Talk:Brighton hotel bombing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Leadership speculation

The article had this, which I have removed

In the event that the Prime Minister were killed it is believed that the Queen would have appointed Viscount Whitelaw, then Leader of the House of Lords and Lord President of the Council, and de facto Deputy Prime Minister, as acting Prime Minister. As the Defence Secretary, Michael Heseltine was out of the country on official business, it is widely believed that he would have won the party leadership, and would therefore have become Prime Minister

This is unsourced speculation. Certainly, Heseltine would have been a candidate, but really we don't know what would have happened, which would in any case have depended upon who died apart from Thatcher. Morwen - Talk 13:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Magee talk should be moved to his page

Unless something is done to determine Magee's co-conspirators in the bombings, the dialog on his recent claims probably belongs on his own page. 64.162.72.149

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)

Contradictory information

There is contradictory information between this page and the Margaret Thatcher page.

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do demons really have genders?70.71.188.156 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

Wasn't the bomb hidden behind a bath panel?

Worthy of a mention? Biofoundationsoflanguage 11:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't.--padraig 11:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Looks like it to me! Biofoundationsoflanguage 11:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It says right at the top, try loooking. O Fenian (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, indeed. And "the top" is meant to reflect what the article says. Mooretwin (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

If you have a source for the name of the building, then feel free to remove the capital. Otherwise there is no reason or need to remove the capital. Or you could stop being lazy and look for yourself. O Fenian (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Mooretwin (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why has Big Dunc disguised the name "Provisional IRA" with piping so that it merely says "IRA"? Mooretwin (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See here for rational. BigDunc^Talk 12:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you believe is the rationale for that policy? Mooretwin (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 ----Snowded ^TALK 12:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Matthew 7:5 ----Snowded ^TALK 20:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 ----Snowded ^TALK 19:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

Always pleased to be of service ----Snowded ^TALK 19:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

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. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

Seeing as no other editor has got involved, you win. I've been having a read of this, I thought it might interest you too: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. Gob Lofa (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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 ----Snowded ^TALK 14:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 ----Snowded ^TALK 23:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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 ----Snowded ^TALK 23:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Gob Lofa (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism

Why the insistence on a word to avoid? Gob Lofa (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You are proposing a change, please make a case for that change rather than asking enigmatic questions ----Snowded ^TALK 07:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

My case isn't obvious? Terrorism is a word to avoid. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

BRD has three letters, Snowded. Report here. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

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. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you base that on? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to take the terrorist point to ANI for clarification if you want ----Snowded ^TALK 07:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

What sources are you referring to? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Take your pick from those ----Snowded ^TALK 18:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Where in the article are these sources used? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've put my case. Any more Google word association? Gob Lofa (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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 ----Snowded ^TALK 16:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

If that makes you feel better, cool. Just stop edit warring ----Snowded ^TALK 23:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

Take it to ANI or any other forum if your feel strongly, but I doubt you will as you probably realise what would happen ----Snowded ^TALK 23:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You're insisting on a categorisation that's not backed up in the article. Why? Gob Lofa (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Raise a RfC or take it to ANI, you've been answered ----Snowded ^TALK 16:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not very well. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

I've no problem continuing this anywhere. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Off you go then - here's a few places you could start: WP:ANI, Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism, or even Wikipedia:Help desk. You should note that this article is already included in the Terrorism project, as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject British crime and Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Yes. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 ----Snowded ^TALK 05:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

(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 ----Snowded ^TALK 06:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Assertions? What part of my interpretation of the MOS do you disagree with? Gob Lofa (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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." ----Snowded ^TALK 06:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

Then ask them of the community as suggested ----Snowded ^TALK 06:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Feel free to add more similar assassination attempts using bombs against country leaders. FDW777 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Name

The common name for the event in virtually every source available is the Brighton bomb. Why, Elli, did hou ignore WP:COMMONNAME when you reverted my page move? - SchroCat (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat someone requested to revert the move. I don't have any opinion on the underlying dispute and suggest you open an RM. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Elli, So you just did it without looking or considering? Did you do any checking first? - SchroCat (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@SchroCat: again, I did not do this with an opinion on the underlying dispute. Harrz is the one who requested the revert, so I would suggest discussing this with them, ideally as an RM. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, no checking, no thought. I get it. - SchroCat (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No consensus reached additional conversation is unlikely to result in constructive action. DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Brighton hotel bombing → Brighton bomb – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Sources overwhelmingly use the name ‘the Brighton bomb’ to deal with this event. While there is some use of ‘Brighton hotel bombing’, these are much less common. Support the move, of course. - SchroCat (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. No they don't. They often call it the Brighton bombing, but not the Brighton bomb. The current title is fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes they do, actually. While some sources call it the Brighton hotel bombing (as I’ve already said), the weight of sources is ‘Brighton bomb’. As I'm rewriting the article at the moment, I’m quite familiar with the sources. If you really don't believe me:

• "Brighton Hotel bombing" gives 78 hits
• "brighton bomb" gives "About 22,600 results"

It's clear on book refs too:

• "brighton hotel bombing" for Google books: About 1,740 results
• "Brighton hotel bombing" on Internet archive books: 261 Results
• "Brighton bomb" for Google books: About 4,320 results
• "Brighton bomb" on Internet archive books: 1,633 Results

COMMONNAME really is quite clear... - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - regardless of whether 'Brighton bomb' is the common name or not, a common name isn't the only criteria to decide on a title. Per WP:CRITERIA, a good title has five characteristics:

1. Recognisability - 'Brighton hotel bombing' is definitely more recognisable and easy to understand than simply 'Brighton bomb', which is quite ambiguous.
2. Naturalness - It is more common for titles about bombings to be titled as such, rather than just 'bomb' which sounds awfully unnatural.
3. Precision - As said before, there is no ambiguity about 'Brighton hotel bombing', however there is for just 'Brighton bomb'.
4. Concision - 'Brighton bomb' is too short to adequately identify the subject.
5. Consistency - 'Brighton hotel bombing' is more consistent with other articles than 'Brighton bomb' - see WP:NCE.

In conclusion, 'Brighton bomb' is just an unnatural name and there is no need to alter the current title. harrz ^talk 20:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Recognisability: being the common name by a long stretch, it's much more recognisable by default. There is nothing ambiguous about "Brighton bomb", which is why so many sources use it.
2. Naturalness - Given so many sources use "Brighton bomb", it sounds more natural to me - "Brighton hotel bombing" sounds unnatural and forced to me. This point is down to personal choice, so it's a bit of De gustibus and all that
3. Precision: The title "Brighton bomb" is precise enough, without the unnecessary clutter of the superfluous noun
4. Concision - "Brighton bomb" is much more concise and is obviously sufficient to identify the topic, particularly given most sources use it as the COMMONNAME without any problems
5. Consistency - There’s no consistency in the naming approach at the moment. Category:Hotel bombings in Europe, for example, shows no common pattern that would support ‘Brighton Hotel bombing’.

In conclusion, 'Brighton bomb' is just a natural name, one used by the great weight of sources, making it the superior title and, of course, it's still the WP:COMMONNAME and aligns with WP:NCWWW (and WP:NOYEAR). - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at Category:Provisional IRA bombings in England which clearly shows the pattern for consistency. harrz ^talk 07:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that even cherry picking categories doesn't show consistency, given the differing formats in this cat. Looking through the naming of events covered in the category Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in the 1980s, again there is no consistency (Harrods bombing, Iranian Embassy siege, Altnaveigh landmine attack, Darkley killings, 1985 Newry mortar attack, Remembrance Day bombing, etc all show a wide range of formats). So of the five criteria, "Brighton bomb" is still ahead in all areas. Given there's no consistency, and given the lack of grounds on the other criteria, COMMONNAME is a particularly strong and relevant guideline. - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support: I've had a good rummage in the online archives and it is clear to me that "the Brighton bomb" has been the usual way of referring to the atrocity. The term "Brighton hotel bombing" is much less to be found in newspaper reports at the time and since. I can imagine that as we get further and further away from the event the term "the Brighton hotel bombing" may in due course become more usual than "the Brighton bomb", but in this year of grace 2024 the latter is, I'm sure, the norm. I concur with SchroCat, above. Tim riley talk 21:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support: The sources generally use "Brighton bomb" to refer to the event, and so should we. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:COMMONNAME as it is more common in the sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support per ngrams. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support An examination of articles and works on the subject supports the WP:COMMONNAME argument. ~ HAL333 23:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the article is about the event, not the explosive. But there is a reasonable argument that "Brighton bomb" is a set-phrase that should be in the title of the article about this event. What about "IRA Brighton bomb attack"? Walsh90210 (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  As opposed to who else’s bomb? And what else is a bomb but an attack? "IRA Brighton bomb attack" isn’t a name used by anyone (possibly a description, but not a title). Two of the six documentaries are actually called “The Brighton Bomb”. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move to simply "...bomb". A perusal of Category:Provisional IRA bombings in London and similar categories shows the consistent title format would be "...bombing", so would support a move to Brighton bombing, which is equally common as "Brighton bomb". The guidance at WP:CRITERIA specifically states "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles", the vast majority of articles on IRA bombings use "...bombing" not "...bomb". Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in the 1980s, shows no consistency (Harrods bombing, Iranian Embassy siege, Altnaveigh landmine attack, Darkley killings, 1985 Newry mortar attack, Remembrance Day bombing). CRITERIA has several criteria (discussed above), and while both bomb and bombing fit all the criteria, Brighton Bomb is one more commonly used in the reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Given that that Iranian Embassy siege was a hostage taking by gunmen, and the Darkley killings was a gun attack, it's hardly surprising that neither of the articles you are using as examples of supposed inconsistency in naming actually ends with "...bombing", since neither of them were bombings! Kathleen's bike (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: There is a rough consensus that "Brighton bomb" is the common name, but editors are concerned by WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Relisting to get additional input, as well as to consider the alternative title "Brighton bombing". BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Bombing is a more natural title and omitting the hotel part also works against the proposal. Killuminator (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support the move to "Brighton Bomb", as per the sources, COMMONNAME, and WP:CRITERIA. Cassianto^Talk 18:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Brighton bomb" is just too vague and non-specific; "Brighton hotel bombing" carries exponentially more meaning, one immediately knows the event that is being referred to (rather than some other bomb in Brighton, historical ordnance found on the beach say, or maybe a local drag act?). Even if the reader is unfamiliar with the event, the title conveys that there was an explosion which the other does not. There is no gain only loss in changing the title, keep "Brighton hotel bombing". Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • "Vague and non-specific"? "Brighton bomb" is the flaming COMMONNAME for the specific event, referred to in countless reliable sources and used as the title of two of the six documentaries and as the sub-title of one of the books about it. "Local drag act"? What bloody nonsense, this vote shows zero grasp of the WP:CRITERIA or of the subject matter and the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support – appears to be the overwhelming common name. Some of the opposition arguments could be better considered if there was a plausible alternative actually used by a substantial amount of reliable sources, but that doesn't seem to be the case. – Aza24 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Brighton bombing in a perfectly plausible alternative that has been prooposed, one that is equally as common as "Brighton bomb" and has the added benefit of being consistent with similar articles (Category:Provisional IRA bombings in London, Category:Provisional IRA bombings in England, Category:Provisional IRA bombings in continental Europe, Category:Provisional IRA bombings in Northern Ireland and Category:Provisional IRA bombings in Belfast do not contain a single article with a title that ends in "...bomb", generally speaking it is "...bombing"). Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  I would suggest that "Brighton bomb" is more common in the reliable sources than "Brighton bombing". There are five different criteria for naming, and consistency with other titles is just one of them, but 'bomb' is stronger everywhere else in the quality sources. It wouldn't be the worst title in the world (certainly better than the current one), but not as strong as 'bomb'. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you look at WP:CRITERIA, "Brighton bomb" arguably only fits two of the criteria - recognisability and naturalness, which is due to the WP:COMMONNAME you keep referring to. Now, in my opinion, this really isn't a natural title, mainly because this article is about the event (bombing) rather than the device used to carry it out (bomb). There really is no issue with the current title, it is equally recognisable, more natural, consistent with other articles and perfectly concise and precise to avoid ambiguity which would likely relate to the Brighton Blitz article. harrz ^talk 21:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  See my comments above. The current name is poor, whichever way you look at it. - SchroCat (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  You say that but can you give a good reason why the current name is poor? The only thing you've said in your comment above is that your proposed title is 'stronger' - something which is purely subjective and has no relevancy to Wikipedia's naming policy. harrz ^talk 15:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's much less common, both in general, and in the quality sources - it's less common than both 'Brighton bomb' and 'Brighton bombing', for example. By virtue of being of limited use, it's less recognisable and much more grammatically forced. - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but this feels like sticking with the rules to our own disadvantage. The "Brighton bomb" is the name of the event, not just the device: keeping the current title—"Brighton hotel bombing"—only because three conventions at AT would rather have it stretched out into an unnatural three words which arguably fits better with Wikipedia policy but is out of touch with reality and basic common sense is a poor argument. Titles must be "recogni[s]able, concise, natural, precise, and consistent": out of those five, I'd say all are fulfilled bar "consistent", but there is no consistency here as SchroCat has demonstrated. On another point: why "Brighton hotel bombing"? "Brighton Hotel bombing" or better "Grand Brighton Hotel bombing" would be an improvement (currently the lowercase "h" makes it sound like a generic hotel in Brighton). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• To anyone who actually has an interest in the subject, there is now a pre-FAC peer review open for comments on the article. - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too easily confused with the Brighton Bombers (football team) and the Brighton bomber, who planted the bomb in the hotel. Also, Brighton was bombed on numerous occasions during the Brighton Blitz during WW2, so omitting the word "hotel" is imprecise. There are five criteria for an article title. However, using the most common name is not one of the naming criteria. While using a recognizable common name is a criterion, the title also needs to be precise and natural. The existing title meets these criteria. The proposed title is ambiguous and would suggest an article that is confined to just an explosive weapon called a "Brighton bomb", rather than the explosion of the IRA bomb in a Brighton hotel that killed people. Besides, the bomb itself is probably not really that notable, although the bombing is. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  See above: the current name does not fit the five criteria and is - at the very best - the third best suggestion in this thread. The proposed title is neither ambiguous (not only is it the COMMONNAME, it's used as or in book and documentary titles - with zero ambiguity). "Brighton bomb" (and less so, "Brighton bombing") is precise, common and much less clumsy and unnatural than the current version. - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  @SchroCat: When it comes to naming notable events, there is a separate event-specific naming convention which sets out how to name the article, by including descriptors that answer the When, Where and What ... happened? questions. A bomb is not a happening, it is a thing. However the bomb exploding is a happening and one synonym for that is that a bombing occurred. Grammatically, the title needs to use the gerund form of the word bomb to make grammatical sense because the word bomb can be used as both a verb and a noun, while bombing is clearly the gerund form of the verb to bomb because it ends with "... ing". Also, to be consistent with other events where a weapon is used, the gerund form should be used in the title. Thus we have titles ending in ... shooting or ... stabbing, not ... gun or ... knife. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  And the convention says that when there is an established, common name for an even, ... use that name”. ‘Brighton hotel bombing’ is not an established common name: ‘Brighton bomb’ or in some cases ‘Brighton bombing’ are. - SchroCat (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  I thought the purpose of this discussion was to establish a consensus on what the common name was. There doesn't appear to be a single established common name used by all sources, there appear to be at least two possibilities, if not more. The naming convention explains how to arrive at a workable common name in such a situation. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  No, it’s not to get a consensus on what a common name is, and the conventions don’t show how to get a workable common name. Both are to get to an article title. The cumbersome and clumsy ‘Brighton hotel bombing’ isn’t a good one. Using the common name ‘Brighton bomb’ (common name in the weight of the reliable sources), is a good title. - SchroCat (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  In your opinon. ... I disagree. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support "Brighton bombing". ie the name most people then alive then and in the aftermath would be familiar with. I don't really like "Brighton bomb", which although some US sources use it, seems as if the article is about the device. Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Brighton bomb as insufficiently precise, descriptive, or recognisable. As others have said, it's too easily confused with a specific device or other events such as WWII air raids. I'm ambivalent on "Brighton bombing" but it's certainly an improvement on "Brighton bomb". "Brighton hotel bombing" is imperfect but is still concise and is precise enough to clearly identify the subject, even to readers unfamiliar with the topic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Harry, I don't think "Brighton hotel bombing" identifies the subject at all to people. People are more likely to recognise the COMMONNAME for things (and the two most common names are "Brighton bomb" and "Brighton bombing"). 'BHB' is hardly used as the name - it's used as a description sometimes, but not really as a name. If we're after something that identifies the subject, even to the unfamiliar, then "Attempted assassination of Margaret Thatcher" would be far better than the current clumsy wording (and we have precedent for that form of wording too). - SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder if it's a generational thing? I'm not old enough to remember the press coverage in the immediate aftermath so my perception is based on what I've read in books and seen on TV years later. But I assumed BHB was a descriptive title, otherwise it would be at Brighton Hotel Bombing™, which I'd probably oppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)}}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox choice

I'm not trilled about the use of the "infobox civilian attack" as there was a political motive, and the targets were not passing by civilians (as with say the Manchester or Omagh bombing. Nor would I describe it as part of a "war" (nor would 95% of other southern Irish people). Having deliberately avoided anything to do with infoboxes since 2005 I'm not informed enough to come up with other suggestions. Thoughts, comments welcome. Ceoil (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know which would be better, although I note that the other attempted assassination of a PM undertaken by the IRA in modern times (the Downing Street mortar attack, so probably the most similar of articles) uses the same box as this one. I've left a message at the Irish republicanism project for input on the point. I'm not going to touch it until there is a good consensus for change - I'm not even sure it matters that much, given the readers of the article won't care which one is used, as long as what is there is carrying the correct information. If it were up to me, I'd delete the bloody thing and have done with it, but there you go (not that I'm suggesting such a step). - SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd delete it too, but its not something would go to war about anymore :) Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a war, it would be a conflict  ;) ——Serial Number 54129 16:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The pages of more recent events where political leaders have been assassinated or an attempt has been made such as Attempted assassination of Fumio Kishida, Attempted assassination of Donald Trump and Assassination of Shinzo Abe also use this infobox, so I don't think there is a better option, however I agree that civilian attack isn't the correct description for this event. The only other infobox I can think of is {{Infobox event}}, which is used on some pages such as Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. harrz ^talk 16:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• The current infobox is definitely the wrong one; this was a targeted assassination attempt in the context of a declared war, albeit a low-level one. Rightly or wrongly, we regard acts of war with a different moral compass than we do regular killings. Having a "perpetrator" field seems wrong. Operation Vengeance uses a different infobox for a (successful) assassination during a declared war. As Ceoil has said, the victims were not random passers-by but members of the establishment that the IRA were at war with. Whether there is a wider issue with how actions taken during the Troubles are depicted is another whole story. (Of course this is one problem with the reductionism an infobox brings to an article but we probably don't want to get into that.) Now, I'm on holiday so I must put my foot up and relax. I'll look in again tomorrow if I can. John (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a war and those targeted were non-military. As I've already said above, I'm not overly fussed by the actual choice, given that readers won't give a toss either way, but let's not base any change on a false rationale or the desire to disrupt things just for the sake of it. - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course it was a war; both sides treated it as such, and reliable sources discuss it as such. The issue of whether IRA prisoners should have "political" status (essentially PoW status) was (as described in the article) one of the major issues the IRA was fighting for at the time. Our article on the Troubles describes it very well,

• it is sometimes described as an "irregular war" or "low-level war".

One further thing; this can be an emotive topic and is under ArbCom sanctions. I would greatly appreciate it if you could desist from making further wild claims about my supposed motivations. Try to imagine that I could be here, as I am sure you are, in an effort to improve the article. Thanks a lot. John (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources

(edit conflict) It may be described as such, but that doesn't make it so, and it still doesn't cover the fact that the bomb was aimed at—and affected—civilians. Only one member of the government was killed, the remainder were civilians, including women. And don't try to lecture me with your patronising nonsense: I am not interested. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the 'title' of the infobox, which is only visible to the tiny fraction of readers who look at the source code, is a bit of a distraction — we should instead be looking at the parameters it affords us and asking whether setting out those facts in an infobox is beneficial to our readers or not. Personally, I think the current infobox adds value and I don't see anything in it incompatible with a view of the Troubles as either a war or a series of criminal actions. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. You can see them in operation on near identical subjects: 1992 Manchester bombing uses template:Infobox civilian attack and 1996 Manchester bombing uses template:Infobox military operation. The fields pretty much overlap throughout, so readers won't be affected by any of it, but the terminology used for the fields is changed. So, for example, while Infobox civilian attack refers to "Deaths", "Injured" and "Perpetrators", Infobox military refers to "Fatalities", "Casualties" and "Executed by". If I had any preference in the choice, I'd go for the plain English of the civilian attack box, rather than pseudo or quasi militaristic terminology; it would also avoid using "executed by", which does have an alternative meaning. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Front page of Wikipedia needs an edit

It says "The IRA decided to assassinate Thatcher during the 1981" on the front page but she died in the 21st century years later. Needs an edit there 94.194.201.102 (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be changed. They decided to assassinate her in 1981 and tried (and failed) to do so in 1984. Her death was unconnected to the IRA, so I'm not sure why it needs changing. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It said "assassinate" not "Tried to assasinate" its been changed now anyway but it was phrased as if they succeed. 94.194.201.102 (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s not been changed as it wasn’t incorrect. It said (and still says) “decided to assassinate”. - SchroCat (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

United Kingdom Government, not British Government. Britain is a geographical area not a political entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizmo1947 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The term "the British government" is the commonly used one - something the people of Northern Ireland have complained about previously. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Britain is the generally accepted term just like how those in the USA may be called American despite not even being the largest country in the Americas though undisputabley the most notable,

the largest island in the UK is called "Great Britain" but is referred to as mainland often by people who live on islands actually called Mainland for example Mainland(Orkney) 94.194.201.102 (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The full name of the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and it is a single sovereign state. "British" means belonging to or relating to the United Kingdom (the whole of it including England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) and so is the correct demonym for the government of it - it is the British Government. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Reference in the infobox

There is a reference in the infobox. Is that in line with MoS policies? I would expect the infobox to summarize the info later in the article, which is already cited PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"travelled up from London"

Carlisle and London are both essentially at sea level. Using "up" for "north" is a pet peeve and is almost certainly not encyclopedic. John (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It may be a pet peeve for you, but your overly literal understanding ignores common practice and perfectly acceptable (and encyclopaedic) grammar. - SchroCat (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Good to have your opinion, if somewhat predictable. Any other opinions? Wikipedia normally prefers a more formal style than this, I think. John (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It is acceptable as a formal style, as I've already said, pet peeve of yours or not. - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not acceptable as a formal style, as it's colloquial. More to the point, it's another word for the reader to read which adds absolutely no meaning. See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Up for north? John (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not colloquial, and it is not related to either the elevation or compass direction. It is standard British English for travelling towards the capital; or being at, or going to a university. Examples: "next week I will be up in London", "tonight I drive up to London", "our daughter went up to Oxford University". So in the example in question, it should say "travelling down from London". -- DeFacto (talk). 10:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for opining. Even if you do not agree it is colloquial (and the consensus at WT:MOS is that it is), does it add any meaning? Is it essential to convey the facts? In all your three examples, as well as the one under discussion, it does not. "Next week I will be in London", "tonight I drive to London" and "our daughter went to Oxford University" are identical in meaning to your sentences. Good encyclopedic writing is parsimonious; it does not waste words. John (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What a lot of fuss over a two letter pet peeve. Despite it being perfectly acceptable, I’ve removed it to stop any further waste of time. - SchroCat (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. The article is the better for it. John (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Not particularly. The best that can be said is that it hasn't worsened it. - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing a word without worsening an article is always an improvement. John (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Nope. - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)