Talk:List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain

message: The other page is wider in scope, but less comprehensive.  A merger would improvw wikipedia's coverage Ms medusa 20:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both articles are needed as they are. An article discussing terrorism and surrounding issues with a prominant link to a simple list of terrorist events and related articles (biogs of british terrorists could be useful). Also i think this list should be inclusivist of what is terrorism, so with multiple notable sources not just the british government decide what is terroism. Hypnosadist 21:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Terrorism in the UK

message: This list is not a neutral point of view list because it does not include attacks that took place in Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK!). As there were literally 1000's if incidents in Northern Ireland (often many in one day), I do not see how this can be a comprehensive list. It would be better if this list was renamed List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The section of "Terrorist-like incidents" was somewhat wrongheaded. It included Copeland, even though he was described as a terrorist at the time (and this was before the Terroris Act, so that he wasn't charged under it is irrelevant). I've moved Copeland to the section on "Genuine terrorist attacks" and Lecomber to the section on failed attacks (where they belong at least as much as the Fenians and Fawkes, who lived and died before the term "terrorist" was coined). I've left the other two incidents under that heading, but made it a sub-section of "Arrests, detentions, and other terrorist related incidents", which lists cases prosecuted under the Terrorism Act, as both of those refer to recent cases of apparent terrorism where the Terrorism Act wasn't used. I think the section was meant to imply that the authorities don't class far-right terrorist incidents as terrorism, which is perhaps not entirely inaccurate, but neither that point nor this article is served by seperating these incidents out. 172.216.184.42 14:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Genuine terrorist attacks" versus "Terrorist-like incidents" 

message: This article seems full of it. For example who says anything in the "1800-1899" section was a terrorist incident? Editor's opinion possibly - that's OR. Same applies to various other inclusions, and in particular the "Terrorist-like incidents that were not designated as terrorism" section, which seems to be a catch-all to include anything you feel like. I've no real idea about how to fix this article at present, so I'm tagging it and hoping a discussion can take place. One Night In Hackney303 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering incidents such as this are being added without attribution (ie, who said this was a "terrorist incident"), I'm on the verge of tagging every single unattributed incident as needing attribution. One Night In Hackney303 22:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: Since, it seems, terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland are excluded from the list, surely the title of the article should be "List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain".  Though to be honest it strikes me that the whole article is misconceived; POV is unavoidable, and use of a characterisation by the "authorities" reflects a further POV dimension, quite apart from the editors' choices/judgments.  diran 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of Article

message: Nothing appears to have been written about animal rights terrorism, which does take place - particularly in Oxford. I don't have access to any sources right now, but I feel it should be mentioned for completeness.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.151.102 (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal Rights Terrorism

message: Why doesn't anyone ever write an article like "List of terrorist incidents in the USSR under Stalin"?  (I said it was a rhetorical question).Aaaronsmith (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhetorical question 

message: As I saw the headers on top of the page, I wanted to drop a line to note that I just removed bit about the IRA being responsible for the Birmingham bombings.  While that was obviously the popular opinion at the time and a seemingly reasonable conclusion given the Guildhall bombings four months earlier, the subsequent events of the Birmingham Six and the fact that that IRA has never admitted to this (where they've admitted to a lot of other bombings, "taking credit" as it were) led me to remove it.  Cheers oceeConas tá tú? 21:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on recent edit, in re Birmingham 

message: The entry on Stephen Clarke read that he had been "charged under section 40" and then  "released without charge". This is patent nonsense. He was, in fact, not charged under anything, but arrested under section 41. This is important because of its implications for habeas corpus. Please don't change it back again to such a blatant state of inner contradiction, and if you want to publish to the world that someone was charged as a terrorist make sure you get your evidence straight first. Thanks. Anyone in doubt can simply watch the news video in the footnote.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.13.17 (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on recent edit, re Stephen Clarke 

message: Even assuming it's only England, the Tower of London bombing in '74 seems to be missing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.69.225 (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tower of London 

message: How come the Hindawi affair is not listed? That was in 1986 foiled plot by the Syrian Baath Party to where a Jordian man Nezar Hindawi gave his Irish girlfriend a suit case with a bomb on it to blow a plane heading to Tel Aviv but the bomb was found before it went on the plane and he was jailed for 45 years for it. That could of killed more people than Lockerbie had it succeeded. In court it the judge said called it terrorism "Put briefly, this was about as foul and as horrible a crime as could possibly be imagined. It is no thanks to this applicant that his plot did not succeed in destroying 360 or 370 lives in the effort to promote one side of a political dispute by terrorism. In the judgment of this Court the sentence of 45 years' imprisonment was not a day too long. This application is refused."[ 80.41.195.100 (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the Hindawi affair 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130330143444/http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/04/309555.html to https://www1.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/04/309555.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria.  – Levivich 18:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

message: Is this article exempt from the normal Wikipedia policies such as WP:VER, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BRD, etc.? The reason I ask is because of this edit. That entry cannot be verified, does not use neutral wording and is a personal and inaccurate interpretation of events. I tried to remove it, suggesting the use of the talkpage to discuss it, but was reverted without explanation. I now propose removing it again. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian would suggest this incident being terrorism is clearly not an established fact. FDW777 (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Removed. FDW777 (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Removed. Again. I suggest  reads the Guardian article I linked to, stops edit warring and seeks consensus for the addition. FDW777 (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

text: There is a similar discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents in June 2020#Wikipedia policy compliance? for anyone interested. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia policy compliance? 

message: A centralised discussion was advertised above at #RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria. The archived Rfc can be seen at Talk:List of terrorist incidents/Archive 2#RfC: List criteria. The Rfc's question is . There can be no reasonable dispute it applies to this article. FDW777 (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See talk:List of terrorist incidents in London#Suffragettes. It is not agreed that it is the case that that criteria applies to location articles. It is wrong to have to delete dozens of perfectly valid entries on this list just because you've decided that the criteria apply to location articles. You need to gain consensus first. Delayed Laugh (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. There was a Rfc, it was advertised on this talk page, the Rfc question was specifically phrased as applying to . The idea that I  is emphatically incorrect. FDW777 (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are the one who is wrong. It says applying to all “list of terrorist incidents in...” articles meaning year-based lists, as in list of terrorist incidents in 2020 or list of terrorist incidents in 2001. It’s not List of terrorist incidents in Saudi Arabia or List of terrorist incidents in France is it. Why are you so determined to remove most of the IRA attacks on this article? Delayed Laugh (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't say anything about only applying to years at all. It specifically says "List of terrorist incidents in ...". What is the title of this page? . FDW777 (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn’t say anything about applying to location-based lists either you plonker, that’s just your own interpretation. Please see the discussion at List of terrorist incidents in London#Suffragettes for clarification. Delayed Laugh (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And where does it say anything about only applying to years? I've seen the discussion there, you might want to read the post by the person that started the Rfc. Or will you ignore that because it proves you completely wrong? FDW777 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it that when a much more senior editor than you disagrees with your interpretation, you claim that there are no objections to your plan of action and that there can be no disagreement with that interpretation? Delayed Laugh (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They can disagree as much as they like, it doesn't change the fact that the Rfc question was . I've put the important word in bold for you, it's a short, unambiguous word with only one syllable. But just to be sure, it means "every single page beginning with "List of terrorist incidents in..." was covered by the Rfc. FDW777 (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

text: This has been a point of confusion (and I've posted my views on what I think we should do elsewhere). It is apparent that the RfC criteria are not being followed on numerous articles about incidents in specific geographical areas. Whatever happened at that RfC, whatever its merits, I think we have to conclude that consensus does not currently exist to apply those criteria to the geographical lists. If, , you want change, I think it will require a new RfC and effort being made to engage with editors working on the various geographical articles. Bondegezou (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That other articles may attract edits against consensus does not change the consensus. There was a Rfc, and it applies to the child articles and it was specifically advertised here. Consensus does not require unanimity, and there appears to be nobody, sockpuppets excepted, that agrees with the inclusion here. FDW777 (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus changes, as per WP:CONSENSUS. I think we are all agreed with the RfC's second criterion, , but it seems to me that there is not consensus, or no longer consensus, that  applies to these geographical region articles. Bondegezou (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rfc consensus was clear 

message: 1992, 1 March: An IRA bomb was diffused by police at White Hart Lane train station in London.
Note that bombs are 'defused' not diffused 81.155.104.212 (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, all set. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021 

message: There's a lot in Timeline of Continuity IRA actions that isn't included here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity IRA 

message: Belfast is not, and has never been part of Great Britain. Great Britain is England, Scotland and Wales. It does not include Northern Ireland (where Belfast is), which is part of the United Kingdom. Or to use the full name (which makes things even more obvious, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. See the word "and"? Doesn't that clear things up enough? Kathleen's bike (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic geography