Revision as of 02:28, 14 July 2015 editSelector99 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users513 editsm →Lead Paragraph - Islamists: correct link← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:55, 20 October 2024 edit undoPrimeBOT (talk | contribs)Bots2,048,701 editsm →top: Task 30: banner adjustment following a discussionTag: AWB | ||
(95 intermediate revisions by 44 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} | {{Skip to talk}} | ||
{{Talk header| |
{{Talk header|search=yes}} | ||
{{Article history | |||
{{Not a forum}} | |||
| action1 = AFD | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| action1date = 2005-07-10 | |||
{{WikiProject British crime|class=b|importance=top}} | |||
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/7 July 2005 London bombings | |||
{{WikiProject Crime|class=b|importance=mid}} | |||
| action1result = speedy keep | |||
{{WikiProject Disaster management|class=b|importance=high}} | |||
{{WikiProject London|class=B|importance=high}} | |||
| action2 = AFD | |||
{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=B|importance=high|attention=yes}} | |||
| action2date = 2020-06-09 | |||
{{WikiProject Trains|class=B|importance=low|UK=yes|UK-importance=mid | |||
| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/7 July 2005 London bombings (2nd nomination) | |||
|Subway=yes|Subway-importance=mid|Underground=yes|Underground-importance=mid|LUL-importance=top}} | |||
| action2result = speedy keep | |||
{{WikiProject Death|class=B|importance=mid}} | |||
|otddate=2006-07-07 | |||
|otdoldid=62597390 | |||
|otd2date=2008-07-07 | |||
|otd2oldid=224199878 | |||
|otd3date=2010-07-07 | |||
|otd3oldid=371947073 | |||
|otd4date=2011-07-07 | |||
|otd4oldid=438320934 | |||
|otd5date=2013-07-07 | |||
|otd5oldid=563066452 | |||
|otd6date=2015-07-07 | |||
|otd6oldid=670013351| | |||
|otd7date=2018-07-07 | |||
|otd7oldid=849182779 | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=high|importance=Mid|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Buses|importance=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=high}} | |||
{{WikiProject Explosives|importance=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Low|Islam-and-Controversy=y}} | |||
{{WikiProject Trains|importance=Low|UK=yes|UK-importance=mid|Subway=yes|Subway-importance=mid|Underground=yes|LUL-importance=top}} | |||
{{WikiProject London|importance=high}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|text=More banners...|1= | |||
{{PL showcase article|status=w|month=July 2009}} | |||
{{Online source| year=2005 | {{Online source| year=2005 | ||
| section=July 1–10 | | section=July 1–10 | ||
Line 39: | Line 62: | ||
| date4=August 23, 2013 | | date4=August 23, 2013 | ||
| year4=2013}} | | year4=2013}} | ||
{{On this day|date1=2006-07-07|oldid1=62597390|date2=2008-07-07|oldid2=224199878|date3=2010-07-07|oldid3=371947073|date4=2011-07-07|oldid4=438320934|date5=2013-07-07|oldid5=563066452|date6=2015-07-07|oldid6=670013351}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{pbneutral}} | |||
==Which Lines?== | |||
{{To do|1|small=yes}} | |||
{{Notice|image=Presa_de_decissions.png|small=yes|I have added ] for people to list bits that have been lost in the course of ongoing edits so they can be added back later if required. ] 7 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)}} | |||
While the description of the third bombing specifies it was on the Piccadilly Line, the descriptions of the other two don't specify which lines were targeted. This might be information of interest to readers (like this one). <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
{{archives|auto=short|search=yes}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
:Am I misunderstanding, as they say | |||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
:"The first exploded on a 6-car London Underground C69 and C77 Stock Circle line sub-surface train" and "The second device exploded in the second car of another 6-car London Underground C69 and C77 Stock Circle line sub-surface train" | |||
|maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
|counter = 10 | |||
:Can you be more specific?] (]) 10:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
|minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
|minthreadstoarchive = 3 | |||
==Memorialisation of Offenders== | |||
|algo = old(60d) | |||
|archive = Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings/Archive %(counter)d | |||
My apologies if this is covered in the extensive archives - I ran a few searches but didn't find any results. I've arrived on this page whilst looking for information following the ] this week, and I wondered what Misplaced Pages policy was on the memorialisation of offenders whose only claim to notability was the crime they committed. I think this question is particularly relevant in cases of ideological terrorism where the propaganda - the 'myth', as it were, of the terrorist - is more important to their professed cause than the crime they actually commit. In other words, while they aim to kill as many people as they can, that's only a means to an end for them: the true end is to frighten and divide societies, and deny them the ability to live freely. | |||
}} | |||
I don't wish to diminish the need to remember those murdered by such acts, and this isn't about forgetting the crimes themselves. And I realise there are arguments for "learning as much as we can" about such offenders and their motivations, and the process by which a person might be so indoctrinated. I also accept that Misplaced Pages tries to maintain a neutral point of view and generally isn't in the business of censoring material. However, I wonder whether dedicating entire articles to the perpetrators, as linked from this article, providing their names, photographs, history, and so on, is entirely proportionate even according to those principles. | |||
My sense that these murderers should not be memorialised does, I admit, stem from a sense of frustration that justice cannot be served on those who destroy themselves in the commission of their crimes. Their memory, then, is all there is left to sanction. I don't come here to ask for full-scale ] - but I would at least suggest we can afford to remove the names and photographs of the killers. Those details are unimportant to any of the above concerns: we do not need them to learn about the offenders' backgrounds, or study the process of their indoctrination and radicalisation. At the very, very least, I question the need to maintain full articles for each of them. | |||
== Intro/grammar == | |||
I apologise if this request is overly emotional, but I hope I have made a reasonably balanced case despite that. -- ] (]) 08:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
It is grammatically incorrect to start any sentence with a numerical number. Therefore: | |||
== Nationality table == | |||
:Wrong - "52 other people were killed and around 700 were injured." | |||
:Right - "Fifty two other people were killed and around 700 were injured." | |||
The nationality table duplicates the info in text (though less complete since it does not mention the dual nationals). It also has the controversial 'flags', which are generally deemed inapt in situations in which people are not 'representing' their counties. If there is no objection, I will remove (or 'hide') the table. ] (]) 12:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
I cannot do it myself because of a page lock.. Besides the whole paragraph should be rewritten the more I think about it. | |||
== Map in infobox == | |||
:"The explosions appear to have been caused by home-made organic peroxide-based devices, packed into rucksacks and detonated by the bombers themselves, all four of whom died. 52 other people were killed and around 700 were injured." | |||
The map shows the locations of Liverpool Street (1) and Kings Cross St. Pancras (3) but the article states the bombs exploded close to Aldgate (1) and Russell Square (3). There should be some consistency. --] (]) 21:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
How can they "appear to have been"? That's ambiguous nonsense? The bombers were either using organic peroxide or not. Were they using peroxide bombs as found from the forensic evidence? If they were, then state it because it was not another kind of device. Furthermore this entire sentence is over packed with too many clauses and facts. It reads like a grammatical-overstuffed mouth. Good writing keeps it clear and simple. This rewrite would be better: | |||
== Lockerbie == | |||
:"All four bombers died when they detonated home-made bombs concealed in their rucksacks using explosives created from ]s. In total 52 people were killed and around 700 more were injured in the four blasts." | |||
The explosion did not take place over Lockerbie. The remains of the plane landed on Lockerbie. Basic stuff. See . --] (]) 21:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
Please sign your posts with four tidles. <span style="color:red">This is ] signing out!</span> 16:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:It is universally referred to by variants of 'Lockerbie bombing' in the UK. If you want to impose a non-UK description onto an article on an English subject - thereby making it unrecognisable to a UK audience - what can I say! I've amended to 'near' Lockerbie, but honestly getting pedantic about whether the airspace around Lockerbie is 'over' it or not is silly. Much of the attack on Pearl Harbor didn't actually happen in PH itself - but it happens to be how the event is named. If you want we can remove 'Pan Am Flight 103' and simply pipe 'Lockerbie bombing' - I don't want to do that as I realise it is not recognisable to a US audience and putting Lockerbie and Scotland locates the event to all. ] (]) 21:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
::Calling it the Lockerbie bombing would be fine. Misplaced Pages usually uses flight numbers to identify air disasters, which I am also fine with. But we must not say that the plane exploded over Lockerbie, because it did not. --] (]) 23:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::I've amended to 'near Lockerbie' .... unless you are from the Lockerbie area of Scotland, the name immediately triggers memories of this event to a UK reader, in the way that such dramatic events become associated with place names. ] (]) 17:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
== First Muslim suicide bombing, or first suicide bombing? == | |||
== Victim list == | |||
Clearly it was both, but it looks a bit stupid, or worse, bigoted, to repeat the former when the latter is the greater claim, is sourced in the article to solid source, and we have already stated the religion of the suspected perpetrators. --] (]) 21:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
Earlier I (then using IP address 50.100.184.151) made an edit which I summarized as: | |||
:I'm normally one for removing unnec emphasis of 'Islamic/ist" - in this instance I think it being the first, and one of the most deadly attacks with an Islamist motive is in a sense at least as important as the method (suicide bombing). It isn't actually their religion which is stated earlier, except in the sense that Islamic terrorists are ordinarily Muslims! Maybe a text can be found that avoids the repetition. ] (]) 21:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
:Move table of victims into victims section where it belongs. Delete list of names (which was incomplete, too): this is an encyclopedia, not a memorial." | |||
== Motive == | |||
This was reverted by Flexdream on the grounds that "This article is not a memorial. It can include the names as an encyclodia should be comprehensive." | |||
I am not sure a motive is the same as the act carried out. The attackers were not motivated by Islamic terrorism, but by Islamic extremism, how they responded to that motivation was Islamic terrorism.] (]) 14:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
First, after checking with the Village Pump, I find that Misplaced Pages has no specific policy on this point. We have to rely on our sense of what it is | |||
:I agree with your logic about the terms verbally - but extremism is a broader phenomenon, which does not necessarily lead to violence. We write of 'right-wing terrorism' being a motive I believe, though it likewise is an act, rather than a motive. ] (]) 16:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC) | |||
appropriate for an encyclopedia to include. And my sense says that lists of names of people who are otherwise not notable just don't belong. If you | |||
::Do we, can you give an example?] (]) 07:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)2011 Norway attacks | |||
include them, I feel, you are indeed turning the article into a memorial, and that is inappropriate. See ] for an essay that sets out the | |||
:::], has 'Far-right extremism' as motive, also I believe some of the US far-right events have 'white supremacism' - which is more like the motivating beliefs behind the event than a motive. Actually in this instance, the perps gave specific motives ''(anger at Western actions in Muslim countries)''. Most similar articles have 'Is Ter' as motive. Is Islamic extremism any more a motive than Islamic terrorism, doesn't it simply characterise their beliefs? Also do sources describe extremism as the motive? I looked at several IRA events, many do not have a motive, but clearly Irish Republicanism would be the background 'philosophy', but not in itself a 'motive' in the ordinary sense of the word. I think it legitimate to put the motivating character of the event, rather than literal motive - which in this event was to cause as much mayhem and bloodshed as possible for reasons that don't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 20:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
justification for this view in a better fashion than I could do it myself. It seems to me that most Misplaced Pages articles about disasters do not include | |||
::::So no then you have no examples of "far right terrorism " as a motive.] (]) 09:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
victim lists and I suggest this is evidence that most people agree with the position that they do not belong. | |||
:::::I said 'I believe' - it was from memory and the main point was that a 'general descriptor' was often used, rather than a motive in the common criminal meaning. How exactly is 'extremism' a motive? ] (]) 20:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
Second, reverting the edit restores the two other problems I mentioned in my edit summary. The table is again misplaced and the list is again incomplete, | |||
showing only 11 names of the 13 bus fatalities. (The table could also be improved, adding a column to give the number of people injured.) | |||
== Alexander Litvinenko claim == | |||
I stand by my position that the list is inappropriate, and I'm unreverting, i.e. deleting it again as well as moving the victims table. If someone | |||
wants to voice agreement or disagreement, I suggest doing it here. And if someone does reverts the change again, then please address the other | |||
issues I mentioned in the last paragraph. | |||
Since the claim is so vaguely worded and the coverage in RS so thin, I'm inclined to think not, but am happy to follow what others think. I HAVE already removed the "Other theories" heading, such that the text is now in "Conspiracy theories" section. ] (]) 11:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
--] (]) 06:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC) (formerly 50.100.184.151) | |||
:I say it was bollocks, with absolutely piss-poor sourcing. ] (]) 13:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
: Agree with IP and support removal of victim list per ] ]] 08:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
: |
:See ]. Indymedia (given as the only reference in the claim) is categorised as a "generally unreliable source". Without any other source to back up the claim I think it should be deleted immediately. --] (]) 17:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC) | ||
== Islamophobia == | |||
:::Nick's first statement is correct; as I said, there's no specific WP policy on this. It does not follow that it is correct to include the list. I still say, as a matter of personal opinion, that it's not. And again, if the list stays then please address the other issues I mentioned. --] (]) 23:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
I was surprised there was not a single reference to Islamophobia in this article, as the 7/7 attacks led to a lot of Islamophobia. I will add it to the See Also section, but I think that someone more knowledgeable than I should add a section regarding Islamophobia to the article. | |||
:: what does the long-form victim list add? | |||
Thanks! | |||
:: does it improve the article for the average reader? for any reader? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
] (]) 14:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
:You do not have to be knowledgeable about any subject to contribute to an article on Misplaced Pages. What you do need to be able to do is find reliable and verifiable sources that allow to to add relevant content. Be bold. Do it yourself. ] (]) 22:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
== al-Qaeda? == | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 12#2005 London bombings}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 22:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
] | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 1#7.7}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 03:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Info table at top == | |||
The article makes a handful references to al-Qaeda and its connection to these bombings, most of which cast doubt or outright deny such connection, while those that suggest there is a connection are stated as speculative. On the other hand, the article has the ] box template at the bottom in which the London bombings are listed in the timeline of attacks. So which is it? Should this article be listed as an al-Qaeda attack with such weak supporting information, or if it is so obvious that it is indeed an al-Qaeda attack then why isn't there more information to clarify this in the article?--] (]) 06:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
The info table near the top has an error so it extends further to the right even though there is no text that takes up the space (on a mobile device at least). I can't figure out how to fix it right now. | |||
Given the absence of evidence linking this attack to al-Qaeda I am removing the al-Qaeda info box.--] (]) 00:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
''-FS'' ] (]) 17:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Please delete the implied speculation == | |||
== edited explosive used. == | |||
'The 7 July attacks occurred the day after London had won its bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games, which had highlighted the city's multicultural reputation.' | |||
I edited the explosive used, it was not TATP, it was concentrated hydrogen peroxide and pepper, according to the coroner https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/01/july7-uksecurity | |||
Meaning what? That the white supremacist suicide bombings were planned to disrupt any celebration, should London have won its 'multicultural' Olympic bid??? ] (]) 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
If someone would like to add that as a reference, I don't know how, perhaps mentioning that the coroner said the explosive was "entirely unique", that would be good. | |||
:Totally bizarre interpretation. Text reinstated. ] (]) 21:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
Some notes: | |||
:::I NEVER TOUCHED, the text. | |||
the detonator used HMTD. No TATP involved. | |||
:::Should we also include ... the number of shopping days there were left before Christmas? Which would be about as relevant as the inconsequential statement. ] (]) 22:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
The 21/7 bombers used concentrated hydrogen peroxide oxidiser and chapatti flour fuel. afaik (I should) these are the only concentrated hydrogen peroxide /fuel bombings anywhere, though CHP/Fuel explosives were implicated in the "liquid explosive" plot, operation overt. | |||
== Lead Paragraph - Islamists == | |||
I have looked at the revision history and see that for years the killers were described as, "home-grown terrorists" (, and . The March 2014 change is a challenge to the term, 'homegrown' but the editor also removed 'terrorist'. This appears inadvertent but went unchallenged at the time and has remained unchallenged, as far as I can tell. I am challenging this now as the killers and their murderous spree was not solely the outcome of them being ]s but, more concisely, the outcome of them being Islamist, ] - terminology which according to the Wiki lead includes, "the use of extreme tactics such as bombing and assassinations for achieving perceived Islamic goals". That is precisely what these killers did. I think to revert to the previous, longstanding 'terrorist' is insufficient as it still leaves 'Islamist' standing as the primary descriptor of the killers (it almost goes without saying that they were terrorist, after all). ''Just as there's a world of difference between Christians and Christian extremists...'' And that important difference (it's not minor) is made all the more important in a record of such a barbarous event. | |||
Peter Fairbrother ] (]) 13:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
Far from editing a description that has stood for years, I am correcting an edit from last year that to all intents looks inadvertent or superfluous.] (]) 02:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 17:55, 20 October 2024
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 7 July 2005 London bombings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 7, 2006, July 7, 2008, July 7, 2010, July 7, 2011, July 7, 2013, July 7, 2015, and July 7, 2018. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||
|
Which Lines?
While the description of the third bombing specifies it was on the Piccadilly Line, the descriptions of the other two don't specify which lines were targeted. This might be information of interest to readers (like this one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.162 (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Am I misunderstanding, as they say
- "The first exploded on a 6-car London Underground C69 and C77 Stock Circle line sub-surface train" and "The second device exploded in the second car of another 6-car London Underground C69 and C77 Stock Circle line sub-surface train"
- Can you be more specific?Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Memorialisation of Offenders
My apologies if this is covered in the extensive archives - I ran a few searches but didn't find any results. I've arrived on this page whilst looking for information following the Manchester attack this week, and I wondered what Misplaced Pages policy was on the memorialisation of offenders whose only claim to notability was the crime they committed. I think this question is particularly relevant in cases of ideological terrorism where the propaganda - the 'myth', as it were, of the terrorist - is more important to their professed cause than the crime they actually commit. In other words, while they aim to kill as many people as they can, that's only a means to an end for them: the true end is to frighten and divide societies, and deny them the ability to live freely.
I don't wish to diminish the need to remember those murdered by such acts, and this isn't about forgetting the crimes themselves. And I realise there are arguments for "learning as much as we can" about such offenders and their motivations, and the process by which a person might be so indoctrinated. I also accept that Misplaced Pages tries to maintain a neutral point of view and generally isn't in the business of censoring material. However, I wonder whether dedicating entire articles to the perpetrators, as linked from this article, providing their names, photographs, history, and so on, is entirely proportionate even according to those principles.
My sense that these murderers should not be memorialised does, I admit, stem from a sense of frustration that justice cannot be served on those who destroy themselves in the commission of their crimes. Their memory, then, is all there is left to sanction. I don't come here to ask for full-scale damnatio memoriae - but I would at least suggest we can afford to remove the names and photographs of the killers. Those details are unimportant to any of the above concerns: we do not need them to learn about the offenders' backgrounds, or study the process of their indoctrination and radicalisation. At the very, very least, I question the need to maintain full articles for each of them.
I apologise if this request is overly emotional, but I hope I have made a reasonably balanced case despite that. -- Trillioris (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Nationality table
The nationality table duplicates the info in text (though less complete since it does not mention the dual nationals). It also has the controversial 'flags', which are generally deemed inapt in situations in which people are not 'representing' their counties. If there is no objection, I will remove (or 'hide') the table. Pincrete (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Map in infobox
The map shows the locations of Liverpool Street (1) and Kings Cross St. Pancras (3) but the article states the bombs exploded close to Aldgate (1) and Russell Square (3). There should be some consistency. --TBM10 (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Lockerbie
The explosion did not take place over Lockerbie. The remains of the plane landed on Lockerbie. Basic stuff. See here, Fig. B4. --John (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- It is universally referred to by variants of 'Lockerbie bombing' in the UK. If you want to impose a non-UK description onto an article on an English subject - thereby making it unrecognisable to a UK audience - what can I say! I've amended to 'near' Lockerbie, but honestly getting pedantic about whether the airspace around Lockerbie is 'over' it or not is silly. Much of the attack on Pearl Harbor didn't actually happen in PH itself - but it happens to be how the event is named. If you want we can remove 'Pan Am Flight 103' and simply pipe 'Lockerbie bombing' - I don't want to do that as I realise it is not recognisable to a US audience and putting Lockerbie and Scotland locates the event to all. Pincrete (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Calling it the Lockerbie bombing would be fine. Misplaced Pages usually uses flight numbers to identify air disasters, which I am also fine with. But we must not say that the plane exploded over Lockerbie, because it did not. --John (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've amended to 'near Lockerbie' .... unless you are from the Lockerbie area of Scotland, the name immediately triggers memories of this event to a UK reader, in the way that such dramatic events become associated with place names. Pincrete (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Calling it the Lockerbie bombing would be fine. Misplaced Pages usually uses flight numbers to identify air disasters, which I am also fine with. But we must not say that the plane exploded over Lockerbie, because it did not. --John (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
First Muslim suicide bombing, or first suicide bombing?
Clearly it was both, but it looks a bit stupid, or worse, bigoted, to repeat the former when the latter is the greater claim, is sourced in the article to this solid source, and we have already stated the religion of the suspected perpetrators. --John (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm normally one for removing unnec emphasis of 'Islamic/ist" - in this instance I think it being the first, and one of the most deadly attacks with an Islamist motive is in a sense at least as important as the method (suicide bombing). It isn't actually their religion which is stated earlier, except in the sense that Islamic terrorists are ordinarily Muslims! Maybe a text can be found that avoids the repetition. Pincrete (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Motive
I am not sure a motive is the same as the act carried out. The attackers were not motivated by Islamic terrorism, but by Islamic extremism, how they responded to that motivation was Islamic terrorism.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with your logic about the terms verbally - but extremism is a broader phenomenon, which does not necessarily lead to violence. We write of 'right-wing terrorism' being a motive I believe, though it likewise is an act, rather than a motive. Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Do we, can you give an example?Slatersteven (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)2011 Norway attacks
- 2011 Norway attacks, has 'Far-right extremism' as motive, also I believe some of the US far-right events have 'white supremacism' - which is more like the motivating beliefs behind the event than a motive. Actually in this instance, the perps gave specific motives (anger at Western actions in Muslim countries). Most similar articles have 'Is Ter' as motive. Is Islamic extremism any more a motive than Islamic terrorism, doesn't it simply characterise their beliefs? Also do sources describe extremism as the motive? I looked at several IRA events, many do not have a motive, but clearly Irish Republicanism would be the background 'philosophy', but not in itself a 'motive' in the ordinary sense of the word. I think it legitimate to put the motivating character of the event, rather than literal motive - which in this event was to cause as much mayhem and bloodshed as possible for reasons that don't make a lot of sense. Pincrete (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- So no then you have no examples of "far right terrorism " as a motive.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- 2011 Norway attacks, has 'Far-right extremism' as motive, also I believe some of the US far-right events have 'white supremacism' - which is more like the motivating beliefs behind the event than a motive. Actually in this instance, the perps gave specific motives (anger at Western actions in Muslim countries). Most similar articles have 'Is Ter' as motive. Is Islamic extremism any more a motive than Islamic terrorism, doesn't it simply characterise their beliefs? Also do sources describe extremism as the motive? I looked at several IRA events, many do not have a motive, but clearly Irish Republicanism would be the background 'philosophy', but not in itself a 'motive' in the ordinary sense of the word. I think it legitimate to put the motivating character of the event, rather than literal motive - which in this event was to cause as much mayhem and bloodshed as possible for reasons that don't make a lot of sense. Pincrete (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Do we, can you give an example?Slatersteven (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)2011 Norway attacks
- I said 'I believe' - it was from memory and the main point was that a 'general descriptor' was often used, rather than a motive in the common criminal meaning. How exactly is 'extremism' a motive? Pincrete (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Alexander Litvinenko claim
Is this claim worthy of inclusion? Since the claim is so vaguely worded and the coverage in RS so thin, I'm inclined to think not, but am happy to follow what others think. I HAVE already removed the "Other theories" heading, such that the text is now in "Conspiracy theories" section. Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I say it was bollocks, with absolutely piss-poor sourcing. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:RSPSS. Indymedia (given as the only reference in the claim) is categorised as a "generally unreliable source". Without any other source to back up the claim I think it should be deleted immediately. --10mmsocket (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Islamophobia
I was surprised there was not a single reference to Islamophobia in this article, as the 7/7 attacks led to a lot of Islamophobia. I will add it to the See Also section, but I think that someone more knowledgeable than I should add a section regarding Islamophobia to the article. Thanks! Education-over-easy (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- You do not have to be knowledgeable about any subject to contribute to an article on Misplaced Pages. What you do need to be able to do is find reliable and verifiable sources that allow to to add relevant content. Be bold. Do it yourself. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
"2005 London bombings" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect 2005 London bombings has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 12 § 2005 London bombings until a consensus is reached. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
"7.7" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect 7.7 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 1 § 7.7 until a consensus is reached. Okmrman (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Info table at top
The info table near the top has an error so it extends further to the right even though there is no text that takes up the space (on a mobile device at least). I can't figure out how to fix it right now.
-FS 2600:1700:AFD0:C30:C95:8ED6:AFDF:A776 (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
edited explosive used.
I edited the explosive used, it was not TATP, it was concentrated hydrogen peroxide and pepper, according to the coroner https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/01/july7-uksecurity
If someone would like to add that as a reference, I don't know how, perhaps mentioning that the coroner said the explosive was "entirely unique", that would be good.
Some notes: the detonator used HMTD. No TATP involved.
The 21/7 bombers used concentrated hydrogen peroxide oxidiser and chapatti flour fuel. afaik (I should) these are the only concentrated hydrogen peroxide /fuel bombings anywhere, though CHP/Fuel explosives were implicated in the "liquid explosive" plot, operation overt.
Peter Fairbrother 62.3.121.230 (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in History
- B-Class vital articles in History
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- B-Class Serial killer-related articles
- Low-importance Serial killer-related articles
- Serial Killer task force
- B-Class Terrorism articles
- High-importance Terrorism articles
- Terrorism task force articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class bus transport articles
- Low-importance bus transport articles
- WikiProject Buses articles
- B-Class Disaster management articles
- High-importance Disaster management articles
- B-Class Explosives articles
- Low-importance Explosives articles
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- Low-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- B-Class rail transport articles
- Low-importance rail transport articles
- B-Class Rapid transit articles
- Mid-importance Rapid transit articles
- WikiProject Rapid transit articles
- B-Class UK Railways articles
- Mid-importance UK Railways articles
- B-Class London Transport articles
- Top-importance London Transport articles
- WikiProject London Transport articles
- All WikiProject Trains pages
- B-Class London-related articles
- High-importance London-related articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press