Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings/Archive 6

message: Think it's time to report the - so far fairly wild - speculation on possible future arrests of various London figures said to have ties to Abu Qatada? Or should we wait till they're actually arrested?  If the former, note that while the Times  seems to have gotten the Garbuzi story right, some other papers mistakenly reported that he had "disappeared", only to have him turn up at the al-Jazeera London office this evening. - Mustafaa 00:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumors

message: " Discounting the Suicide Bomber Theory
A witness who was on the number 30 bus which exploded at Upper Woburn Street had described on national television news how he was "irritated" by a man with "olive coloured skin" fidgeting with a bag at the back of the upper deck of the bus. One could assume that the timing of the detonation - 9.37am - was designed to be one hour after the tube bombs exploded, and more than likely not on a bus but on a further tube train.
The bus bombing seems therefore to have been the result of an ironic turn of events. Due to the events that had happened at 8.50am, people had been turned away from Tube stations and onto buses. With the streets becoming busier the number 30 took a diversion from its route into Tavistock Square. If the man described above was intending to leave this bomb somewhere else, then he must have been trying to delay the explosion. The very fact his fellow bombers had caused disruption to the transport system was now having a knock on effect on his own efforts.
In grim conclusion, one could say that with - at current numbers - 12 dead on the bus as opposed to the 20/30+ that died at Kings Cross, the bomb on the bus claimed less lives that it was meant to."
There's nothing obviously wrong with this, but it's speculation and needs something backing it up before it can be included. --Mr. Billion 07:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=81.79.88.156 81.79.88.156] 

message: I moved some things at the top of the page around, so it didn't look so cluttered.  Not totally sure why someone wanted the table of content on the right side, but it just didn't look right.--Kross 04:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
:The most likely reason someone moved it to the right because it looks bad floated to the left. The "Bombings" section title has a line that extends into the Table of Contents's margin that way. I moved it back to the right as you can see. joturner 04:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  decluttered top 

message: I have created a stub for this article. Can everyone help and add a few things here? Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[7 July 2005 London bombings memorials and services]] 

message: Uhh...other than a few folks, looks like most nations were not touched at all, unless I am looking in the wrong places. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Non-British casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings]] 

message: This editor linked what was probably his own weird ramble on the subject of the London attacks. He suggested that it's good to get a Muslim perspective on this event, and that's true.  However, I'm leery of this sort of bizarre ranting (the opinion piece's section on "Why Muslims are Better" and the bit about why Jews are "the worst of mankind" in particular).  That's one Muslim perspective, but there are many Muslims and many perspectives, and we don't need this sort of crap.  Mr. Billion 07:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree that the external link should be removed, but on the grounds that it provides no additional content to the article which would be of a considerable encyclopedic nature. --HappyCamper 07:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions in External Links 

message: Which version was shown? Rich Farmbrough 10:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  the new one, i saw 2 minutes of it when they broadcasted it. Cheers. Adidas 09:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gone in sixty sconds. 

message: Can I please ask everyone to take care when reverting vandals? A vandalism reversion last night rolled the article back to a much older version, losing many legitimate edits in the process. I've restored these where appropriate, though it's been somewhat tricky because of subsequent editing. -- ChrisO 10:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking care when reverting vandalism 

message: Removed some text on the differing effects of the bombs due to the tunnel structures. As stated earlier in discussion page, I feel it is interesting but could be misconstrued. My initial reaction was that it was interesting, but then I realised that I wouldn't want everyone to know this level of detail. Carcharoth 10:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you wouldn't, but we're not in the business of providing the level of detail that you personally want - we're dispassionately recording the relevant facts. Discussions of the bombs' effects have been in Saturday's newspapers as well as on the BBC at the moment - see e.g. the graphic at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4668675.stm . A similar graphic is included in the print version of the Guardian story at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1524547,00.html . Saying that the damage will be worse if the explosion is in a confined space is hardly revolutionary new knowledge. -- ChrisO 10:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else have any opinions? As far as I can see, the BBC graphic is unaccompanied by the level of textual detail we provide. I'm not saying that it is revolutionary knowledge that an explosion in a confined space will be worse (so why bother saying this), merely that it seems unnecessary to make the specific link with the differing structures of London Underground tunnels. The BBC article does NOT make that specific link. Other sources might, but that does not allay my concerns. When do you cross the line between "dispassionately" recording "facts" (it is actually a theory to account for the death tolls - not a fact) and going into technical details about bombing. Carcharoth 10:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The popup (click 'Enlarge Image') in the article does make this specific link. I found this information interesting and relevant. In your earlier comment you stated concern for this information helping people plan new bombings, but this kind of information is not hard to come by. It would be legitimate for Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, to contain an article on bomb making. - Wgsimon 11:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The popup kept crashing my computer... Anyway, I see what you both mean about this information not being hard to come by, but would point out that the bombers might not have known this information before their attacks. Depends on whether they were going for maximum casualties or maximum disruption. I have one further concern, more a matter of article structure. The text that has now been restored says something like "greater number of casualties" on the Piccadilly Line train, but this has yet been mentioned in the article! The number of casualties at the different locations is not mentioned until a few sections later. Maybe this "differing effects of the bombs" could be moved to a different section. Which would hopefully make it less visible as well... Carcharoth 11:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly it should be at the end of the Casualties section. The information could probably be shortened for the sake of conciseness. - Wgsimon 11:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. It could be included, but should not be removed on the basis it's 'too informative' for copycats to reproduce. It's common knowledge, and was discussed many a time BEFORE the attacks even took place. Adidas 12:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: By "if mentioned in the official investigation report" do you think the text under discussion should be removed for now? Carcharoth 22:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The text in my opinion is non-sensative and can stay. Sensative comments useuly deal with litte known information. It is fairly certin that the attackers canvased the area for several days prior to the attacks. Though they may have noted the tunnel sizes they were probally much more interested in attacking lines based on other factors.--Mitrebox 00:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed this text 

message: The article currently includes a link to an images gallery . This is currently being considered for removal to the Wikimedia Commons area). If people click through to the image gallery, it is not very impressive at the moment, but some of the images are just confusing and misleading.
One of the images  was an attempt at a map using a satellite image (but the "free use" status is in dispute). That satellite map has other problems, such as labelling the bus attack with a car, and labelling stations arbitrarily, and labelling Aldgate East instead of Aldgate, and mispelling Edgware Road.
Both that image and this one  are misleading. The map is misleading as stated above, and the image is confusing because it talks about the Northern Line. What should be done about this? Carcharoth 12:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As to the description, go into Commons and change it to Piccadilly line. That photo and its provenance is now well-known, and given the circumstances on Thursday it's not surprising that there was confusion. -- Arwel 12:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The original (moblog) upload page still says northern line, and no-one queried it there. The picture is slightly strange because it doesn't look like they are in one of the deep line tunnels (such as the Piccadilly Line) where there is not a lot of room outside the trains, so I'm not really sure what is going on with that picture, despite it being used all over the world by many media... Can you point me towards a website that gives a clear provenance and location for the picture. I don't want to change it without being sure. Carcharoth 20:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images gallery - misleading map and image 

message: I sort of liked the linking to peace, mercy etc. from the formulae of the translated statement, as a sort of pacifist comment driving home the hypocrisy. Now, the links are just to Islamic terminology, of course closer to the intended, unthinking use of the formulae. Hyperlinks from quoted text are always critical, of course, since the constitute some sort of implicit comment, and it may be better to remove the links altogether, and place the important ones in a short commentary after the translation. The statement of course is dubitable anyway, and may have been uploaded by a random teenager. dab (ᛏ) 16:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- it seems to me that linking to definitions of 'peace' and 'mercy' is tantamount to saying "why don't you look up peace, you arsehole?" which isn't really the tone we're after in an encyclopaedia. It also pushes the opinion that the attacks are dispicable and their justification hypocritical, which whilst being a widely adopted point of view, and one to which I subscribe, is still just a point of view. Chris Smowton 17:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The present wikilinks (99 names of god, peace be on him, etc.) are more informative and contextual. It's an improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: translated statement

message: OK, this is not the most important thing in the article, but it is annoying me that everywhere Sir Ian Blair is mentioned, the job title is described differently. Which of these is correct? "Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner Sir Ian Blair"; "Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair"; "Police Commissioner Blair"; "London Metropolitan Police Chief, Sir Ian Blair"? Oh, and it is best not to call him just "Blair", as people might confuse him with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. I'm fixing the wiki links that had "Metropolitan Police" pointing at a general definition, rather than at "Metropolitan Police Service", but I'm not sure what is best for Sir Ian Blair's job title. Carcharoth 18:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Met's website, his full title is the rather unwieldy "Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis", which they later abbreviate to "Metropolitan Police Commissioner".  Call him that first and then "Sir Ian Blair" thereafter, as their article does? Vashti 19:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone with your suggestion, but used it throughout. Article is too long for people to remember who this Sir Ian Blair is further down the article. I've also changed the wiki links to point at his job title, but this could be changed back to pointing at the Metropolitan Police, though I think wiki-linking from within a phrase is bad, which is why I changed it. Possibly the later wiki links to "Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis" could be lost, as the double wiki-link (to both Ian Blair and his job title) is only needed the first time, and later examples only need one wiki link. Not sure though. Carcharoth 20:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Job title of Sir Ian Blair 

message: I like how it's placed to the right. How did you do it? Pacific Coast Highway 20:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
:That's easy. Use the template moniker . --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Contents 

message: Can anyone get to this site and see more than the half dozen pictures that originally load?  I read an article about it on CNN.com here and tried to access the page.  I can get to the homepage but all the links just return the same images.  I thought it may be some bug with Safari so I tried Mozilla and my girlfriend's Windows box with IE and I get the same results.  So is it just me or what?  Any clues?  Thought it may make an interesting addition to the article but maybe not... Dismas 20:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The CMS seems to be malfunctioning right now. This can wait. --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So I looked up CMS in the wiki and didn't see anything that would help explain what you said.  So... huh? Dismas 00:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: CMS = content management system = blog software = WordPress in this case. It's still borked, so no point linking. --Dhartung | Talk 07:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  Thanks.  Dismas 10:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  werenotafraid has become a puerile attempt at replicating b3ta.com, probably not what the domain owner originally thought of. Regardless, it's now filled with childish images of pets, jokes and common object photoshoped to feature the 'i'm not afraid' message. It also contains racist content such as images of roasted chicken with the label 'go home motherf%%%ers.' IMHO it should be removed from the links section as it now bears little relevance to the tragic attacks. Adidas 13:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disagree. The site's quality may have declined as it became more popular, but its popularity is what makes it relevant. We're not arbiters of site quality at Wikipedia. The popularity comes from numerous mentions in major media which has spread it worldwide. --Dhartung | Talk 16:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.werenotafraid.com 

message: User:AnneFrankly has added some Scientology-related material. 
Is it acceptable, or should we pitch it?  Mr. Billion 02:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess User:203.25.140.98 has already voted to pitch it.  I'll remove the "Scientology Volunteer Ministers" bit too, then.  Dunno why I bothered asking though, really.  Mr. Billion 03:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology 

message: In the "Attacks on the Underground" section, is the speculation about a lone bomber justified? It starts out as speculation, and then phrases like "the bomber", and "the person who planted the other bombs" start to be used, which sound less speculative and start to assume that the speculation is correct, which doesn't seem justified yet.
The wording "roughly nine minutes east by tube from Kings Cross" and "roughly eight minutes west by tube from Kings Cross" is also a bit strange. London Underground have a system called TrackerNet that allows them to tell PRECISELY when the Circle Line trains arrived at and left Kings Cross (only the Circle Line trains - TrackerNet had not yet been installed on the Piccadilly Line at the time of the bombing). So IF London Underground release the information, there is no need for "roughly"; it can be said that the trains left Kings Cross "x" minutes ago. I thought one of the original press releases from London Underground said both Circle Line trains left Kings Cross 8 minutes before the bombings, but that seems to have disappeared now. Can anyone find another source?
Also, is there a source for this: "The parallel track of the Hammersmith and City Line from Liverpool Street to Aldgate East was also damaged."? Carcharoth 08:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing of trains 

message: As of 12:20 BST on the 12th July, on the main article, these two people are put as the identified casualties:
Susan Levy, 53, of Newgate Street Village (near Cuffley, Hertfordshire), on the Picadilly line train. 
Gladys Wundowa, 51, of Chadwell Heath, on the bus, a cleaner at University College London. 
However, yesterday early evening, Gladys Wundowa was removed from all of BBC News newsstories as well as Sky News.  Why is that?  Maybe they misidentified her?
We can now also add at least two more names, they are identified on Sky News . - Smoothy 12:20, 12 July 2005 (BST)
:Yes, Gladys Wundowa has disappeared from news coverage, so presumably there was a mistake. She shouldn't be on the list (or at least there should be a note by her name) until more is known. --Dtcdthingy 13:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are further names.   I have updated the header paragraph but someone will need to check through carefully to make sure we are counting correctly.  In particular, we need to watch locations and balance figures in the table lower down the article. 195.157.197.108 16:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  identified Casualties 

message: The list of "Similar incidents" is growing; it's in danger of becoming a category in it own right, I suggest it is drastically trimmed (perhaps with a link to a suitable umbrella article or category). Andy Mabbett 17:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar incidents

message: This page is 51 kilobytes long, we're warned. Perhaps we should hive off the investigation and or reaction sections, leaving this page to describe the bombings themselves. Andy Mabbett 17:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My thinking is that the relatively static reaction stuff can be put into the Response to the 2005 London bombings article. There's getting to be some duplication, anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page size

message: Under "Bombings" section I've added detail about the other trains at Edgware Road at the time of the bombings. This is mainly based on the images available here (TrackerNet images from London Transport):
These additions are supported by the BBC reference I gave in the main article (the tube driver saying he was lucky to be alive): "There was a train at the platform in front of me, coming the other way. As the driver's cab was just passing mine, I saw a bright yellow light on the train on the other side." , plus this reference to the Hammersmith and City Line train at Edgware Road at the time of the bombing: "I was on the eastbound Hammersmith and City train that had just stopped at Edgware Road station. We heard a loud bang, which shook our train."
I've included the BBC link and the link to the Transport for London news centre image gallery, where people can see the sequences showing the movements of the trains, but can't think of an easy way to reference the H+C line comment. Any way to do this? Carcharoth 21:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to include these references? 

message: I'm not sure enough of the facts to edit the page, but some web pages (eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/4677603.stm ) give different ages for some casualties.
*Jamie Gordon, 30 - we have 31
*Philip Stuart Russell, 28 - we have 29
-- SGBailey 08:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people were listed twice here with different ages and spellings of names. Should take care to check multiple sources for this kind of info and avoid duplicates too. MRSC 09:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Without birthdates, there will be a lot of "off by one" errors. --Dhartung | Talk 09:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty ages