Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Verify : Update and convert external links to use {{ref}} and {{note}}
Priority 1 (top)
I have added Talk:2005 London bombing/MissingInfo for people to list bits that have been lost in the course of ongoing edits so they can be added back later if required. SimonLyall 7 July 2005 12:29 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Intro/grammar
It is grammatically incorrect to start any sentence with a numerical number. Therefore:
Wrong - "52 other people were killed and around 700 were injured."
Right - "Fifty two other people were killed and around 700 were injured."
I cannot do it myself because of a page lock.. Besides the whole paragraph should be rewritten the more I think about it.
"The explosions appear to have been caused by home-made organic peroxide-based devices, packed into rucksacks and detonated by the bombers themselves, all four of whom died. 52 other people were killed and around 700 were injured."
How can they "appear to have been"? That's ambiguous nonsense? The bombers were either using organic peroxide or not. Were they using peroxide bombs as found from the forensic evidence? If they were, then state it because it was not another kind of device. Furthermore this entire sentence is over packed with too many clauses and facts. It reads like a grammatical-overstuffed mouth. Good writing keeps it clear and simple. This rewrite would be better:
"All four bombers died when they detonated home-made bombs concealed in their rucksacks using explosives created from organic peroxides. In total 52 people were killed and around 700 more were injured in the four blasts."
Dead link 2
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!
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
How can it be relevant that no single PIRA attack killed as many people, but not relevant that the RIRA bomb at Omagh killed more than any of the 7/7 bombs? --Flexdream (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for proving you have no argument. And should you wish to know which reliable sources support the inclusion of the former, you'll find that's the question you should have asked when your initial edit was reverted. Then if none are forthcoming, remove the policy violating material. You don't add more policy violating material... 2 lines of K30309:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
That would be the part of the policy right at the top reading "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" . 2 lines of K30314:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I refer you to the part of my comment reading "And should you wish to know which reliable sources support the inclusion of the former, you'll find that's the question you should have asked when your initial edit was reverted. Then if none are forthcoming, remove the policy violating material. You don't add more policy violating material..." Your attempt at removal was reverted here, therefore per WP:CONSENSUS the onus shifts to you to discuss it. Obviously the same doesn't apply to new content you are adding, if that is reverted the onus is again on you to discuss it. 2 lines of K30309:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I won't. The initial removal of long-standing (I assume, feel free to find out exactly how long it's been there if you want) content was reverted (not by me, obviously), so it's up to those seeking removal to gain consensus. As I've already said it's problematic content and I'd like to see sources supporting its inclusion, but that isn't dealt with by adding more problematic content. 2 lines of K30309:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2007-10-25
