Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)