This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Brighton, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BrightonWikipedia:WikiProject BrightonTemplate:WikiProject BrightonBrighton articles
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 articles
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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hotels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the
hospitality industry, including
hotels,
motels,
resorts, and
destination spas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HotelsWikipedia:WikiProject HotelsTemplate:WikiProject HotelsHotels articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Irish republicanism and
Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish RepublicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismIrish Republicanism articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to
the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in
limited circumstances)
Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as
outside opinions.
The Margeret Thatcher page claims Thatcher was saved because she was in the bathroom when the bomb went off, and thus avoided the bomb blast.
This article says she wasn't in the bathroom, and that the blast "shredded through her bathroom".
At least one of these accounts has to be wrong. What really happened? --
FirstPrinciples 07:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)reply
One of her biographers, John Campbell, says this:
She was very lucky to survive unscathed. The bomb ripped out the whole central section of the hotel and badly damaged her bathroom. When it went off, just before three in the morning, she had just been putting the finishing touches to her speech for the next day with Ronnie Millar and John Gummer. As they left, Robin Butler came in with a last letter for her to sign before she got ready for bed. But for that, she would have been in the bathroom at the critical moment and, though she might not have been killed, she would certainly would have suffered serious injury from flying glass. Her sitting room, however, and the bedroom where Denis [Thatcher] was asleep, were undamaged.--[Campbell, The Iron Lady, p. 430.]--
Johnbull 13:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loathed Mrs Thatcher and her regime with a vengeance, and think that the only thing wrong with the Brighton bomb was that it was much too small, but is it right to just call her 'Thatcher' instead of 'Mrs Thatcher' or 'Margaret Thatcher'?. Love her or hate her, she was/is a human being.
160.84.253.241 10:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)reply
It's common practice to often refer to someone by their full name in the first instance, then family name after that, which is what this article does. Others, including
the BBC,
The Times and
CNN do the same.
Bazza 12:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Fairy Nuff. I hadn't noticed how widespread it had become. I always used to associate it with describing criminals, i.e. "When arrested; Parker (34) denied involvement.....", but now it seems to be used for everybody.
160.84.253.241 13:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I think that only applies when referring to men, and those links bear that out - Mel Gibson, for example, is referred to after the first mention as "Gibson", but Diane Sawyer is consistently called "Ms Sawyer". And on Wimbledon it's always been "Game, set and match Miss Navratilova", or whatever. It - or I - may be chauvinist, but it strikes me as disrespectful to refer to a woman by her surname only.--
Dub8lad1 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Do demons really have genders?
70.71.188.156 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Stop your whining. In the correct environment, we are ALL capable of evil. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
193.95.151.196 (
talk) 09:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC).reply
How many bombs?
The article is a little confusing. The first section mentions "two large bombs" and repeatedly talks about "the bombs". But the Magee section states "he planted the bomb" (singular). Were there two bombs? Did Magee plant both of them?
--
Nickj69 08:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I read an account of the bombing recently in which went into detail on the planting of the bomb, in which it stated the bomb was planted in the actual wall void between the bathroom and the adjoining room, by magee and another unnamed bomber, I will have a look for it and post the details here.--
padraig 13:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Okay. I think if we can get to the bottom of where the bomb was hidden it might be worth adding. The article's hardly long.
Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)reply
There was a TV documentry on this a few years ago where they showed how the bomb was behind a bath panel and the timer unit (from a video recorder) was the first use of such a type of device in a terrorist attack in the UK. This was is significant because it enabled the bomb to be planted weeks before the intended attack. At the time the UK security services would have checked the names of people who had statyed at the hotel in the days before the conference but wouldnt have checked far back enough to be alerted to any known/suspected terrorists. Nor did they find the bomb during the security checks/searches prior to the conference.
80.229.222.48 (
talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Probable non-controversial change to photo caption
I was a bit confused comparing the photo taken soon after the blast and the 2004 photo. As a result, I added a caption noting that the recent photo has a new addition. Most people probably figured it out much quicker than I did. Of course, I'm sometimes an idiot.
Archtransit 17:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)reply
IRA responsibility
I restored the reference to
Provisional IRA here, as it is desirable to be clear as to which IRA was responsible.
Mooretwin (
talk) 14:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
It says right at the top, try loooking.
O Fenian (
talk) 15:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, indeed. And "the top" is meant to reflect what the article says.
Mooretwin (
talk) 11:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)reply
It does. Please stop changing the name of the building, "Sussex Police Headquarters" is the official name of the building in question.
O Fenian (
talk) 11:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)reply
It only reflects it when the text says it was the Provisional IRA.
Mooretwin (
talk)
If you have a source for the name of the building, then feel free to add the capital. Otherwise there is no reason or need for a capital.
Mooretwin (
talk) 12:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)reply
What do you believe is the rationale for that policy?
Mooretwin (
talk) 14:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Snowded/1RR
Snowded, your last revert breached 1RR, leaving you exposed to sanctions. You're a valued editor, and the majority of your edits are problem-free. Why jeopardise that?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 12:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Read
WP:BRD Gob Lofa, your edit was reverted and you reinstated it without agreement on the talk page. You can't use the 1RR restriction as an excuse to allow you to edit against consensus. You also seem to delight in childish sniping in talk page comments. If it amuses you so be it ----
SnowdedTALK 12:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Your attitude is disappointing for someone who is usually a good editor. Are you delighting in flaunting restrictions that you feel don't apply to you and, to top it all, against consensus?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 12:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
By the by, is it your intention to capitalise every definite article where
the Troubles is mentioned in the middle of a sentence?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 19:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Matthew 7:5 ----
SnowdedTALK 20:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Your religion concerns me not a whit and I have no intention of perusing your holy texts at your pleasure. Your problematic behaviour is worsening, as is your hubris.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 15:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Snowded, please stop your slow edit-warring. Is it your intention to capitalise every definite article where the Troubles are mentioned in the middle of a sentence or just the one on this page?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 17:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
You made a change, it was reverted, you got no support on the talk page. You then reverted with a misleading edit summary. You know exactly what you are doing and your childish game playing is amusing ----
SnowdedTALK 19:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Not half as amusing as your floundering. It's a very simple question, and your reluctance to answer it speaks volumes.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 19:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Always pleased to be of service ----
SnowdedTALK 19:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Your Conflation of Amusement and Service is Interesting, but I reckon you should just chalk this one down to Experience.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 21:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Whatever, just don't reinstate that change unless you get consensus on the talk page. Also waiting a few weeks in the hope the page will go off watch then making the change again is really not good practice, and its not the first time you have tried it on. Experience as you say is useful. ----
SnowdedTALK 21:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I wait for it to reappear on my watchlist because, personally, I try not to get lost in the red mist of the rush to edit-war. I know it's not your first time in that mist, but experience may stand to you in the end. "Whatever" is not the most conducive wording to a healthy debate, but you seem to be long past that anyways. Give over your 18th century capitalisation or argue your case. It's not exactly Irish history.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 21:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Disagreement is about winning or loosing unless you choose to see it that way.
WP:BRD is pretty clear and a slow edit war is still one. Waiting to see if someone else agrees with you, and if they don't accepting the default position isn't loosing either; it is simply the way wikipedia works, As to 18th capitalisation, well you are entitled to your views. ----
SnowdedTALK 08:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Snowded/1RR (2)
Snowded, your partial revert breaches 1RR. Again. It's a bit difficult to believe that an editor around as long as you doesn't know this.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 14:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I amended your change and then reverted your restoration. You seem to be under the impression that 1rr allows you to restore a contested change and not have it reverted. Not sure where you get that from. Do try and use the talk page to deal with content issues when your changes are disputed, it makes life so much easer of all concerned ----
SnowdedTALK 14:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Snowded, this was fully explained to you by others on your talk page 19 days ago. With Troubles-related articles, you're only allowed to make one revert a day; that you're contesting what you're reverting matters not a whit. Once again, it's a bit rich of you to waffle about engaging on talk pages, given your sorry history in this regard. Stop trying to game the system.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 14:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Waiting (as ever) for you to discuss a content issue here. When you do (here or elsewhere) it will be possible to engage with you. ----
SnowdedTALK 14:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Breathtaking stuff. You refuse to address your violations anywhere, on your talk page by simply deleting references to them, and here by ignoring them. Your disregard for Wikipedia policies, despite being repeatedly warned by myself and others, doesn't bode well. Take a step back for yourself.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 16:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
On second glance, I see it's not two but three reverts that you've made today, all in ten minutes. Your disruptive behaviour has no place here; your disregard for our policies is now plain.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 16:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
You really need to pay attention to
WP:BRD. You are frequently bold, you are from time to time reverted then you edit war. You then try and pretend that a reversal of any of your edits is not a reversal and so on. I don't know who you think takes this nonsense seriously and I doubt you do yourself ----
SnowdedTALK 23:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I would love to have a bit more attention paid to BRD, especially its last part. Why do you refuse to discuss your reasons for reverting? I've not taken your nonsense seriously for some time now, especially your baseless accusations about reversals. This section doesn't concern content, it concerns your blatant disregard for 1RR. Will you address that issue now or continue to warble about whatever other distraction meanders through your head? Do you believe you're talking the clock down?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 23:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I look forward to your future compliance with
WP:BRD (todate you have a poor record) and to your arguing a content case on the talk page which would allow a response in kind ----
SnowdedTALK 23:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Why the insistence on a word to avoid?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 01:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
You are proposing a change, please make a case for that change rather than asking enigmatic questions ----
SnowdedTALK 07:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
My case isn't obvious? Terrorism is a word to avoid.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 14:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
BRD has three letters, Snowded. Report here.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 15:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Not the case, where the sources clearly establish that it is seen as terrorism we label it as such. I'm not the only editor to have told you this and this is not the only article where you have attempted to remove it. You clearly do not have other editors supporting you so please stop the slow edit war. ----
SnowdedTALK 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
What do you base that on?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 16:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Feel free to take the terrorist point to ANI for clarification if you want ----
SnowdedTALK 07:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)reply
What sources are you referring to?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 16:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Where in the article are these sources used?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 10:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
We are talking about the application or not of a category as you well know. You asked for sources that established the event was terrorism, you have them. ----
SnowdedTALK 10:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
That's beautiful, Snowded. You've given us a list of scholarly articles that have both 'Brighton bombing' and 'terrorism' in them somewhere, not necessarily in the same paragraphs. Well done
[6] The only person in the article describing the attack as terrorism is Thatcher, who isn't a neutral source.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 20:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
If you want to remove the word 'terrorism' in any way from articles such as this you need the consent of the community. I suggest you bring a case, if not and if you persist in making the changes, then I will ask for a community restriction on you in this respect. ----
SnowdedTALK 06:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I've put my case. Any more Google word association?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 09:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
In the context of this article you do not have agreement to change. You have not made your case at a policy forum not I suspect are you prepared to. ANI if you carry on ----
SnowdedTALK 16:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Nor do you, and I'm prepared to have this debate anyplace. ANI if you like.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 16:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Take it there then, for the moment
WP:BRD applies, I'm not proposing a change you are. You've had a similar change rejected elsewhere. If you really want to go to ANI to have 'terrorism' removed from this article it will be interesting to see what happens. ----
SnowdedTALK 16:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, BRD applies, the last letter included. If the best defence you can make for your edit is that risible Google gimmick, what does that say for your argument? You often come across as intelligent; why does sense desert you in these matters?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 17:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
If that makes you feel better, cool. Just stop edit warring ----
SnowdedTALK 23:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
It's pretty simple, Snowded. You're insisting on a categorisation that's not backed up in the article. Why?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 23:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Take it to ANI or any other forum if your feel strongly, but I doubt you will as you probably
realise what would happen ----
SnowdedTALK 23:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
You're insisting on a categorisation that's not backed up in the article. Why?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Raise a RfC or take it to ANI, you've been answered ----
SnowdedTALK 16:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
That's your opinion. Nevertheless - you have been answered. If you're not prepared to take it to a further forum as has been suggested several times, now would be a pretty good time to stop.
Chaheel Riens (
talk) 17:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I've no problem continuing this anywhere.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 17:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
This insistence on using WTA will have to be tackled at some point, probably at one of the places you've suggested; in the meantime, this article categorises this attack in a way that's not backed up by the article, violating a lot more than WTA.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 18:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
So do it now. Why are you prevaricating? If you feel it violates a project, why are you refusing to check with that task force? All you're doing is jabbering away here, and not doing anything - despite saying you will.
Chaheel Riens (
talk) 19:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I've just looked at
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels, which says "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." So we do have an actual policy on this matter, and there's demonstrably no in-text attribution by widely used reliable sources here. Does that really need to be confirmed by contributors to the pages you've suggested?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 19:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Now you've lost me. Why do you believe that confirmation is necessary? It seems pretty clear English to me, and I haven't seen Snowded dispute it yet.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 20:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Take it to any of the suggested groups and find out.
Snowded has most likely given up in despair. Note that when he made his last comment
[7] it was refuting your arguments, and a lack of response now should not be taken to assume he now approves.
Chaheel Riens (
talk) 20:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
That wasn't a refutation, and don't worry, Snowded's approval is not something I count on at this stage. Still, I feel it would be dishonourable to report him at ANI before I know for a fact he's deliberately flouting the MOS; he may simply be unaware of it. I propose giving him a day or so to respond.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
You should take it to ANI if you feel strongly about it, the
sooner the better from my point of view given the time we are all wasting on this. No need to wait for me to respond, I've been telling you to go to the wider community for months ----
SnowdedTALK 05:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
You're telling me you were aware of this MOS, but you made that edit anyways? Why?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 05:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
(i) You made edits I reverted (ii) Yes I am aware of MOS (iii) I have repeatedly suggested that you go to ANI and test your assertions ----
SnowdedTALK 06:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Assertions? What part of my interpretation of the MOS do you disagree with?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 06:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Channel Riens said it well "Nevertheless - you have been answered. If you're not prepared to take it to a further forum as has been suggested several times, now would be a pretty good time to stop." ----
SnowdedTALK 06:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Seems to me you're making a mountain out of a molehill. They don't strike me as particularly hard questions.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 06:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Then ask them of the community as suggested ----
SnowdedTALK 06:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Incorrect claim removed
I have removed the claim Four members of an IRA unit were also imprisoned for involvement in the plot. The BBC article is wrong, the other IRA volunteers were convicted of conspiring to cause explosions relating to planned bombings in other cities, along with Patrick Magee who was the only person convicted of the Brighton bomb plot. This is confirmed by the
Guardian (He was the only IRA activist convicted for the bomb that killed five at Brighton's Grand Hotel) and the
Telegraph (Magee was arrested in a flat with Martina Anderson, now Sinn Fein’s Northern Ireland MEP. She was later convicted of conspiring to cause explosions, although Magee was the only person convicted in relation to the Brighton bombing. There's also a 1986 report of the trial in the
Guardian (The jury still has to reach verdicts on Magee and four other people accused of conspiring to carry out a bomb blitz of London and 12 seaside towns last summer, after detailing Magee's conviction for the Brighton bombing.
FDW777 (
talk) 11:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
See also
The
See also section links to
Assassination of Spencer Perceval, the only British PM to have been assassinated, and to other articles about the IRA; this seems about right. It also links, however, to
20 July plot, which seems to me to suggest massively
WP:NPOV implications about Thatcher. If bomb attacks against a national leader are to be linked, why this one in particular?
89.159.110.175 (
talk) 16:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Feel free to add more similar assassination attempts using bombs against country leaders.
FDW777 (
talk) 20:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Hacked?
Rolling over "Jonathan Lee" in the article gives a surprising bubble, about a forex trader.
207.194.98.5 (
talk) 22:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The
Jonathan Lee (novelist) article had been vandalised to represent a non-notable individual. I've restored the last good version. Thanks for pointing it out.
Chaheel Riens (
talk) 06:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Brighton, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BrightonWikipedia:WikiProject BrightonTemplate:WikiProject BrightonBrighton articles
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 articles
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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hotels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the
hospitality industry, including
hotels,
motels,
resorts, and
destination spas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HotelsWikipedia:WikiProject HotelsTemplate:WikiProject HotelsHotels articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Irish republicanism and
Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish RepublicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismIrish Republicanism articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to
the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in
limited circumstances)
Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as
outside opinions.
The Margeret Thatcher page claims Thatcher was saved because she was in the bathroom when the bomb went off, and thus avoided the bomb blast.
This article says she wasn't in the bathroom, and that the blast "shredded through her bathroom".
At least one of these accounts has to be wrong. What really happened? --
FirstPrinciples 07:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)reply
One of her biographers, John Campbell, says this:
She was very lucky to survive unscathed. The bomb ripped out the whole central section of the hotel and badly damaged her bathroom. When it went off, just before three in the morning, she had just been putting the finishing touches to her speech for the next day with Ronnie Millar and John Gummer. As they left, Robin Butler came in with a last letter for her to sign before she got ready for bed. But for that, she would have been in the bathroom at the critical moment and, though she might not have been killed, she would certainly would have suffered serious injury from flying glass. Her sitting room, however, and the bedroom where Denis [Thatcher] was asleep, were undamaged.--[Campbell, The Iron Lady, p. 430.]--
Johnbull 13:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loathed Mrs Thatcher and her regime with a vengeance, and think that the only thing wrong with the Brighton bomb was that it was much too small, but is it right to just call her 'Thatcher' instead of 'Mrs Thatcher' or 'Margaret Thatcher'?. Love her or hate her, she was/is a human being.
160.84.253.241 10:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)reply
It's common practice to often refer to someone by their full name in the first instance, then family name after that, which is what this article does. Others, including
the BBC,
The Times and
CNN do the same.
Bazza 12:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Fairy Nuff. I hadn't noticed how widespread it had become. I always used to associate it with describing criminals, i.e. "When arrested; Parker (34) denied involvement.....", but now it seems to be used for everybody.
160.84.253.241 13:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I think that only applies when referring to men, and those links bear that out - Mel Gibson, for example, is referred to after the first mention as "Gibson", but Diane Sawyer is consistently called "Ms Sawyer". And on Wimbledon it's always been "Game, set and match Miss Navratilova", or whatever. It - or I - may be chauvinist, but it strikes me as disrespectful to refer to a woman by her surname only.--
Dub8lad1 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)reply
Do demons really have genders?
70.71.188.156 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Stop your whining. In the correct environment, we are ALL capable of evil. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
193.95.151.196 (
talk) 09:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC).reply
How many bombs?
The article is a little confusing. The first section mentions "two large bombs" and repeatedly talks about "the bombs". But the Magee section states "he planted the bomb" (singular). Were there two bombs? Did Magee plant both of them?
--
Nickj69 08:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I read an account of the bombing recently in which went into detail on the planting of the bomb, in which it stated the bomb was planted in the actual wall void between the bathroom and the adjoining room, by magee and another unnamed bomber, I will have a look for it and post the details here.--
padraig 13:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Okay. I think if we can get to the bottom of where the bomb was hidden it might be worth adding. The article's hardly long.
Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)reply
There was a TV documentry on this a few years ago where they showed how the bomb was behind a bath panel and the timer unit (from a video recorder) was the first use of such a type of device in a terrorist attack in the UK. This was is significant because it enabled the bomb to be planted weeks before the intended attack. At the time the UK security services would have checked the names of people who had statyed at the hotel in the days before the conference but wouldnt have checked far back enough to be alerted to any known/suspected terrorists. Nor did they find the bomb during the security checks/searches prior to the conference.
80.229.222.48 (
talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Probable non-controversial change to photo caption
I was a bit confused comparing the photo taken soon after the blast and the 2004 photo. As a result, I added a caption noting that the recent photo has a new addition. Most people probably figured it out much quicker than I did. Of course, I'm sometimes an idiot.
Archtransit 17:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)reply
IRA responsibility
I restored the reference to
Provisional IRA here, as it is desirable to be clear as to which IRA was responsible.
Mooretwin (
talk) 14:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
It says right at the top, try loooking.
O Fenian (
talk) 15:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, indeed. And "the top" is meant to reflect what the article says.
Mooretwin (
talk) 11:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)reply
It does. Please stop changing the name of the building, "Sussex Police Headquarters" is the official name of the building in question.
O Fenian (
talk) 11:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)reply
It only reflects it when the text says it was the Provisional IRA.
Mooretwin (
talk)
If you have a source for the name of the building, then feel free to add the capital. Otherwise there is no reason or need for a capital.
Mooretwin (
talk) 12:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)reply
What do you believe is the rationale for that policy?
Mooretwin (
talk) 14:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Snowded/1RR
Snowded, your last revert breached 1RR, leaving you exposed to sanctions. You're a valued editor, and the majority of your edits are problem-free. Why jeopardise that?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 12:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Read
WP:BRD Gob Lofa, your edit was reverted and you reinstated it without agreement on the talk page. You can't use the 1RR restriction as an excuse to allow you to edit against consensus. You also seem to delight in childish sniping in talk page comments. If it amuses you so be it ----
SnowdedTALK 12:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Your attitude is disappointing for someone who is usually a good editor. Are you delighting in flaunting restrictions that you feel don't apply to you and, to top it all, against consensus?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 12:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
By the by, is it your intention to capitalise every definite article where
the Troubles is mentioned in the middle of a sentence?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 19:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Matthew 7:5 ----
SnowdedTALK 20:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Your religion concerns me not a whit and I have no intention of perusing your holy texts at your pleasure. Your problematic behaviour is worsening, as is your hubris.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 15:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Snowded, please stop your slow edit-warring. Is it your intention to capitalise every definite article where the Troubles are mentioned in the middle of a sentence or just the one on this page?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 17:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
You made a change, it was reverted, you got no support on the talk page. You then reverted with a misleading edit summary. You know exactly what you are doing and your childish game playing is amusing ----
SnowdedTALK 19:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Not half as amusing as your floundering. It's a very simple question, and your reluctance to answer it speaks volumes.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 19:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Always pleased to be of service ----
SnowdedTALK 19:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Your Conflation of Amusement and Service is Interesting, but I reckon you should just chalk this one down to Experience.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 21:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Whatever, just don't reinstate that change unless you get consensus on the talk page. Also waiting a few weeks in the hope the page will go off watch then making the change again is really not good practice, and its not the first time you have tried it on. Experience as you say is useful. ----
SnowdedTALK 21:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I wait for it to reappear on my watchlist because, personally, I try not to get lost in the red mist of the rush to edit-war. I know it's not your first time in that mist, but experience may stand to you in the end. "Whatever" is not the most conducive wording to a healthy debate, but you seem to be long past that anyways. Give over your 18th century capitalisation or argue your case. It's not exactly Irish history.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 21:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Disagreement is about winning or loosing unless you choose to see it that way.
WP:BRD is pretty clear and a slow edit war is still one. Waiting to see if someone else agrees with you, and if they don't accepting the default position isn't loosing either; it is simply the way wikipedia works, As to 18th capitalisation, well you are entitled to your views. ----
SnowdedTALK 08:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Snowded/1RR (2)
Snowded, your partial revert breaches 1RR. Again. It's a bit difficult to believe that an editor around as long as you doesn't know this.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 14:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I amended your change and then reverted your restoration. You seem to be under the impression that 1rr allows you to restore a contested change and not have it reverted. Not sure where you get that from. Do try and use the talk page to deal with content issues when your changes are disputed, it makes life so much easer of all concerned ----
SnowdedTALK 14:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Snowded, this was fully explained to you by others on your talk page 19 days ago. With Troubles-related articles, you're only allowed to make one revert a day; that you're contesting what you're reverting matters not a whit. Once again, it's a bit rich of you to waffle about engaging on talk pages, given your sorry history in this regard. Stop trying to game the system.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 14:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Waiting (as ever) for you to discuss a content issue here. When you do (here or elsewhere) it will be possible to engage with you. ----
SnowdedTALK 14:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Breathtaking stuff. You refuse to address your violations anywhere, on your talk page by simply deleting references to them, and here by ignoring them. Your disregard for Wikipedia policies, despite being repeatedly warned by myself and others, doesn't bode well. Take a step back for yourself.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 16:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
On second glance, I see it's not two but three reverts that you've made today, all in ten minutes. Your disruptive behaviour has no place here; your disregard for our policies is now plain.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 16:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
You really need to pay attention to
WP:BRD. You are frequently bold, you are from time to time reverted then you edit war. You then try and pretend that a reversal of any of your edits is not a reversal and so on. I don't know who you think takes this nonsense seriously and I doubt you do yourself ----
SnowdedTALK 23:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I would love to have a bit more attention paid to BRD, especially its last part. Why do you refuse to discuss your reasons for reverting? I've not taken your nonsense seriously for some time now, especially your baseless accusations about reversals. This section doesn't concern content, it concerns your blatant disregard for 1RR. Will you address that issue now or continue to warble about whatever other distraction meanders through your head? Do you believe you're talking the clock down?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 23:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I look forward to your future compliance with
WP:BRD (todate you have a poor record) and to your arguing a content case on the talk page which would allow a response in kind ----
SnowdedTALK 23:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Why the insistence on a word to avoid?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 01:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
You are proposing a change, please make a case for that change rather than asking enigmatic questions ----
SnowdedTALK 07:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
My case isn't obvious? Terrorism is a word to avoid.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 14:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
BRD has three letters, Snowded. Report here.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 15:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Not the case, where the sources clearly establish that it is seen as terrorism we label it as such. I'm not the only editor to have told you this and this is not the only article where you have attempted to remove it. You clearly do not have other editors supporting you so please stop the slow edit war. ----
SnowdedTALK 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
What do you base that on?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 16:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Feel free to take the terrorist point to ANI for clarification if you want ----
SnowdedTALK 07:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)reply
What sources are you referring to?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 16:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Where in the article are these sources used?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 10:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
We are talking about the application or not of a category as you well know. You asked for sources that established the event was terrorism, you have them. ----
SnowdedTALK 10:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
That's beautiful, Snowded. You've given us a list of scholarly articles that have both 'Brighton bombing' and 'terrorism' in them somewhere, not necessarily in the same paragraphs. Well done
[6] The only person in the article describing the attack as terrorism is Thatcher, who isn't a neutral source.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 20:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
If you want to remove the word 'terrorism' in any way from articles such as this you need the consent of the community. I suggest you bring a case, if not and if you persist in making the changes, then I will ask for a community restriction on you in this respect. ----
SnowdedTALK 06:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I've put my case. Any more Google word association?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 09:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
In the context of this article you do not have agreement to change. You have not made your case at a policy forum not I suspect are you prepared to. ANI if you carry on ----
SnowdedTALK 16:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Nor do you, and I'm prepared to have this debate anyplace. ANI if you like.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 16:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Take it there then, for the moment
WP:BRD applies, I'm not proposing a change you are. You've had a similar change rejected elsewhere. If you really want to go to ANI to have 'terrorism' removed from this article it will be interesting to see what happens. ----
SnowdedTALK 16:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, BRD applies, the last letter included. If the best defence you can make for your edit is that risible Google gimmick, what does that say for your argument? You often come across as intelligent; why does sense desert you in these matters?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 17:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
If that makes you feel better, cool. Just stop edit warring ----
SnowdedTALK 23:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
It's pretty simple, Snowded. You're insisting on a categorisation that's not backed up in the article. Why?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 23:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Take it to ANI or any other forum if your feel strongly, but I doubt you will as you probably
realise what would happen ----
SnowdedTALK 23:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
You're insisting on a categorisation that's not backed up in the article. Why?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Raise a RfC or take it to ANI, you've been answered ----
SnowdedTALK 16:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
That's your opinion. Nevertheless - you have been answered. If you're not prepared to take it to a further forum as has been suggested several times, now would be a pretty good time to stop.
Chaheel Riens (
talk) 17:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I've no problem continuing this anywhere.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 17:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
This insistence on using WTA will have to be tackled at some point, probably at one of the places you've suggested; in the meantime, this article categorises this attack in a way that's not backed up by the article, violating a lot more than WTA.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 18:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
So do it now. Why are you prevaricating? If you feel it violates a project, why are you refusing to check with that task force? All you're doing is jabbering away here, and not doing anything - despite saying you will.
Chaheel Riens (
talk) 19:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I've just looked at
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels, which says "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." So we do have an actual policy on this matter, and there's demonstrably no in-text attribution by widely used reliable sources here. Does that really need to be confirmed by contributors to the pages you've suggested?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 19:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Now you've lost me. Why do you believe that confirmation is necessary? It seems pretty clear English to me, and I haven't seen Snowded dispute it yet.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 20:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Take it to any of the suggested groups and find out.
Snowded has most likely given up in despair. Note that when he made his last comment
[7] it was refuting your arguments, and a lack of response now should not be taken to assume he now approves.
Chaheel Riens (
talk) 20:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
That wasn't a refutation, and don't worry, Snowded's approval is not something I count on at this stage. Still, I feel it would be dishonourable to report him at ANI before I know for a fact he's deliberately flouting the MOS; he may simply be unaware of it. I propose giving him a day or so to respond.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
You should take it to ANI if you feel strongly about it, the
sooner the better from my point of view given the time we are all wasting on this. No need to wait for me to respond, I've been telling you to go to the wider community for months ----
SnowdedTALK 05:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
You're telling me you were aware of this MOS, but you made that edit anyways? Why?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 05:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
(i) You made edits I reverted (ii) Yes I am aware of MOS (iii) I have repeatedly suggested that you go to ANI and test your assertions ----
SnowdedTALK 06:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Assertions? What part of my interpretation of the MOS do you disagree with?
Gob Lofa (
talk) 06:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Channel Riens said it well "Nevertheless - you have been answered. If you're not prepared to take it to a further forum as has been suggested several times, now would be a pretty good time to stop." ----
SnowdedTALK 06:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Seems to me you're making a mountain out of a molehill. They don't strike me as particularly hard questions.
Gob Lofa (
talk) 06:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Then ask them of the community as suggested ----
SnowdedTALK 06:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Incorrect claim removed
I have removed the claim Four members of an IRA unit were also imprisoned for involvement in the plot. The BBC article is wrong, the other IRA volunteers were convicted of conspiring to cause explosions relating to planned bombings in other cities, along with Patrick Magee who was the only person convicted of the Brighton bomb plot. This is confirmed by the
Guardian (He was the only IRA activist convicted for the bomb that killed five at Brighton's Grand Hotel) and the
Telegraph (Magee was arrested in a flat with Martina Anderson, now Sinn Fein’s Northern Ireland MEP. She was later convicted of conspiring to cause explosions, although Magee was the only person convicted in relation to the Brighton bombing. There's also a 1986 report of the trial in the
Guardian (The jury still has to reach verdicts on Magee and four other people accused of conspiring to carry out a bomb blitz of London and 12 seaside towns last summer, after detailing Magee's conviction for the Brighton bombing.
FDW777 (
talk) 11:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
See also
The
See also section links to
Assassination of Spencer Perceval, the only British PM to have been assassinated, and to other articles about the IRA; this seems about right. It also links, however, to
20 July plot, which seems to me to suggest massively
WP:NPOV implications about Thatcher. If bomb attacks against a national leader are to be linked, why this one in particular?
89.159.110.175 (
talk) 16:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Feel free to add more similar assassination attempts using bombs against country leaders.
FDW777 (
talk) 20:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Hacked?
Rolling over "Jonathan Lee" in the article gives a surprising bubble, about a forex trader.
207.194.98.5 (
talk) 22:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The
Jonathan Lee (novelist) article had been vandalised to represent a non-notable individual. I've restored the last good version. Thanks for pointing it out.
Chaheel Riens (
talk) 06:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)reply