Jump to content

Talk:List of terrorist incidents in London: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AmSam13 (talk | contribs)
419 edits
Line 237: Line 237:
{{ping|Snowded}} Suffragette attacks have been listed in this article for a long time, as on other terrorism articles. That implies a long-standing consensus for their inclusion. A recent addition by {{u|AmSam13}} added a lot more detail, but material on Suffragette articles was there before. Thus I am unclear on the jusification given for removing the new material on the grounds that the terrorist nature of these attacks is not established. Existing consensus is that they are terrorism. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 13:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
{{ping|Snowded}} Suffragette attacks have been listed in this article for a long time, as on other terrorism articles. That implies a long-standing consensus for their inclusion. A recent addition by {{u|AmSam13}} added a lot more detail, but material on Suffragette articles was there before. Thus I am unclear on the jusification given for removing the new material on the grounds that the terrorist nature of these attacks is not established. Existing consensus is that they are terrorism. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 13:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
:Its under discussion on the article on Terrorism - has this been discussed before and is there a link to that discussion? I'd also point out that I simply reverted recent additions while this is discussed. -----[[User:Snowded|<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 14:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
:Its under discussion on the article on Terrorism - has this been discussed before and is there a link to that discussion? I'd also point out that I simply reverted recent additions while this is discussed. -----[[User:Snowded|<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK</small>]]</sup> 14:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Snowded}} You should not be altering or removing content until the conclusion of the talk page discussion.[[User:AmSam13|AmSam13]] ([[User talk:AmSam13|talk]]) 14:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:14, 9 August 2020

The War-torn London section

Since when were the Nazis terrorists? Don't get me wrong, I'm not fond of them, but they were the government of Germany at the time and it followed an official declaration of war made by Britain--Elfbadger 10:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something's missing

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the July 7 London Bombings be placed in this as well? And if it is, I think this page should redirect to that and this should be a disambiguation page as most people who come to it would most likely be looking for the July 7 bombings.

JUST TO ADD- Something else missing, the 2001 Ealing Broadway IRA bombing is missing as well

ALSO TO ADD- The 1976 West Ham Tube bombing.. shouldn't that also be on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.144.200 (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WW: There's lots missing. For example, see this article : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ira-bomb-alert-brings-travel-chaos-in-london-thousands-of-commuters-suffer-disruption-as-series-of-coded-warnings-lead-to-the-closure-of-rail-and-tube-stations-1469056.html and note the 4 incendiary device incidents that week that aren't recorded here. My recollection was that this sort of thing was going on all the time. Also, note the lack of entries for the mortars fired at MI6 buildings, and a few years beforehand at 10 Downing Street. I'm reasonably sure there was a need to diffuse IRA devices on one of the Thames bridges relatively recently (about 9-10 years ago). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwonko (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be bold and add the missing events. --hydrox (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I came to this page looking for an incident I vaguely remember; The queen was supposed to be going to an event in London, but as she had a cold was substituted by ???? . The IRA did not know this, and attacked her car with machine guns as it left Buckingham Palace. The terrorists were overpowered by passer by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.182.1.253 (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name of this article

Is POV and should be altered to a more correct or neutral title--Vintagekits 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Does anyone have any suggest as to what this list should/could be changed to?--Vintagekits 14:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be called politically driven attacks in London? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.12.189 (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of bombings in London would be the most neutral title. The word "terrorist" is politically-loaded, and all but two of the incidents listed here are bomb attacks. ~Asarlaí 14:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too vague, as by definition it could be taken to include First & Second World War aerial bombing. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about List of bomb attacks in London? There's a disambiguation at the top of the page anyway (For the German bombing of London during World War II, see The Blitz). ~Asarlaí 18:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. Gob Lofa (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long dead discussion and as there has bee no recent debate you should have reopened the discussion not just gone ahead with the move. I will ask an Admin to Undo the move as it cannot be reverted.Tmol42 (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for addition

What is the exact criteria for adding incidients to this list?--Vintagekits 14:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this also include the song by Eskimo Joe ?

Should the song by Eskimo Joe Called London Bombs also be included in this wiki page or added as a Disambiguation ? Remingtond 14:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East

What's the connection between Islamist terrorism and the middle east? Misheu 10:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Terrorism in the United Kingdom

Oppose there have been enough terrotist attacks in London to justify a seperate list from List of terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom --Philip Baird Shearer 10:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with philip. A link to the United Kingdom terrorism page should definitely be on this page though. --Elfbadger 13:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tower of London 1974

Bomb blast in the Tower of London - Quite surprised that this is not in here... Willdow (Talk) 13:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Prior to 1867?

Noticed right away that the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was missing; likely there are many more earlier incidents missing as well. Thanks! 70.42.54.162 (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move

This page ought to be moved as the title violates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Contentious_labels Gob Lofa (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Do you have a convincing case that any or all of the incidents listed do not constitute terrorism? Nick Cooper (talk)
As you well know Gob Lofa you moved this article three months ago without discussion, it was reverted, there is no concensus and it does not offend any WP policies. Its a dead issue. Whatever your personal feelings are. Move on.Tmol42 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the existing guidelines, which I've linked to above, I didn't believe discussion was necessary. "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". Hardly suitable for the title. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still can't bring yourself to specifically identify those incidents you don't think are terrorist in nature? The idea that we can't call a spade a spade because it might upset a few apologists who would rather call it something else doesn't fly. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to just me, Nick. Nor just you. We have these guidelines for a reason. Have you read them? Gob Lofa (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So rather than identify the incidents which you think do not constitute terrorism, you wait four months and then move the page without discussion to some mystifying acronym that had virtually zero common usage? Classy. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reverted back to the original page name. I would note that many pages on Wikipedia use the "List of terrorist incidents..." format, and precisely none use "List of VNSA incident..." "Violent non-state actor" is not even remotely a widely-used and recognised term, and the acronym even less so. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done Nick, totally support this reversion. There is no room for a personal agenda on Wikipedia, nor for unilateral changes introducing fringe ideas / titles which have no support.Tmol42 (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree: VNSA is not part of normal English Cj1340 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that just because other articles violate Wikipedia policy we have a free hand to do likewise here too. If we don't use VNSA, what word ought we replace terrorism with in order to avoid violating Wikipedia's policy on words to avoid, linked to above? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again Lofa you have acted unilaterally and moved this article againt the concensus, ref all the above.I have reverted back.Tmol42 (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. You have no problem violating Wikipedia's policy on words to avoid, but you won't engage in any defense of that violation here? I sought input from others here on how to rectify this situation a month ago; it was not forthcoming. I make no apologies for defying a consensus that defies Wikipedia's policies. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no wish to act unilaterally, but no-one else has proposed any alternative to the current title, which cannot be allowed as it defies this Wikipedia policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Contentious_labels You may consider it funny to thumb your noses at Wikipedia policies; I do not. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conflict with policy. The section you refer to is about being cautious over the use of a contentious term to describe an individual or group not the outright ban on its use on Wikipedia articles. As there are literally dozens and dozens of articles covering lists of terrorist issues and events which are not being contested, for a start those listed at Category:Terrorism-related lists clearly this article is not out of line with practice and there is consequently no point trying to plug away here to implement policy change. I suggest you raise your concerns at the relevant Project Talk Page / Discussion Board and in the appropriate way. As to your desire not to act unilaterally, given your previous behaviour on several occaisions, at least you now acknowledge the importance of acting appropriately. Meantime, I propose we close this thread here.Tmol42 (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced by your argument but I'll give it a shot. Where ought I go? Gob Lofa (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know? Gob Lofa (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you were that serious about raising it you would also be motivated to find the Project Page or Noticeboard where this can be done, it ain't difficult.Tmol42 (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link? 23:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Help:Contents no problem!Tmol42 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be so facetious as that if I was breaking Wikipedia policies with your abandon. You suggested I raise this elsewhere, you know well the Help page is not the place. Do you know where or not? Gob Lofa (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who repeatedly moved the page against concensus, not me! I pointed out this page is part of a whole suite of similar articles and you need to raise your issues on a generic page for the topic. You ask me where I suggest the Project page. You ask where this is. I point to the Search Page on Help. This is where I go to find the right place on Wp, which is frequently the case. Check it out and you will see there is a search facility. In return I get a load of groundless invective and personal attack. Please note that was the last time I will put up with you making personal attacks on me or saying I have been breaking Wp policies when all I have done is be helpful and tolerant with you at every stage.Tmol42 (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I began seeking consensus here almost two years ago, only to be faced, every time, with bald obtusity and a sense of entitlement regarding Wikipedia policy. Moving the page to conform with policy without having persuaded people they had no right to break it was a last resort. Have you read the policy I linked above? The relevant part states "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." How do you propose to use in-text attribution on an article's title? Why do you insist on interpreting an insistence that policy be adhered to as a personal attack? Gob Lofa (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have raised this issue several times above. You have failed to reach concensus each time. Failing to get your point of view accepted is not "bald otusity" it is simply that other editors did not agree with you. Nor is trying to get concensus and failing sufficient grounds for you to twice unilaterally change the article's name. Your policy argument is totally without validy as explained above so don't waste your energy going over old ground here as the current English Wp interpretation is that a group by any name who bomb civilians can be called terrorists. As pointed out to you many articles use the words..."List of terrorist incidents... or similar, so as suggested take your concerns with the suite of possibly over fifty article titles up in the appropriate place. As you seem to be incapable of using the search facility on Wikipedia Help why not put a 'help me' tag on your talk page. Tmol42 (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Two years ago I asked Gob Lofa to identify exactly which incidents listed on this page they thought were not terroristic in nature, and they failed to so do, instead repeatedly falling back on the idea that "terrorist" and all variations thereof are naughty words, despite being used on many other Wikipedia page titles. Quite why Gob Lofa thinks that the UK is a special case has never been made clear. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the UK is the greatest country in the world and should naturally lead the way, would have thought that was obvious. It's not that terrorist is a naughty word, more that it is unclear, as can be seen at Definitions of terrorism. Whereas violent non-state actor does exactly what it says on the tin. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are also UK culture related RMs that I have also proposed at The Beatles (terrorist cell) → ISIL militants nicknamed the Beatles and Jihadi John → Mohammed Emwazi

A discussion regarding proposed changes in WP:LABEL is found here in the hope that changes may help avoid situations such as presented in the above thread. GregKaye 11:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Search results re WP:UCRN

GregKaye 11:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Powder Plot

Gob Lofa, the most basic search of google scholar on 'terrorism' + "gun powder plot' will give you both a book and several articles. You are more than capable of checking that sort of thing before you start edit warring. If you need a reference then we use Milton, the Gunpowder Plot, and the Mythography of Terror by Robert Applebaum or one of several others. ----Snowded TALK 20:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you still haven't done that. Why not? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it isn't necessary ----Snowded TALK 21:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is, according to the MOS. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to your adding a reference if you think it is necessary. Policy requires citation only if something is challenged, littering articles with citations for things which are universally accepted is discouraged. So if you are genuinely arguing that an attempt to blow up the legislative assembly of a country is not an act of terrorism, then a citation can be added. ----Snowded TALK 08:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now? Obviously the linked page with its 176 footnotes, 17 books and 7 linked pages not enough for you. 85.210.165.63 (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why indulge him/her? ----Snowded TALK 14:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, no. Targets don't tend to be unbiased. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. 2.96.105.170 (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't lack supporting information. We lack an objective assessment of whether or not the GP constitutes terrorism, and the target probably shouldn't be our first port of call. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fenian Dynamite as terrorism

I agree with @Alfie Gandon: that this violates WP:LABEL which states only call something terrorism unless it is widely called that. This is not the case. The Fenians are viewed as heroes by the Irish people. There is a memorial to Jeremiah O'Donovon Rossa, the leader of the Fenians in this period in the capital city and a number of streets in Ireland have been named after him. Academic examples include Proffesor Shane Kenna who in his book makes no mentioned of the word terrorism and calls it "urban warfare". See his book here and Historian Nial Whelehan who called the Fenians "revolutionaries", he also makes no mention of terrorism. See here. Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have a perspective from one side of the debate, I am sure there are many from the other side; however, I don't think that Professor Kenna's writing supports you position. When I did a google search on "fenian dynamite campaign" the first two non-wikipedia pages that were offered are articles by the professor; one from 2011 and one from 2012:
  1. One skilled scientist is worth an army’ – The Fenian Dynamite campaign 1881-85 (see http://www.theirishstory.com/2012/02/13/one-skilled-scientist-is-worth-an-army-the-fenian-dynamite-campaign-1881-85/#.WL9kPH8pVuI). In this article, after a brief outline of the development of modern terrorism, he states that the Fenians should be credited with the development of the concept: "In fact, Fenian bombers revolutionised the concept of terrorism in the nineteenth century."
  2. The Fenian Dynamite Campaign and the Irish American Impetus for Dynamite Terror, 1881-1885 (see http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/602/the-fenian-dynamite-campaign-and-the-irish-american-impetus-for-dynamite-terror-1881-1885). In this article, he explicitly uses the word "terror" in the title, he describes the Fenian strategy as "terrorism" and he concludes:

"To conclude, the Fenian terrorist strategy was essentially rationally chosen. In response to a perceived revolutionary paralysis following the failures of the previous decade, terrorism provided a practical means for the rejuvenation necessary to instil a fresh impetus within defeated Fenianism. Informed by developments in science and technology, Fenian terrorism did not originate within Ireland but was peculiar to a culture of terrorism inherent to post Civil War America. It was influenced by the pervading Fenian belief in the ability of political violence to coerce British political elites to consider Irish grievance."

Fair enough, though as I have stated it is only an opinon. Nial Whelehan and others refrain from using the term.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I have shown that your preferred professor uses the term "Fenian Terrorism", why have you removed the section from the article again and why have you claimed that this is "per consensus"? Consensus requires agreement and that has not been reached.--DavidCane (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the first question should be obvious, read my reply above. You are the only user opposing it. User:Alfie Gandon agrees. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My question was to ask why, after I have shown you that your position is not supported by your evidence you have removed the section again. Your answer is that I am the only one opposing. You are the only one here proposing your position, but, in any case, this is not a vote.
I understand that the Fenian's may be considered heroes by the Irish people (although, arguably, not all of the Irish people), but you need to understand that many others consider their actions to be terrorism. Your view does not automatically trump that of those who you disagree with and simply claiming that the inclusion of the section violates WP:LABEL, pretending that consensus has been achieved and removing the entire section is not satisfactory. Why was Fenian bombers attacking London and elsewhere not a coordinated terrorist action?--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jo Cox?

If we're including isolated incidents like the shopping centre attack a couple of years ago, surely the deliberate, politically motivated murder of a sitting politician would qualify? The perpetrator himself has said it was a politically motivated killing. Surely that's the essence of terrorism? 108.171.128.174 (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Her murder might belong on another list, but, as she was attacked and died in Birstall, West Yorkshire, not on this one.--DavidCane (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of terrorist incidents in London. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of terrorist incidents in London. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Attacks in the 21st century'

Couldn't pretty much all of these be included in the 'Attacks related to Middle East politics' section?

Kohran (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any relationship is more indirect than earlier events and have some distinct characters. Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be argued that the attacks were not related to developments in the Middle East? And could you explain a bit more about 'distinct characters'? Kohran (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the older attacks were not attacks on UK per se, more often London was the - almost accidental - site of a mid-Eastern conflict. Most 21st century events have been 'homegrown', large numbers of them relate to Islamism - which is only indirectly linked to mid-east. Pincrete (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of terrorist incidents in London. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament Car Crash driver "spooked" before making wrong turn into anti-terror wall

This really shouldn`t be included in this article, pending the Police investigation. Just now the article is as per below; "

2018
  • 14 August 2018: At around 07:37 BST, a car was driven at speed into a group of cyclists outside the Palace of Westminster. A man in his 20s was detained on suspicion of terrorist offences. Ten people were injured, including two who were hospitalised.[1]

" There was video released by the traffic-division of police or TfL, showing the entire incident, starting clearly showing;

  • driving very slowly (as if considering whether to complete leaving the roundabout southbound)
  • continuing within the roundabout
  • a person (pedestrian, cyclist, policeman, unidentified security agent, etc.) wearing highvisibility vest suddenly jumps out towards the vehicle
  • the vehicle drastically changes course, drawing the attention of several heavily-armed security, enters northbound lane
  • attempting to get out of the northbound lane back into southbound, driver hits other non-vehicular traffic (cyclists)
  • crashes into barriers erected betwixt public-realm thoroughfare, fullstop

but not clearly showing;

  • turn signals/indicators/blinkers
  • traffic-code or highway-code posted roadsigns, traffic-lights, or temporary diversion signage

The description currently says "driven AT SPEED into cyclists" but is not realistic, as the driver was going slowly until the ambulance came across his right-wing-mirror and the person jumped/rode out towards his left-passenger/rear door. If that was "intentional" terror-attacking, the speed could have and would have been exponentially greater, along with subsequent fear thereof.

This article needs improvement but not as badly as the newspapers need selling. 126.209.47.203 (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Westminster car crash treated as terror attack". BBC News. 2018-08-14. Retrieved 2018-08-14.

Lehi/Stern Gang wiring of parcel-bombs under the benches at Westminster Hall/ Commons/Lords

Surely the placing of explosives under the benches of MP`s deemed undesireable by the Stern Gang should be included in this article about London. That was around the time of the King David Hotel Bombing by the same terrorist militants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.47.203 (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick search wouldnt return matches for that, although the Whitehall dynamite bomb with faulty trigger did; added two for the year 1947.126.209.7.228 (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are corroborating details on the Stern Gang article (but I didn't have time to add refs) Pincrete (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suffragettes

@Snowded: Suffragette attacks have been listed in this article for a long time, as on other terrorism articles. That implies a long-standing consensus for their inclusion. A recent addition by AmSam13 added a lot more detail, but material on Suffragette articles was there before. Thus I am unclear on the jusification given for removing the new material on the grounds that the terrorist nature of these attacks is not established. Existing consensus is that they are terrorism. Bondegezou (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its under discussion on the article on Terrorism - has this been discussed before and is there a link to that discussion? I'd also point out that I simply reverted recent additions while this is discussed. -----Snowded TALK 14:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Snowded: You should not be altering or removing content until the conclusion of the talk page discussion.AmSam13 (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London&oldid=971984552"