub 

message: Great work with the timeline; it is much clearer than anything I've seen in the media. One question though. 
Eyewitnesses claim to have seen the car shortly before 02:00 a.m. (UTC+1), being driven "erratically" and then crashing into bins, after which, the driver got out and ran off
 But our timeline begins at 1:25 am with the car already stopped. Is this a matter of our timeline being in UTC (as opposed to UTC +1) or is the article inconsistent? 199.172.246.196 16:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This just seems to be the usual fog of early reporting. Initial reports did vaguely say "before 02:00" but now it's clear that it was around 01:30. Nick Cooper 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: Police are investigationg at least two other "suspect vehicles" right now according to reports from RTE and the BBC
* Looks like they might have found a second one - Telegraph.co.uk alexdeangelis86 19:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible second/third devices 

message: I previously added a sentence about a previous "limousine bomb" plot connected with Dhiren Barot, similarly involving an expensive car and gas cylinders.  This was removed by someone else as speculative (which it is, and I noted the resemblance is superficial, biut it's still probably relevant).  The other alleged plot has been mentioned in news reports of the incident.--Pharos 17:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This BBC story mentions this link now! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6252276.stm Do you want to re-create the section Pharos, with that as the source? (Hypnosadist) 18:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous "limousine bomb" plot 

message: This is no doubt and act of terrorism, the article needs to include this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.221.173 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 June 2007
Why, because only terrorists use bombs? 86.155.141.169 18:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal" currently the article refers to the possibility of organised crime links, which may discount the "terrorism" theory, only time and investigation will tell, but 72.211.221.173 is incorrect with his above statement. SGGH speak! 19:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read what I said, you will see that I highlighted the comment "perpetrated for an ideological goal", organised crime doesn't tend to do that, thus if it is decided by the police that this is related to organised crime, then it is unlikely to be classed as terrorism. SGGH speak! 21:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wolf Blitzer is saying the nails could have maimed people.--trey 20:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you read what SSGH said? If organised crime was involved, it seems far more likely they weren't doing this for idealogical reasons even if the bombs were intended to maximise civilian casualties. BTW, I would say there is great doubt that this is an act of terrorism precisely because it failed. While even the threat may be considered terrorism to some, to me a bomb plot which failed is perhaps a failed/unsuccessful/foiled/planned/whatever act of terrorism but not actually an act of terrorism in itself Nil Einne 21:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's... intended terrorism... if it fact it is terrorism related and not organised crime. We will see when more news develops :) SGGH speak! 21:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Though incidently, if the news people don't follow up with this organised crime theory the police might have, it will be difficult to guage for the article how important to the police it was, you know... if the sources don't say something like "the police have now discarded this theory" SGGH speak! 22:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorism

message: Police have now confirmed the 2nd car bomb and say it was also found in the Haymarket area, not P{ark Lane.  I'm sitting here hearing this on the radio, so we need a print source to source this properly.--Pharos 20:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd car 

message: NPR is currently reporting that the first carbomb was DEFUSED (notable for preserving evidence), contrary to the reports (and this page) which say that it underwent a "controlled detonation"... Which is correct?
:There is still some conjecture over that. The car was removed intact, so it may be that the trigger device was removed prior to that only being detonated, so it could be both. As an ex-army EOD officer, I can vouch for the fact that there is a big difference! Regards, Lynbarn 20:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe technicians secured the bomb on scene and was taken away for a closer look. Later medias reported that the police had made a controlled explosion. I do assume that this explosion was made some place safe. --|EPO| da: 20:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The car has been removed to Fort Halstead, an MoD facility not far from where I live! It may have been dealt with there. Regards Lynbarn 20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: from what i've heared, the detonator was taken away and disabled it, leaving them with a full intact car full of evidence Joevsimp 21:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defused vs. Detonated 

message: I don't know about anyone else, but one of the things I absolutely hate is sources that mention another source, but doesn't actually link to it. There is this: "A message appears on a widely used jihadist Internet forum, Al-Hesbah, saying: "Today I say: Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed." The message went on to mention the recently announced knighthood of Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie.[7]" << Now, can anyone try searching Al-Hesbah for this direct topic rather than having a news organisation mentioning it but not actually providing a link to it? (I personally think this seems like a totally random message that often crops up on silly websites like this, but surely a direct link is better?) Mikebloke 21:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a feeling someone might declare a "jihadist Internet forum" as a poor unreliable source, but seeing as the comment relates directly to it I'm not so sure what should be done.... It is possible that wikipedia wouldn't put the same trust in such an unreliable source as a new agency would, therefore it's best to link to the "idea that people belive this forum quote is related" rather than to the forum quote itself, which implies that wikipedia says it is link? I guess? SGGH speak! 21:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should take it out of the timeline, most sources don't appear to consider it important.  Possibly we could mention it somewhere else.--Pharos 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, perhaps it doesn't belong at all.  I just watched CBS Evening News and they made no mention of it at all, despite this stuff originating from CBS in the first place.--Pharos 23:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline Clarification? 

message: How come the police found the bombs?  I looked everywhere and didn't find anything about it.
:I suggest you look in this article since it's been here for a long time Nil Einne 06:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cars were spotted by paramedics and passers by it seems SGGH speak! 11:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Police

message: What makes this event worthy of an encyclopedic entry? There has been no significant outcome. After all, it's a foiled, thwarted-call it whatever you want- bombing attempt. Tomj 01:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean there has not been a significant outcome? The country is on high alert, a massive mahhunt has been launched, hundreds of people could have died. Please elaborate on your statement. DavidB601 07:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: By that logic, will you be questioning the existence of 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, as well? Nick Cooper 09:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I did. And other news articles that appear in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. --Monotonehell 09:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The concensus at the top of this page disputes your interpretation. It's a notable event that has had and is having wide-ranging consequences. Nick Cooper 09:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It has the front page of every single newspaper, is had the potential to kill hundreds of people, it has brought one of the worlds leading nations to the highest security alert and it closed down significant transport systems. It is most definitely notable, and will undoubtedly become notable still as the chase commences to catch those responsible. SGGH speak! 11:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that to say that there was no significant outcome was an exaggeration on my part. But still, I find unfortunate that a part of Wikipedia is becoming like a newspaper, with articles such as the aforementioned 2007 Fort Dix attack plot and 2007 London car bombs to name a few. Tomj 14:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tomj, One of the great aspects of Wikipedia is that a news-based article, such as this, can start off as a mixed, and random (even biased) set of facts, details, rumour, counter-rumour, supposition, and even idle gossip, but in a relatively short time, through world-wide collaboration, can develop into a detailed, well researched, verifiable encyclopedic entry. This is a unique feature of wikipedia and its ilk, and one that many appreciate.  If any editor doesn't like it, there is no compulsion to participate, or even read the offending article.  Regards, Lynbarn 14:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So, wikipedia is an "Encyclopedia not a newspaper". By the wikipedia definition of Encyclopedia, there's nothing wrong with this article - it is an Encyclopedic Article about an event. What's wrong with that? Get with the times, this is the future, not some ancient printed volume with limited pages - wikipedia will not run out of space just because there are lots of articles!!!! Why not just condense all of wikipedia into one article, say universe, and just say that everything that ever is, was, wasn't or will be, is covered! --203.10.224.60 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please explain relevance

message: I wonder if it's safe to say that this was Al Qaeda.... if so, Al Qaeda got guyfawked again.... that is.... the plot was spoiled! 204.52.215.107 04:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "safe" to say anything of the kind. This could have been done by one disaffected individual not in contact with anyone else. Nick Cooper 08:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus there are many terrorist organisations other than Al Qaeda SGGH speak! 11:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: When the sources say its Al Qaeda then we will. (Hypnosadist) 12:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  NBC News is reporting police are seeking three suspects from Birmingham area one might have an  association with a high level al Qaeda operative so I will add that. Also will add U.S. precautions.Edkollin 16:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The Daily Express also mentions al Qaeda, however due to the media's tendency to name al Qaeda as the suspect whenever there is a terrorism related event, no matter who it could be, makes me wonder... SGGH speak! 19:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, Al Qaeda seem to be named for sensationalist reasons and because people recognise it, not necessarily because they were involved. RustyBadger 00:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to think Al-Qaeda would perform better than those responsible for the incidents of the past few days. I mean, what is it now? Two bombs that did not explode, two terrorists running around aflame at an airport? Muad 06:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al Qaeda? 

message: As per "bomb?" above, we might want to note that the terrorism expert who was on Keith Olberman's program tonight (don't remember his name off the top of my head) essentially said that these were  very poorly constructed "bombs" and, had they somehow been able to detonate them at all (no functional means of detonation was found) they would not have done very much damage. Essentially, he argued, this was all much ado about nothing. Isaac Benaron 04:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly is an "expert" several thousand miles away in America in a position to make such a sweeping judgement, within 24 hours, and presumably not privy to the results of the Metropolitan Police and British intelligence services' findings thus far? Nothing in the UK media supports the above claim, quite the opposite in fact. Nick Cooper 08:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly Nick. (Hypnosadist) 12:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think it's way to early to say anything either way. Keith Oblerman may very well be right, the 'media' may very well be right. However past history and simple common sense says it's usually a bad idea to trust either at this stage. So far, all we have are some statements allegedly from forensic experts who examined the bomb at an early stage which seem to suggest had it gone off it may have caused significant damage. However this doesn't mean that there was actually a resonable chance they might have gone off and such early statements whose veracity is usually impossible to verify are often wrong. Let's not forget it took a long time for it to be clear how the 7/7 bombs were detonated Nil Einne 16:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incompetent bombers

message: The article name should have the word "plot" in it, for a better description, so I propose the name 2007 London car bombs plot --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was certainly a plot as the bomb was wired and people do not certainly park car bombs for hobby --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't deny for a moment that there wasn't a plot, obviously there was, if you read what I said you will see that I opposed as information on the plot is unknown at the moment, we only have information on the bombs themselves and their discovery! SGGH speak! 19:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not a vote. --trey 16:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is in a way (although FEARgod probably should have used the requested move survey template, ). -- tariqabjotu 16:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It is certainly a request to gain a concensus, no move can be undertaken without concensus. SGGH speak! 19:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Was this plot really "foiled"? The use of the word "foiled" in the articles (and by all the media outlets) would indicate something proactive was done to prevent this bombing. By all accounts the the first bomb was "stumbled" upon by an ambulance crew who had been called to the scene to see to an injured night club patron and they noticed that the car was smoking. Buster 16:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that it was foiled. Whether the discovery was by 'accident' is IMHO immaterial to whether it was foiled. No one said it was foiled by the MI5 or good detective work, simply that it was foiled. If it wasn't foiled then it could either have been a success or a failed plot. The second bomb may have been a failed plot since the car was towed after quite a while and before the bomb was discovered suggesting the bomb was not likely to go off. In this case, it appears to have been foiled because alert people notice something odd with the car and then notified the police who realised it may be a bomb and called in experts who defused the device. Had it not been foiled for this reason, it may have very well been a failed plot as well i.e. the bomb might never have gone off. However since something active was done (the bomb was defused) regardless of whether it was discovered by accident it is still a foiled plot Nil Einne 16:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term 'Foiled' comes from the activity of fighting with pointy bits of metal, and implies a one on one organised engagement. It doesn't really fit the situation properly and is almost POV-y. I'd suggest a less poetic term like discovered, defused, or made safe. --Monotonehell 16:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, going by modern usage of the terms, the bombs were discovered by accident, at least one was made safe by being defused and so the plot was foiled. Therefore, thanks to a mixture of serendipity and bomber incompetence both plots failed. Since the article doesn't currently use the word foiled anyway it doesn't seem to matter to me. The current wording is clear enoughNil Einne 16:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Wikipedia's front page under the "In the news" section the word "foiled" is used in the headline that links to this article. Buster 17:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah I didn't agree with that on the main page, foiled does suggest successful efforts to prevent the attack rather than just stumbling across them, maybe "prevented" would have been better? SGGH speak! 19:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe... but this is the problem I am having, the 1st car was stumbled upon because the bombers were incompetent so the bomb never ignited, it smoked, alerting the ambulance driver to trouble and then was discovered. The 2nd car completely failed to go off and was towed hours later after the 1st car was discovered due to a parking violation. So neither attempt was foiled. I'm thinking maybe the headline should read "Police Discover Failed Car Bombs in London". Buster 21:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now accepted that what was seen was petrol vapour, not smoke. It's also being reported that both devices were intended to be triggered by mobile phones, but the first was soon disabled, while the second had been quickly removed (unintentionally) and placed in an underground structure where it would not have been possible for the trigger phone to get a signal. It may very well be that the perpetrator/s may not have even attempted to activate the devices remotely until after both these events had happened. Nick Cooper 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foiled? 

message: Many people keep complaining about the 'newsyness' of this article.
Well, how about moving it to 'Terrorism in the UK in 2007' or something along those lines, and include today's Glasgow airport incident. 
I personally don't think it merits moving, but... to each his own.
J.P.Lon 17:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thought that occurs to me is that we might end up with an article for terrorism in the uk for each year. Personally I think we are all discussing moves and things far too early, the event was only a couple of days ago and most of the information isn't even available yet. SGGH speak! 19:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I add that naming conventions call for this to be, at best, London car bombs (2007). I'll never understand why people always put the year first. Have they never used a real encyclopedia? -- 146.115.58.152 20:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General article? - Moving/renaming?

message: In the United States White House press secretary Tony Snow said...
I'm not sure how relevent this paragraph is to a bomb attack in London, England... Anybody have a view on this? Regards, Lynbarn 17:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As said above I put this in the aftermath section in a paragraph describing U.S. reactions,precautions etc. Edkollin 17:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States 

message: Should be treated as separate event and not be in here unless reputable,notable cite for a linkage between the two incidents is found Edkollin 17:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CNN is reporting the incidents are linked pending a news conference.--trey 18:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Based on what? Do you have a link we could read? SGGH speak! 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Security sources told The Guardian Unlimited they believe they are so I will add that  Edkollin 20:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glasgow incident 

message: If I were to plant a car bomb, I would try to make sure it is discovered when it goes off and not before. So why did they not find a better place to park the car? Is it deliberate? Do we have any info that can go into the article? F 07:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is impossible to get entirely behind the thinking of any individual, it could be that the driver simply decided that, when it came down to it, he couldn't bring himself to go through with it and abandoned the bomb... Maybe the no parking signs were obstructed, or not understood, maybe he had run out petrol in the tank (that would be ironic)... Maybe he had to top up the phone he was going to use to detonate the device... but all this can only be conjecture, not suitable for inclusion. Regards, Lynbarn 09:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The Haymarket car was parked in front of a crowded nightclub. Perhaps the perpetrator thought he could maximize casualties by parking in the most crowded place he could find and detonating quickly before being towed. Weregerbil 09:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may also be that the perpetrator had insufficient local knowledge to appreciate, a) how difficult it is to park legally in central London, and b) how quicky violations draw attention and are dealt with. Nick Cooper 11:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also it is possible that the plan went off half cocked, and the driver panicked and just parked it anywhere, the night club may not have been the target. Though as said above this is just users speculating SGGH speak! 15:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, I see a lot of speculation, not just by users but in the media about stuff like how the bombers were targetting people they regard as immoral like nightclubbers or homosexuals but all that can be said at the moment is their planning doesn't seem to have been particular good which may suggest they didn't really get that complex in their thinking. As such, excessive speculation about the motives seems harmful Nil Einne 11:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the parking of the second car was accidental. Where would hundreds of people fleeing the first car bomb go if it had gone off succcessfully? Wiki-Ed 12:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegally parked? 

message: Earlier it was stated that the 280E is a W123, the reference had been removed and now stated again. Do you have any evidence for this? The only picture of the dark Benz I've seen didn't allow for an identification of the model. I understand that the coppers informed about this being a 280E. This however doesn't mean that this is a W123. 280E was also a model of the "stroke 8" (W114 to be precise) and the W124. Perhaps others, although I couldn't say now, off the top of my head. So please, before you identify this 280E as a W123, please give some clear pictorial evidence.
:Forgot to sign my entry. Here goes: Assimilateur 12:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  280E 

message: Doesnt the terrorst who was found on fire count as 1 person injured?--86.6.9.151 15:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but he was in Glasgow! Lynbarn 15:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 0 injuries

message: From the intro section, the second bomb was found in a "Mercedes-Benz saloon"... I'm not sure if this is a Britishism or maybe a typo/misunderstanding, but as an American native English speaker, I've never once heard an automobile referred to as a "saloon". That phrase links to an article about a particular Mercedes-Benz model, but no mention of "saloon" there either. Over here, "saloon" is a slightly archaic term for a bar, a drinking establishment with a kinda Western/cowboy connotation. Maybe I'm alone, but if not, perhaps we might want to use a term more familiar to all readers.75.139.35.32 14:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saloon car is standard British English terminology for the car body shape which the Americans refer to as a sedan (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=saloon%20car) --Lost tourist (Talk) 19:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See the opening of sedan, it clearly states the British-American distinction. --Philip Stevens 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a page about a British subject, so British English spelling and language usage has primacy. "Saloon" on the page links to "sedan" and has done since I did it myself several days ago. Nick Cooper 21:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What if we just use a culture-neutral name, like four-door car?  "Saloon" is utterly confusing to a large proportion of our readers, and the description of the automobile type is really ancillary to this topic anyway.--Pharos 21:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very good point, I grant you, but it is not a cultural, but a linguistic difference we are trying to deal with here. There is plenty of capacity within wikipedia for editors to include hyperlinks to explain any differences of language, As Nick Cooper has in this case. Wikipedia is a world-wide facility, and should be used in a way that doesn't discriminate against the minority of users for whom American English isn't their native tongue. One of the Wiki guidelines is that articles should be consistent in their use of the American/British/any other form of the language, and where an article, such as this, is based predominantly in a UK context, it seems sensible to stick with the British flavour (flavor} throughout. As the French say, Vive la difference! Regards, Lynbarn 21:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between flavour/flavor and saloon/sedan is that the meaning of flavour/flavor is obvious to any semi-educated English speaker, while the saloon/sedan terms are just completely unrelated, and very few on either side of the Atlantic are likely to be aware of the other term.  I just think it might be unnecessarily confusing to put the understanding of a term for an everyday object a hyperlink away.--Pharos 22:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be viewed as an opportunity for Americans to learn something new, just as British people must do when reading about Lincoln Town Cars. I do think however that it should say saloon car to reduce the confusion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but we should stick with saloon, just as in US-related articles you say 'put something in the trunk' which sounds to us like a separate piece of luggage when you mean boot or you fill it with gas, which sounds very dangerous since we use petrol :-) TerriersFan 00:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree Wikipidea should use the expressions of the area where the incidents occurred another example is "fag" which means cigarette in the UK and is an antihomosexual slur in the US Edkollin 18:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an anti-homosexual slur in the UK too SGGH speak! 10:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, putting luggage in the boot....sounds a bit erotic if you ask me...:-) 204.52.215.107 03:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Not necessary, as "saloon" already wikilinks to "sedan". Do you think American readers won't be able to work that out? One would presume that any sensible person seeing a linked term they're unfamiliar with would click on it for an explanation. We don't have to hold readers' hands for them in the way you suggest. Nick Cooper 08:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nick here: A key feature (perhaps THE key feature) with online encyclopediae such as this, is that by using hyperlinks, a writer can impart knowledge to others fairly well versed in the subject, in a relatively short-hand form using, for example, technical terms, but that can be understood by those less expert, simply through the  explanations provided by the hyperlinked articles. The saloon car example is an excellent example - the American meaning is clear just by moving the mouse, or cursor over the word - there isn't even a need to follow the link.  Regards, Lynbarn 09:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercedes-Benz saloon? 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "Telegraph1" :
** 
** 
DumZiBoT (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorted, and disambiguated Telegraph to The Daily Telegraph.  David Underdown (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: 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.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/current-threat-level/
** In 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack on 2011-05-26 02:47:56, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack on 2011-05-27 15:04:59, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack on 2011-06-15 13:56:48, 404 Not Found
** In 2007 London car bombs on 2011-06-15 15:31:34, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2007 London car bombs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1272962,00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6255960.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6252276.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6256386.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kentnews.co.uk/kent-news/Fort-Halstead-probes-car-in-London-security-scare-newsinkent4217.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070629/tuk-britain-attacks-alert-a7ad41d.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1272910,00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6255452.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7772925.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pridelondon.org/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL2919779720070629
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2115283,00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=89624
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6756619.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/29/terror/main2997517.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6257194.stm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318130819/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/current-threat-level/ to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/current-threat-level/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6257606.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/04/london.investigation/index.html#cnnSTCPhoto
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517014458/http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1272910,00.html to http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1272910,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on 2007 London car bombs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0%2C%2C70131-1272962%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6255960.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0%2C%2C70131-1272910%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621175455/http://www.pridelondon.org/ to http://www.pridelondon.org/
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/terrorism/story/0%2C%2C2115283%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/current-threat-level/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0%2C%2C70131-1272910%2C00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified