Talk:Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings

This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-10. The result of the discussion was merge and redirect to 7 July 2005 London bombings.

I still think the

20:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

from main article

I have now merged in the casualty details from the main article. Andy Mabbett 10:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The number of identified casualities listed in the chart should be updated, and will need to be updated continuously as more identifications are made. The information in the chart doesn't reflect the information elsewhere in the article in this regard. Moncrief 10:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

It is a source of frustration that the dead are not being identified very quickly - the list of verified victims is up to date. the others are based on missing persons reported to the media. DavidP 04:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking hard for names, and we're still about 10 short of the "54" figure being bandied about, let alone the "74 families" with liaison/comfort officers. --Dhartung | Talk 00:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this article contains very significant information about the bombings, it definitely cannot be deleted. Please vote on the VfD page. I know it's unlikely to be deleted, but several more "Keep" votes won't hurt. Moncrief 11:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the bombers be on this page, as identified bodies if nothing else? --Dtcdthingy 00:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The suspected bombers bodies havent been identified - that is why it is prudent to refer to them as 'alleged or suspected bombers'. some personal documents have been found on the scene for two of the suspects (but that doesnt mean they were carrying them at the time of the explosions). DavidP 04:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Putting them on this page is an invitation to vandalism or edit wars, I think. Also, since they are linked to their own articles, it encourages people to create articles for individual victims, which is contrary to "Wikipedia is not a memorial" guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 00:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that, but OTOH, the 55 presumably includes them, so you'll be left with a gap when all other victims have been named --161.73.58.135 11:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That they're terrorists is an allegation; that they're bodies has been confirmed by the police. The only possible reason to omit them for now would be because they have not formally been ruled on by the coroner yet; but other names of this sort had already begun to creep into the list and I figure that official police statements are good enough. Certainly, even if we omit them now, they'll be in the list eventually. Doops | talk 05:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about injuries? Shouldn't we include these also? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By individual name, you mean? I'd say there are far too many to do an adequate job of organising them by name. Moncrief 05:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I very much doubt that the names of most of the injured are even publically available. -- Arwel 14:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't even one formal listing of the dead. I don't think the effort required is worth it (some think this page is inappropriate as it is). --Dhartung | Talk 00:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to improve page layout. Previously the table and the template interacted to chop up the text nastily at the top of the page. I am not wholly convinced that I have improved it much. In particular, the table is now separated from the paragraph it relates to. Perhaps somebody can do better? 195.157.197.108 09:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers in the intro, table, and list of casualties don't match. Andy Mabbett 21:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They still don't match (and the order of locations differs between the summary table and the detail list which is confusing). -- SGBailey 15:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050720/ids_photos_wl/r1227539137.jpg, one Turk was killed in the attacks, but not saying where. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Gamze Gunoral, on the bus. -- Arwel 22:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I already added her. Gunoral's effects were found among the wreckage of the Piccadilly Line train. --Dhartung | Talk 03:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Following my vote to «Merge [...] or Keep [...] [but] the actual list of casualties must be deleted».
• Noting that some other keep votes included the same reasoning.
• Also noting that no such discussion arisen here yet.
• Remembering that Wikipedia is not a memorial.
• Considering that these casualties are no more notable than the:
  • 68.8 million (49.3 of them civilians) at World War II
  • 15 thousand at Halhin Gol
  • More than 20 thousand at the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan
  • 18.5 thousand at 1982 Lebanon War
  • 80 (43 from a single small village of 217) at Swissair Flight 306
  • etc. (This is from a list of articles mentioning casualties retrieved by Google)

I propose that the list of casualties should be deleted. Nabla 00:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not having a single coment, neither for nor against, the list deletion, I've just deleted it.

You can see the list using this permanent link to the previous version. Nabla 18:20:40, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

This article lists two names, Kristen Allen and Izaak Allen, supposedly casualties from the Edgeware Station bomb, yet they are not listed anywhere else, including http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/victims/default.stm. Can someone please explain where these names came from?

I have merged the lead section of this article with 7 July 2005 London bombings and made this a redirect following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sjakkalle made a good work, but, in my opinion, it is not the solution.

Why? Well, it seems that there is a lot of interesting information about the 7 July events, such as, for example, about English literature. If you edit the article, you will see that it is said at the top of it: "This page is 54 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size". In the article size page, you can read this rule of thumb for splitting articles:

# >50KB - Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
# >30KB - May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size; this is less critical for lists)
# >20KB - Might need to be divided
# <20KB - Probably should not be divided

so, I think the best solution should be an independent article for the casualties, with a proper summary in the principal article.

I understant that the victims are not notable just because they died in the bombings; then, we can delete the list, but keep an article about the casualties, such as...

• World War II casualties
• Ottoman Armenian casualties
• Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003
• Casualties of the 2004 March 11 Madrid bombings
• etc.

Eynar Oxartum 01:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"These names are being listed in mass media as likely victims who have not been heard from since the morning of

or who were last seen on their way to work or at bombing sites:

• Hassan Mohammed Dahir, 19, student from Denmark"

Removed until a citation can be found.

(UTC).

Colombian casualty/injured

Where can I find about the Colombian victim mentioned in the article? It is a victim or someone who just got injured?--ometzit<col> (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A complete list of those who were killed is presently available at 7 July 2005 London bombings#Victims. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]