Jump to content

Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Snowded (talk | contribs) at 21:08, 1 August 2010 (→Peter Power on TV and Radio). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:PL showcase article


Article Title

Is it a Wikipedia standard to represent dates in the format 1 January rather than for example January 1 or 1st January ? Springald 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Wikipedia standard to follow relative local dating standards. This article refers to an event in the United Kingdom, so the UK format (dd/mm/yyyy) is used. The events of the eleventh day of September, 2001, in New York, are referred to in the US format (mm/dd/yyyy). Liam Plested 12:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it is the local dating standard in the United Kingdom to represent dates as "1st January" rather than "1 January", which is considered an Americanism. I, having just searched for "7th July 2005" and found no results, would prefer this article to be titled "7th July ..." as opposed to "7 July ...". Any objections/reasons for it to be otherwise? Blindsuperhero (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can "7 July" be an "Americanism," when the American version would be "July 7th"? In either case, the suffix is not now seen as obligatory. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it should be 7th July 80.2.18.139 (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed - the UK usage is 7th July 2005, not 7 July 2005. Why is the page move-protected when there is consensus against the current title? Little Professor (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can and should the the article not change its name from 7 July 2005 to 7th of July 2005? Failed search (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Americans. And they don't even realise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.81.157 (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a few years late, but read WP:DATE#Dates. Wikipedia never uses a "th" suffix on any dates, British or American, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 09:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From article

Moved here, because it didn't fit and I didn't know where to put it:

01 March 2006. BBC News 22:30 PM The Metropolitan Police admit that it was a mistake to shut down the mobile telephone networks in the immediate aftermath of the July 7th attacks. This directly contradicts statements by the mobile telephone network operators and the Police at the time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4763350.stm
"Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair has criticised his City of London colleagues for shutting down the mobile phone network on 7 July"

æle ✆ 00:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROTEST:

Some very important FACTS about the 7/7 London bombings are left out and place on a page called: "rumours and conspiracy theories" while the main page contain the rumour (which is the official story) that this was an al-Qeada like attack, which is non-factual and contrary to evidenc that it was an act of state-terrorism

Note 1: Wiki pages covering a subject should first of all be based on facts. I see there fore no reason (for the merit of being factual) of leaving out very important information which proves that, amongst others:

  • The bombings occured at exactly the same time and location as a previously planned counter-terror drill occured.

This fact alone, which is well documented and of which video footage exists, already shows a very imortant fact, leading to the conclusion that this was not an 'authentic' terrorist attack, but must be planned by government secret agencies. Very much like Gladio performed several of such bombings and terrorist attacks in the 80-ies (Bologna, for instance).

Note 2: By placing such important facts and not distinguish REAL rumours from FACTS and also by using the term "conspiracy" (as if the official story is NOT a conspiracy!!!) is a biased way (showing POV by the way, and therefore inclining Wiki's own policy!!) of covering this bombing event!

There is sufficient PROOF that the 7/7 London bombing was an act of STATE TERRORISM! The current page with the (wrong/biased) title : "rumours and conspiracy theories about July 7 London bombings" contains (apart from some also mentioned but not yet established facts and/or rumours on that page, which could stay as long and in sofar as they are not factual) a series of documented facts about the drills, the behaviour of the 'terrorists' which do not match suicide bombers, and the established fact that the train tables (as in the official story) can't be right (are physical impossible).

The RUMOUR (that is: government and media lies) is that this was an al-Qeada alike attack, nd this should of course be distinguished from the ESTABLISHED FACTS!

I PROPOSE therefore that the REAL facts are placed on this page, which are the ESTABLISHED FACTS which show that it was an act of STATE TERRORISM, and that the government/media rumours and lies, are translocated to a seperate page, listed as: "goverment/media rumours and lies about the 7/7 London bombings".

As a remark to this: I think it's very strange that such biased opinions on this subject keep appearing here on Wiki, that government lies and media lies keep appearing and that the world community does not correct them. That is, the real story and facts do appear, but in such a way that it is hidden and is made to be ridiculed and not treated as very serious and also factual information!! It's a shame for Wikipedia, which was intended to refrain from such government and media lies, and show the real facts which can be known and should be known by the public.

This subject is highly important! The repeating of government lies and media lies, should be stopped, and Wikipedia should re-establish the REAL facts, which can be controlled by the mass population, it is one of the weapons we still have to beat these LIES!!!!

We should be aware of such things, and keep Wikipedia standards up, and not lowering it because of the repeated propaganda from media and government stories!

Heusdens 04:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, what is on the "Rumours" page is the usual mish-mash of lies, distortions, halt-truths and a smattering of misleadingly-cited actual truths that conspiracy theories are invariably composed of. The fact that these theories exist and are circulated merits their documentation, but that does not - and should not - imbue them with any legitimacy.
The often claimed "evidence" that there was a "similar" anti-terror exercise or exercises in progress at the same time or just before the attacks, for example, overlooks the fact that dozens of such exercises take place every week. And of course it should not be a surprise if the planners of those exercises envisage similar or the same sort of attacks that would occur to potential terrorists. Nick Cooper 10:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A anti-terror drill on the same day. Well Ok, that is probable, if those drills occur frequently. But on the exact same time and location? Have you done any statistical analysis of how (un)probable that is? Not impossible, but very improbable.

Heusdens (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltic Exchange bomb exploded mere minutes before my then employer was due to start a major disaster recovery exercise based in the Broadgate building. By the above logic, the bomb was detonated not by the IRA, but by a secret cabal within Bankers Trust, probably in cahoots with Mossad, MI5 and the Lizard Alliance. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heusdens, a little bit of info for you. Prison Planet is run by an american white supremasist, post 9/11 his sad "theories" have become popular with muslims and moonbats alike. Please go away and stop bothering editors unless you have real information from decent sources.Hypnosadist 11:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, no wonder the world is in such a mess, with apologists like that trying to excuse the bombers. If you have verifiable, independent evidence ot your allegations then provide it instead of keep claiming you have it it, oh and not just evidence from lunatic conspiracy sites!

FYI: I do NOT "excuse" any of the bombers!!!!! The only point is if we really know who the bombers are and what their intent was!

Heusdens (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnosadist (what a choice of username!) FYI this is a DISCUSSION page, not the editorial page. There are credible sources that might be of interest. Please check this video documentary: Ludicrious Diversion and this video documentary Mind the Gap Heusdens 09:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, discussion of the established FACTS which should - or should not - be included in the article, not wild conspiracy theories woven out of lies, misinterpretations and coincidences, all of which can be rebutted with rational analysis of what really happened. Nick Cooper 12:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

london bombing

hello, i would like know how this affected the travel and tourism industry ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.137.207 (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

death count

the box on the side says 56 people died, the introductory text mentions 52 - this should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.33.170 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

52 + 4 bombers = 56. Fences&Windows 21:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers killled

The existing text matches is similar to that used for 9/11 which is "2,973 victims and the 19 hijackers died as a result of the attacks". I would support a change to that form of words, but do not support the "were killed by the bombers" that SlaterStephen has sought to introduce. If the sourced number is 56 not 52 then change the number, that is a different issue. --Snowded TALK 06:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problom with changing it to 56, I just felt it better ti keep the text as unchanged as possible. Actualy it does not match the above text. It says that 52 people were killed, the line about the bombers is seperate and there is no indication that the figure 52 does not include them, unlike the text above.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we change it to the above form. Its better than the current but avoids the "they killed them" words. If no objections I will make that change later --Snowded TALK 14:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy"

This was once covered by a lengthy and separate "alternative theories" page, but that page with all its (admittedly dubious) detail has been squashed into this article as a five-line generalised and dismissive paragraph. The current section imparts very little information, and there are no links out to any related material either. Those coming to this page to get such information are thus bereft of any leads at all for further reading. I have noted the above discussion section "No conspiracy drama please" that insists that there ought be no such links as "they are conspiracy theory sites and sprout the usual conspiracy nuttery". That is hardly NPOV!, and there may be may readers who are interested in discovering more about these "nutty theories" that, according to this very article, 24% of UK Muslims agree with, in the same way that there are no doubt those who want to know a bit more about, for example, "flat-earthers" (who do have their own article). As there is an aversion to having informative content within the article itself, I am going to provide a link out to a single, dedicated site (http://www.julyseventh.co.uk) that analyses many of these theories in detail (and, for what its worth, discards most of them: the focus of the site is on the unknowns and getting a public inquiry, rather than wild speculation), together with providing a huge quantity of media reaction and undisputed factual data from official sources. I'm also not too sure how to put this politely, so I apologise in advance: I don't expect the link to be removed, unless of course it is replaced with proper article content, without some proper reasoning ("conspiracy theories are nutty" or some variation thereof is simply not good enough), and will revert/dispute as necessary, as this seems to be yet another article (as per discussion above) with controversial aspects excised by an opinionated clique. 188.126.84.67 (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the CT / inquiry paragraphs, and merged them to make their content flow better (they ought to be dealt with together: the perceived element of doubt in the official narrative fuels both the CT and the calls for an inquiry). I'm not entirely satisfied with the result (it is structured in such a way as to read slightly pro-CT), but it seems much improved. I have also included a link to the site I mentioned above (to my knowledge, it is the most balanced and detailed site that deals with the possibility of CT): I am not keen on the way I have included it in the body of the text, but am mindful that a link will have less prominence within a CT-only section than putting it with the other external links at the bottom of the article. Amendments and comment welcome :) 188.126.84.67 (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation in lead - where's Jihad, Islamism, etc?

I only see "objection to british involvement in war" in the lead. Nothing about Islam, Islamism, global Jihad or al Queda. Is PC being enforced where anybody that tries to make such a statement will be reverted, or would anybody object if I added it? Bachcell (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Olympics?

shouldn't something be mensioned about the fact that just a day before the attacks, London had won the right to host the olympics? this event could be related to the attack, be it a wild thoery. --130.218.173.5 (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the French Secret Service have a long and inglorious history of blowing up things their government isn't keen on, I somehow doubt that they'd be involved. And I can't imagine that anyone would go to all the trouble that the alleged bombers did just on the off-chance that London actually won the Olympics. Mr Larrington (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You find the source we can put it in.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Peter Power on TV and Radio

Deleted Item:

Peter Power (crisis management specialist) appeared on ITV and BBC Radio saying that he was involved in a rehearsal of exactly the bombing scenario that morning. [1]


A highly relevant entry that shows much about the doubtful personality of Peter Power. He goes on TV and Radio on the same day of the london terror attacks (his motive is clear, he wants publicity, he most likely fears something). He claims (with HIS emphasis, not mine) some incedible tale (HIS neck hairs, not mine) Then later pathetic attempts to "put things into perspective" only raise more questions. CLEARLY this is an addition to the article. The beat-to-death-argument "conspiracy theory" does not even apply here. Peter Power went on BBC Radio and National TV in order to achieve something. He could have said nothing, no reporter obligated him to come on air, he did it himself. This wikipedia article is about him and WHAT HE DOES. He goes on TV. He is in the SECURITY BUSINESS, it was his big day. It is prominent in his resumé, Snowded must not censor it.

I just mention it here, then the wikipedia-overlords label it a heresy and delete it. I am appalled. What century does User:Snowded live in? I would like to lodge a complaint about him.

On second sighting I see this theme has been here before. Snowded, if you must, you need to find a wording that leaves your world-view intact. If you absolutely need to discredt people a priori and denigrate their arguments, then do it. But this surely can't be in the name of wikipedia. Where does one lodge a complaint about you?

85.197.19.228 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a conspiracy theory insert, a casual report. There is no real third party evidence to support it. Your comments above indicate a personal attack on the individual. Its simply not relevant. --Snowded TALK 20:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me if this is to be mentioned at all it belongs in the conspiracy theory section and with other sources talking about it and jumping to conclusions, i do not see why it belongs in the Media response section and a youtube source is certainly not good enough. Oh and please dont attack other editors :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In no way did I support any conspiracy theory. Real third party evidence is provided: a BBC4 article clearly discusses the RADIO and TV appearance. I hope Snowed is not supported by moderators in claiming that the youtube videos are forgeries, since Peter Power himself does refer to them and never claims them to be fakes. Clearly the subject is also relevant because Mr Power and BBC4 were compelled to issue lenghty, repeated statements (that make the TV appearance seem even stranger). As to personal attack: Do you think that anything that reflects negatively on a Person must be expunged from Wikipedia? I am simply reporting a well known fact (recorded!) that makes one think. Since when does wikipedia think for it's readers? To revert my edits with the unsubstantiated(!) "conspiracy theory" allegation as rationale is a clear violation of a fundamental Wikipedia principle NPOV. Peter Power may or may not be a decent human being, this is not for us to decide, rather we should let facts speak. Snowed! If you still think that I am peddling a "conspiracy theory" I urge you to look at the precise wording of my insert. If someone feels that the wording hints at a hidden agenda, I must remind you that the hidden agenda is in the TV appearance of Peter Power itself. In light of grave violation of wikipedia principles I wish this topic to be discussed urgently and my edits be reinstated immediately by Snowed. 85.197.19.228 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you check into some of the related material you will see that exercises of various types are taking place most weeks so its no great coincidence. That aside, why is it relevant? What does it possibly add? Calm down a bit and make a case for relevance with some reliable third party citations that show it is relevant, not just an odd interview on YouTube --Snowded TALK 15:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did check into the related material. The relevance is threefold: The first issue is why Peter Power went on air and why his neck-hairs stood up. Not only is a Television appearance not a small matter, but also is the content of his statements rather grave (in his and the interviewer's mind. I stay neutral on this!) You can clearly sense the astonishment on the part of the journalist, he had to re-question Peter Power, and Peter Power reiterated the significance. The second is the need for BBC 4 to issue a separate article to downplay the significance, using largely irrelevant arguments to ostentatiously demonise instead of reporting on Peter Power's statements in the space he needed to clarify. Thirdly the clarification that Peter Power offered -- in a public forum that puts him on the same level as the many people who question his motives -- has added to the debate. "There are many rehearsals every day" should have not raise specialist Peter Power's neck-hairs in the first place. The "precise locations" did. In his forum entry he correctly addresses exactly that point, but also downplays his Radio and TV appearance. He wants it to be forgotten, understandbly. But Wikipedia is not about covering up significant events, it is rather the opposite. Overall, the issue of a confused security professional is relevant, to the events of 7/7 and Peter Power himself, and I feel to wikipedia now too. It is not neutral to disparage the Radio and TV recordings as "just an odd interview". The significance of such interviews (when recorded for posterity) is that they cannot be undone. Any concept mentioned in that timeframe can certainly be put into perspective, but instead of clearing up a misunderstanding or rectifying a statement or apologising for an incorrect statement the fact remains that as late as 2009 Peter Power communicated publicly regarding a an event he considers meaningless. There is no phantasy here, no innuendo, no distortion, no exaggeration and no speculation. All there is is a significant event that happened in british media, on the very day of a huge terror attack, and is still continuing with the participation of the main protagonist. Mysterious or not, it's there and relevant to the events of July the 7th in London. 85.197.19.228 (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got any material other than the C4 report, his blog and the YouTube? If this was significant there would be more sources and material from reliable sources. --Snowded TALK 18:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was also mentioned by the BBC:[1]. Fences&Windows 00:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that is in the YouTube video - minor one time report not repeated --Snowded TALK 05:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowed, please accept that those two recordings (stored on youtube) is a reliable source in this case, because the ACTUAL RECORDING is available there. It is reliable, for at least three reasons. 1 - The BBC has implicitly accepted it as authentic. 2 - Mr Power has, too. 3 - a fake would be nearly impossible without 1or2 complaining. Previously you have claimed that youtube is an unreliable source per se. This is like saying your local library is an unreliable source. As explained above (please read!) BBC itself would not drag the recordings from their archives because they are "careful" where security matters are concerned. 85.197.19.228 (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to leave a link to the YouTube recording on the Power page, but I don't see any relevance of the whole item to this page. I come back to an earlier question - are there any other reliable sources that even mention this? It is a minor report on the day, heavily qualified in subsequent interviews. It has a lot of chat in conspiracy theory circles but its not notable here.--Snowded TALK 18:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As explained below, in security matters reliable sources (military/state/corporate or "official" point of view) are sometimes hard to come by. But they may come later. For example, if you had searched for a reliable source for the war-crimes in Afghanistan last week, you would have had to accept the official sources (very few prosecutable war crimes). There simple is not a single "reliable" media that allows a dissident viewpoint to enter the "reliable zone". This week everything changed with the wikileaks revelation. Der Spiegel and The Guardian still stop short of demanding a war crimes tribunal against the USA, but the actual data shows so many prosecutable war crimes that the mind is repelled. You have work to do. In other words, please be careful when labelling something a conspiracy theory next time. CT is beat-to-death argument bordering on omerta. One is sometimes forced to wade through the phantasies of conspiracy lunatics. Facts must always be allowed to stand, even if the Beep does not report on it. Wikileaks has done more for democracy recently than all newspapers combined. Peter Power had a secret exercise and was himself flabbergasted. Entirely worth the mention in his (and this) article. Therefore I request to re-include the above Peter Power one-liner 85.197.19.228 (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if a reliable source comes along later then it can be included. But not until then. What you have is a minor "fact" which received no prominence other than in conspiracy theory books etc. All conspiracy theories have some facts at their heart, its the implications or conclusions that make them fringe theories. You are expressing a lot of personal opinions above. Wikipedia does not work from personal opinion. There is no published material which says that the Power quote has anything to do with 7/7 other than as a minor curiosity on the day. Until you can produce something more by way of evidence it has no place here.--Snowded TALK 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Secretive Events

A concept that I ask Wikipedia NPOV-policy to adjust to.

I shall discuss how wikipedia deals with facts and events that are not in the interest of the reference-media. The prevailing opinion seems to be that there are enough alternatives so that an "inconvenient" fact still is expressed and explained and described en detail (i.e. reference-able), and hence references to those alternatives are plentiful and easy to find. It is not commonsensical to attribute total impartiality to corporate and state media. Likewise it is ludicrous to assume blogs etc to be impartial. But this is beside the point. The question at hand is the corporate-media unwillingness to talk about secret-service or security-related issues. Those issues that concern everyone the most. Established "big media" deems itself "responsible" and it is "careful" (censors) where "security" matters are concerned. The 2005 London bombings fall into a time of Blair and Bush Gleichschaltung of the BBC and other big media. While Gleichschaltung is too harsh a word, the effect is the same. Propaganda is a fact, so is Operation Mockingbird and the Mighty Wurlitzer. These abominations only effect big media, unlike the Gleichschaltung. The recent Wikileaks example is instructive, for Wikileaks offered the Pentagon veto of parts of the publication, which declined. Yet Wikileaks is still accused of endangering security. The public right to know is being upheld by pirates, essentially. secrecy is enormous and on the scale of stalinist societies[2]. So much for big media and their reference-status. One has to take them with a grain of salt. Especially in case of security (terrorism) their omission is not an indication of less gravity, neither is their downplaying or focussing on selected information. I have repeatedly observed that the english Wikipedia has a overly negative attitude to "conspiracy theories", and is not ashamed to mix and match wording until -- even most reasonable -- conspiracy theories sound awful. The one exception is Gladio which I recommend to every wikipedia moderator who is concerned about comspiracy theories. Here the facts were so overwhelming that wikipedia has, in effect, accused most western secret services of mass murder. In the case at hand there are a considerable number of facts that "conspiracy theorists" have interpreted as proof. Many of these "facts" are more compelling than in the August 1980 Bologna bombing case (which has it's 30th anniversary today, but have a look how much you can read of it in the big media!), The London terrorist attack is on the same scale yet the treatment it receives is very different, only partly justifiably so. The part which I find unjustifiable is the wilful concealment of the following similarities of the various terror attacks: The political outcomes, the treatment by the press, the stonewalling of the people responsible, the fishy investigations and the final "all is now good" commission reports. These are so common to almost all such terror attacks that omitting work on a serious in-depth treatment -- at least on the conspiracy-theories-pages -- is negligent and certainly incompatible with a NPOV. That said. I still want you to insert the above short sentence in both the London 2005 Bombings and the Peter Power pages, simply to allow the thinking process that is started by a wikileaks-like openness. Like Wikileaks publishes the actual war-crimes evidence (unverified, like youtube) the words that Mr.Power actually spoke need to be referenced. Instead, busybody Snowed deleted the simple one-line-fact (repeatedly) and now has replaced it with words that do not match the original in clarity. He referenced an obviously partisan article in BBC4 (that bristles with innuendo) and now does not truly inform the wikipedia reader. I have now added the transscript of the TV and Radio Interview, for clarity.) -- PLEASE ADJUST WIKIPEDIA NPOV POLICY REFLECTING ON THE PROBLEM ABOVE. 85.197.19.228 (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not the place to change wikipedia policy. You need to do that elsewhere. As far as this article is concerned we work from reliable sources, no matter what our personal opinion. --Snowded TALK 16:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKvkhe3rqtc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEbUQiYOGjU http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/coincidence%20of%20bomb%20exercises/109010
  2. ^ Washington Post, "Top Secret America"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:7_July_2005_London_bombings&oldid=376649021"