Talk:Four small explosions strike London's transport system

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Possible Problem with July 7 infobox[edit]

I wonder if the July 7th infobox which has been place in the 'unconfirmed reports' section needs some sort of qualification. It, at first glance, could easily be misconstrued as giving information about the events of the 21st as well. - Any way it can be clarified?

Relevance of US Embassy closure?[edit]

Not sure how relevant the US Embassy closure is to this story; a good number of institutions in London have closed early for the day. Is there a particular reason to include this one?

That's a good point; I'm taking it out. Paulrevere2005 01:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reports of Nail bomb[edit]

Sky News report suggests nail bomb in Warren St - a relatively minor explosion of a rucksack carried by a man who then "looked dismayed".
This could possibly be added in that there is a 'fact' that Sky News reported this.

Mobile Phones[edit]

Mobile phone texts blocked?? I suspect its just overload, again.

Could be overload but would be a reasonable action if mobile phones are used the same way as in the Madrid bombing.
No. The Madrid bombing phones were used as timers, using the Alarm function of the phone. So if mobile phones are used the same was as in the Madrid bombing, shutting down the network would not prevent detonation signals getting through as the device is entirely self-contained -- it would only stop people contacting emergency services.
Shepherds Bush (Hammersmith & City) is above ground. Mobiles can get signals. The situation is therefore slightly different and could involve a remotely triggered device to catch police personal checking a supposedly botched attempt.
Moreover it is right outside the BBC.

Is there any evedence that phones have been blocks against the lines just being jamed?-- 14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Network providers sometimes make more bandwidth available to the emergency services, limiting public calls (I was told after 7/7). Dan100 (Talk) 17:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small bang[edit]

BBC news has just had an intiview with an eyewitness, who says that there was a small bang from a rucksack but it didn't even hurt the guy with it on who ran off the tube and out of the station. And London Police are not traeting this as a majour incient yet.--JK the Unwise 12:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Live report on BBC World Service Radio. --Ómar Kjartan Yasin 12:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A correspondant on BBC News has reported that sourses who work for the London Undergrond are getting the message that the bombs were fake, with deternators but no explosives. --JK the Unwise 13:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was listening to the same report and it seemed rather more like the correspondant was speculating on the bombs being fake. Certainly no mention of 'fake' devices from the Met.

Bush told[edit]

What has the fact that United States President Bush has been informed of the incidents, according to the White House. got to do with anything?--JK the Unwise 13:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a damned good point. I'm going to take it out. Dan100 (Talk) 16:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Reports of police at ?Warren St following a man into a hospital.

Yes I've added it to the rumors. 'Armed police' wearing 'flak jackets' - although the reports do not allow to guess what unit they refer to. I've also read a few things about incident regarding police chasing a man, and/or shooting at a man. 14:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency numbers[edit]

Should these emergency numbers be added?


  • Central emergency number: 0870 156 6344 (Metropolitan Police)
  • Metropolitan Police: 020 7766 6020 (UK) +44 20 7766 6020 (International
  • British Transport Police: 020 8358 0101 (UK) +44 20 8358 0101 (International)
  • Those outside the UK should see the list of Foreign Ministry contact details.

(Not sure there correct they are From the wikipedia article) --JK the Unwise 13:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are correct, and I attempted to add them (but failed) Shen 13:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White powder[edit]

I heard reports that the detonated material was a white powder. I can see two possibilities with that;

  1. Badly made explosive material that failed to fully explode
  2. Some type of biological/chemical material with the smaller explosion aimed at spreading it.

Anybody hear anything either way on this yet? I do not think we should add our own speculation, but should stay alert in this regard. --Maveric149 14:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that if this was a possibility, the police would not have evacuated anyone who could have been in contact with said powder... Shen 14:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shen is right - people who could be contaminated are contained then de-comm'd on-scene. Dan100 (Talk)

Totenham Court Road[edit]

Stand on Totenham Court road long enough and you will see a man being chased by police on any given day! Line deleted.

Breaking News tag[edit]

Dan, the Breaking News tag belongs on the article, it's what the tag's for. -- NGerda 16:23, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Nick, this is a news service, if we doing our job all news is "breaking". If you want to use this, propose it and get consensus. Dan100 (Talk) 16:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has existed since the beginning of Wikinews. It is a disclaimer, which we need for an event like this. -- NGerda 16:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

The tag is for while the event is still going on, the attacks are over, as are the bulk of the reactions. The story is no longer needs the tag. Even when it was active I do not believe we needed the tag, no other news organization uses anything like. --Cspurrier 16:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think I originally made that tag. My original intent was for when all you have is one line of content ("Bomb explosion in London. More to come.") and you want to publish the article. Once there are enough details to make the article longer than a line or two, the tag would be taken off. -- IlyaHaykinson 18:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, many news organisations use a Breaking News tag. BBC News (amongst others) use it on both their televised broadcasts, and their web site. Agree that it is no longer required for this article though.--Leigh 08:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh and Ilya are right - the BBC does use a Breaking news thing on their website, but only for the first few minutes when (as Ilya says) there's only a line or so of text and "more to come". So we can use it for that, but take it off as soon as possible afterward. Dan100 (Talk) 09:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original notes[edit]

I have just watched the press conference with Ken Livingstone and a police chief. Here are my notes:

Oval lu Warrington lu Shepards bush on surface on no 26 hackney

small explosive devices

investigation changing every few minutes, must keep in mind trial at end of all this

London back in business but several LU lines closed but buses running in both directions

UXBs! some devices are

not all detonated properly - bomb squad working

Q:manhunt? A:not clear,

Q:timing? A:unclear

Q:nail bombs? A:cant confirm nor deny

Q:Other incidents - arrest at 10, UCL A:Absolutely unconnected

Q:Al-qa'da? A:too early. Similar pattern to 7/7 attacks though

Q:Casualties? Bombers among them? A:LAS took no casualty. One possible self-reporter at a hospital, connection not confirmed

Q:Working with foreign intel services? A:Too early

Q:Description of would-be bombers? A:Not yet, 2mw morning

Q:When LU back to normal? A:Nearly. Check TfL website for info. Buses replacing tubes. Bus service normal

Q:bomb in rucsac on persons back? A:Can't get into that level of detail. Lots of speculation around. Met Police only deal and report absolute truths (yay! like us! - Dan100)

Updating article accordingly. Dan100 (Talk) 17:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

homemade explosive[edit]

Simultaneous explosions but no effect = A dud batch of homemade explosive. AQ don't have a track record of faking it.

At the moment that is pure conjecture. It may well be the case that this is the work of sympathisers or just copy-cats but with no facts adding this to the article would be pure editorial.

Absolutely. It's interesting info, for sure, but on wikinews we must have sources for everything we put in our articles. Dan100 (Talk) 17:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia gets CNN broadcast mention[edit]

In televised coverage by CNN, a blog coverage report by that news organization talked of the recent 'attempted' London bombings. The report noted the live and on-going coverage by Wikipedia. I think it bows to the more in depth coverage given at Wikis and blogs. -Edbrown05 20:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I find of particular interest, is that Wikipedia to some extent uses Wikinews as raw material for their own reporting. -Edbrown05 20:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
News is first vetted here, then if it makes sense, it gets more rounded coverage at Wikipedia. Is this a bad thing....<--nope. To me it means all people who have an opinion or comment on the news should express it here in this forum, Wikinews. -Edbrown05 20:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews must be wide open and unafraid of all truthful, bogus, and opinionated reports of persons who express themselves. -Edbrown05 20:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You almost make Wikinews sound like a journalistic 'washing-machine'. I suppose thats no bad idea - perhaps one many of us here aspire to.

If you have something new, start a new article[edit]

This article should not be changed further - if you have new info start a new article. We're a news service, not an encyclopaedia, so rather than changing existing articles we start new ones. Dan100 (Talk) 08:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]