Talk:Ian Gow

message: Vintagekits. Both bombings were "suspicious". In the case of Neave the explosion happened in the car park of the Houses of Parliament, which was very securely guarded. Gow's house at Hankham was a veritable fortress (press reports notwithstanding). In both cases the bombs must have had very sophisticated triggering devices and there is doubt over whether such devices were directly available to paramilitaries. Thus the suspicion that some third party was involved.Izzy 16:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didnt the IRA claim responibility or was anyone prosecuted?--Vintagekits 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doubtful circumstances

message: If I may chip in on this discussion. The Neave bomb (1979) was always a questionable case. The bomb went off as Neave's car was leaving the MP's car park at Parliament. It actually detonated as the car went onto the upward ramp so people have always assumed that the bomb was planted in the car anything up to 24 hours before it went off and was fitted with both time and tilt switches. Given that Neave was very security conscious and checked his car for bombs, the whole bombing operation was pretty sophisticated. The INLA were a rough and ready lot, and it is doubtful they would have been capable of this - without assistance. 
The Gow bomb was also questionable. Gow's house at Hankham was built like a fortress with fences, gates and alarm systems. Again, the bomb was probably planted in the car anything up to 24 hours before it went off. It detonated as he put the car into reverse gear. This suggests that the bomb was fitted with both time and some other switch. Gow was very security conscious, so this must have been a very smart operation. PIRA were more capable than INLA, but even so .... . There have always been doubts about who was ultimately behind these bombings. Izzy 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bomb technology

message: Enough of this edit-warring. Without casting blame, or while casting it both ways, I've fully protected the article--the WP:WRONGVERSION, no doubt. This is y'all's opportunity to start that RfC and settle the matter once and for all: is the car in our out? (the car removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Gow&diff=prev&oldid=609091699 in this edit). I charge you (whoever "you" may be) to craft a neutral WP:RfC, below, to hammer this out. And while you are doing that, I do not want to hear the usual "You really are an arrogant jerk", "Try to behave like an adult rather than a petulant child please", and other assorted insults. First one to use the word "cunt" gets a free block. And to make sure that we get some more opinions than just two, I'll post a note somewhere in a public page of my choosing to invite attention to the matter, and I assure you that the venue and the note will be more neutral than Switzerland. I will not unprotect the article until the RfC is over and the matter solved--if you disagree with this rather tyrannical behavior of mine (I agree it's somewhat heavy-handed), feel free to ask some other admin to look into that and/or post at WP:AN. , , let's please settle this with discussion and consensus, like the adults we probably claim we are. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fully-protected car (or its absence) 

message: It is ridiculous that people are continuing to hold discussion on the "Poll" section when there is a separate section for discussion. All of that should be moved down into this section, especially since people are only saying the same things over and over.  Scolaire (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That some editors keep repeating the same thing and don't engage in talk is one of the reasons why this RFC was started.  However, it is common for people to comment on statements made in polls and sometimes for extensive discussion.  Please don't encourage further disruption of the talk page by suggesting that an editor should refactor the discussion again.  Remember don't shove beans up your nose. WCMemail 11:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Improper use of Poll section

message: Are you sure that is correct, George LaCombre?. Just off the top of my head I think of Lord Carrington who resigned as Foreign Secretary in 1982. Sorry if I am missing something obvious here. Izzy (talk)
I stand corrected Izzy! Re-reading I think Alan Clark meant to convey (and I missed) that he was the first resignation (or many!) arising out of a difference of opinion/policy difference with Thatcher. I've now removed this reference. George LaCombre (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "He was the first .. minister to resign under Thatcher's prime ministership" 

message: The section on Ian's opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement (1985) makes the claim that...
The agreement would ultimately lead to devolved government for Northern Ireland, power sharing in the province and engagement with the Republic.
This is not sourced and IMHO highly tendentious and NOT a neutral POV. The said agreement was highly unpopular with Unionists and a central demand during the later negotiations of the Belfast Agreement/Good Friday agreement was that the Anglo-Irish Agreement (1985) was repealed, admittedly with similar arrangements replacing it.
My issue with the current claim is that it makes it appear that Ian Gow was on the 'wrong side of history' in opposing the '85 agreement which was negotiated without any involvement of Northern Ireland's Unionist representatives. One could strongly argue that those who insisted that Unionist involvement and consent was vital were correct in 1985 and it was their view which prevailed in 1998.
It's also clear that Ian Gow was NOT leading Conservative policy on Northern Ireland (having resigned to the backbenches) and the claim by the IRA that this was the reason for his murder is bogus. He was targeted because he was prominent in opposing them and their works, for his political views & beliefs.78.16.141.204 (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Anglo-Irish Agreement contains the statement " ... it did improve co-operation between the British and Irish governments, which was key to the creation of the Good Friday Agreement 13 years later ". My understanding is that Gow's line was that Northern Ireland should be fully integrated into Great Britain (in the pre-devolution era) and that the only concession that might be offered would be to redraw the border in order to move some Nationalist majority communities from Northern Ireland into the Republic. The 1985 A-I agreement was essentially an exercise in bridge building while Gow's line was one of fence building. From the vantage point of 2016 I think it fair to say that Gow was on the wrong side of history - but maybe things will be seen differently 25 years from now?. Izzy (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the delayed response, 78.19.6.232. My comment concerning Gow having been "on the wrong side of history" is only made on the talk page. The article confines itself to an account of Gow's position on Northern Ireland and leaves the reader to draw his or her own conclusion. In fairness to Gow, it has to said that he was looking at things from a 1970s / 1980s perspective. Izzy (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-Irish Agreement 

message: 81.178.128.171.You have added a statement to the effect that Gow and Neave's position on Northern Ireland in the 1970s was influenced by Enoch Powell. I am not sure that is correct. Powell became a Unionist MP in October 1974 but he never really set the agenda for Conservative NI policy. Can you cite a credible source for this opinion that Gow and Neave were influenced by Powell?. Izzy (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Enoch Powell

message: This is not a credible source by Wikipedia guidelines and should not be used.
The conspiracy theory (CIA, MI5, MI6 et cetera) was advanced by an ageing Enoch Powell amongst others, so surely a better source could be found?
Better still, remove this nonsensical 'theory' completely.
It just serves to amuse those in the INLA who actually did murder him. 78.19.6.232 (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish Democrat source (tenth reference/footnote) 

message: Is there any reason why that picture was chosen? There are much clearer ones.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.106.65 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? WCMemail 19:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: please provide evidence of the existence of the story "Dame Jane opens clinic" in The Argus on 31 July 2000. A search of The Argus's website (see - https://www.theargus.co.uk/search/?search=%22ian%20gow%22&sort=posted_date_asc&headline_only=false&site_id[]=120&posted_date=&posted_date_from=&posted_date_to=&pp=20&p=0 - the square brackets in the URL mean I need to post the URL that way) does not bring up any news article remotely resembling that. There is this on the same day, rather coincidentally. FDW777 (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DAILYMAIL disqualifies the latter. The "Ian Gow Memorial Health Centre" appears to have been open since at least 1996 (definitely since 1998 at the same postcode as present). So I'm slightly puzzled as to why it would be opened in 2000? FDW777 (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: I doubt any backbench MPs, except perhaps those who had been Northern Ireland ministers, would have either a bomb-proof car or a bodyguard; I believe the statement that "unlike most British MPs of that era, Gow refused a bodyguard" is incorrect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7000:D87F:1400:5CE3:488D:CDAC:8BDB (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bodyguard (or not)