Talk:Brighton hotel bombing

message: 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)
thread_title: Leadership speculation

message: 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)
thread_title:  How many bombs? 

message: Worthy of a mention? Biofoundationsoflanguage 11:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it wasn't.--padraig 11:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Wasn't the bomb hidden behind a bath panel? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Probable non-controversial change to photo caption

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Snowded/1RR 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yep. Gob Lofa (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snowded/1RR (2) 

message: Why the insistence on a word to avoid? Gob Lofa (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: My case isn't obvious? Terrorism is a word to avoid. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

text: BRD has three letters, Snowded. Report here. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What do you base that on? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to take the terrorist point to ANI for clarification if you want ----Snowded TALK 07:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What sources are you referring to? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your pick from those ----Snowded TALK 18:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in the article are these sources used? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've put my case. Any more Google word association? Gob Lofa (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If that makes you feel better, cool.  Just stop edit warring ----Snowded TALK 23:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You're insisting on a categorisation that's not backed up in the article. Why? Gob Lofa (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Not very well. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've no problem continuing this anywhere. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: Assertions? What part of my interpretation of the MOS do you disagree with? Gob Lofa (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Then ask them of the community as suggested ----Snowded TALK 06:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: I have removed the claim . 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 () and the Telegraph ( There's also a 1986 report of the trial in the Guardian (, after detailing Magee's conviction for the Brighton bombing. FDW777 (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect claim removed 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hacked?