Talk:List of terrorist incidents in London

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The War-torn London section[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 ?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Gun Powder Plot[edit]

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[edit]

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."

  • Therefore, describing the Fenains's dynamite campaign as "terrorism" seems to be an accepted usage, even by the professor.--DavidCane (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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?[edit]

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]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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'[edit]

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]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

@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]
AmSam13, you should not be a troll running a bunch of sock puppets. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see AmSam13 has been blocked. Happy to drop the matter in that case. Bondegezou (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Turned out to be a sock farm on this issue and others - all a little off in terms of the obsessions. I think this subject may need discussion but if so that should take place at the the main article and then the consequences cascade here and elsewhere. I don't think lists should determine content and policy issues. Happy to raise that with you if you think it is needed -----Snowded TALK 10:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defining terrorism is difficult and we should always consider our wording carefully given the political nature of the terminology. fortunately, Wikipedia has simple epistemological rules to guide us. We follow RS. Some RS describe the Suffragette bombing campaign as terrorism. Ergo, Wikipedia can use the term terrorism. Articles on the Suffragettes and on terrorism can and should discuss the subtleties of that, the differing viewpoints, as per WP:BALANCE.

An article like this one can refer to those other articles in brief, but it seems to me sensible for this article to continue as it currently does to list relevant Suffragette actions, following RS.

If there is appetite for a discussion to establish a new consensus that nothing the Suffragettes did constituted terrorism in anyone's eyes, then, sure, a centralised discussion can be had on that matter. That would strike me as a rather quixotic position to take, however. Bondegezou (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

Other sources contest the word and should also be covered. Bondegezou (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Their actions very clearly constitute terrorism and reliable sources describe them as such. Simon Webb's book is a particularity good summary of the Suffragette terror campaign.Shakehandsman (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to raise it then this is not the article to discuss the issue - probably here. Simon West writes Westerns and advises television producers on capital punishment, he also write 'popular' for which some people would say 'sensationalist' historical books. He doesn't constitute a RS on his own. -----Snowded TALK 06:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe your snobbery is relevant. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Cooper:, @Shakehandsman: and @Bondegezou:, can you explain why when I try and restore the information in question to the article, @FDW777: keeps removing it? Seems that a consensus has been built for it to stay Ld Kitchener (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Socks don't get to decide if there's a consensus or not. FDW777 (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a sock? I just wanna restore the edits?Ld Kitchener (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SPA or sock it makes no differnce - if you edit war the article will be protected -----Snowded TALK 15:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded, if anyone was edit warring it's you - you're the one removing content from the page that other editors want to remain Ld Kitchener (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Socks blocked.
I looked at one of the references above, Walker (2019). It's difficult to take someone seriously when they say Terrorism though had announced its arrival in the City some 20 years before the bombs at St Mary Axe and Bishopsgate, with the detonation of an IRA car bomb outside the Old Bailey in 1973 — or so living memory would have us believe, then point out an earlier, often overlooked bombing campaign (meaning the Suffragettes). Is the S-Plan a figment of my imagination? There is certainly debate about whether the Suffragettes were terrorists (see for example Sky and the BBC), but that debate belongs on the Suffragettes article, since including them on this article immediately takes a side during the debate and completely ignores the other. FDW777 (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FDW777: I find it difficult to take you arguments seriously when you suggest that placing bombs with the intent of influencing politics is not terrorism. We are'nt saying the cause was wrong, my great grandmother was apart of the cause, but by definition it was terrorism. We cannot twist truth to our preferences Truthspewsfrommyfingers (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look @Ohnoitsjamie:, another sock. FDW777 (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary reports of suffragette actions used the words 'terrorism' and 'terror' when describing them. Indeed the suffragettes themselves described what they were doing as being to cause terror. An item in The Scotsman of the 17 January 1914 about a meeting where Sylvia Pankhurst spoke, reported that she said they proposed to make themselves a terror to the government. The Pall Mall Gazette report of 19 February 1913 about the suffragette bombing of Lloyd George's house said "The Suffragettes to-day took a new and grave departure in their dastardly campaign of violence and terrorism". The Irish Independent of 12 May 1913 headlined reports on a series of attempted bombings in Dublin as "The Suffragette Terror". -- DeFacto (talk). 21:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Terror' and 'terrorism' are not synonymous, especially when the former is used rhetorically as in make "themselves a terror to the government", which means little more than make themselves a nuisance to the govt./ draw maximum attention to their cause. Pincrete (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a sock? I have been reading this subject for a while, please listen to our arguments rather than assuming there cant possibly be anyone who disagrees with you except socks. Truthspewsfrommyfingers (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an American pal, you can check my GO location. Ive been studying the suffragette movement for a while because of the stories of my great grandmother. Truthspewsfrommyfingers (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is a lot of edit-warring going on. Might I suggest people step back a bit? There is zero need for an immediate decision on the material being warred over. This is not a current issue of immediate political significance. There is no need for people to be trigger happy with reverts.
I am not editing the article: I am using Talk. My position remains as it was at the beginning of this section: suffragette attacks have been listed in this article for a long time, as on other terrorism articles. More detail was added recently, but they've been here long before that. There is a long-standing consensus for their inclusion and I see no new consensus to alter that.
Ergo, the question is how we cover them. Using more citations, having more detail about events, contextualising what is terrorism and their status within that, that all seems good to me. I am very happy to discuss specific ideas for text. I urge other editors to leave the article alone for a few days and work towards improved text here.
If there is sock-puppetry going on, action can be taken to block socks. Editors should assume good faith otherwise. Bondegezou (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there is clear consensus that the material should be included, and plenty of reliable sources for the material.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've watched this discussion, but not participated so far. I strongly oppose restoring the text as was. If included AT ALL, it should be clear that characterising suffragette activity as terrorism is a disputed, and possibly minority or even WP:FRINGE position. The British library source says "their choice to turn to violent and extreme actions, what we would define today as ‘terrorism’, is something that is rarely acknowledged". There is 100 miles and acres of WP:SYNTH between 'would define today as terrorism' and 'is terrorism'. Maybe the suffragettes SHOULD BE regarded as terrorist, but that does not mean they generally ARE.Pincrete (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further there is no consensus for the change and questions have been raised about the sources. This is not the right place for the discussion however - it needs to take place on the main article. I suspect the campaign here is because fewer editors are involved. Also the number of socks is problematic indicating some form of campaign. When one sock is blocked and newly created editor more or less immediately appears saying the same thing then it is reasonable to assume a new sock-----Snowded TALK 09:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question shouldn't be discussed on the Suffragette article, since we are not debating whether 'suffragettes are terrorists' as a whole, rather we are asking 'were some terrorists suffragettes?'. The answer to the latter is, according to reliable sources, yes. There seems to be no good reason to debate on the suffragette page when we are not seeking to characterise the whole movement as a 'terrorist' organisation, we are simply seeking to list any events which could be regarded as acts of terror. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further, it seems to me that the lead is quite carefully worded to state 'This is a list of incidents in London that have been labelled as "terrorism"'. As we have seen, certain Suffragette attacks have been labelled as terrorism, even by the WSPU themselves. Therefore, even without a completely unanimous consensus that certain attacks were terrorism, the actions in questions absolutely do qualify for this list. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The subtext to "have been labelled as "terrorism"" is that the majority of, and best, sources regard the specific campaigns or incidents as 'terrorist', not that a small number of obscure sources label them thus, or - even more tentatively - imply that they WOULD BE or SHOULD BE seen as 'terrorist'. Otherwise it's a minority or fringe attitude to include them without qualification. Pincrete (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the numerous sources are you regarding as 'obscure' here? The English Historical Review Journal? The Historical Journal? The London Journal? It can't be these respected academic sources you're talking about. It surley also can't be the academic journals that focus specifically on terrorism - Terrorism and Political Violence and Studies in Conflict and Terrorism? Do you regard the views of respected women's historians Fern Riddell and Rebecca Walker as obscure? FAPeople'sCup (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
West is pretty obscure and at least two of the sources used are him, one of which explicitly says the issue is contentious/disputed.
Fern Riddell doesn't say these acts were terrorism - she says that were these acts to happen today, they would probably be seen as terrorism. When you so blatantly misrepresent this source which is used extensively in the article, you prove my point which is that, rightly or wrongly, most historians don't label these campaigns as 'terrorist'. Pincrete (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quick research into the reliable sources on this question has provided the following sources that label certain suffragette actions as acts of terror:
  • Bearman (2005), The English Historical Review, 120:365-397: The intention of the campaign was certainly terrorist in terms of the word's definition, which according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1990 edition) is 'a person who uses or favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community'. The intention of coercing the community is clearly expressed in the WSPU's Seventh Annual Report, and, according to Annie Kenney, that of coercing Parliament was endorsed by Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst themselves. The question is therefore not whether the campaign was terrorist, or whether the WSPU (in 19I2-14) can be called a terrorist organization, but whether its terrorism worked.
  • Fern Riddell, BBC Interview 2018 https://www.historyextra.com/period/edwardian/books-interview-with-fern-riddell-can-we-call-the-suffragettes-terrorists-absolutely/: "Can we call the suffragettes ‘terrorists’? Absolutely. The question of whether or not we should call the suffragettes of the WSPU ‘terrorists’ is redundant to me, because they so clearly were terrorists. We’re talking about a hugely skilled and highly organised group, whose actions – bombing, arson, acid attacks – clearly match up with what we understand as terrorism today and what was understood as terrorism 100 years ago. Newspapers were actually calling it ‘Suffragette Terrorism’ at the time"
  • Fern Riddell, British Library article 2018: Describes their actions as "what we would define today as ‘terrorism’"
  • Monaghan (2000), doi:10.1080/10576100050174977: "the militant campaign of the British suffragettes involved terrorism in the years 1912–14"
  • Walker (2019), doi:10.1080/03058034.2019.1687222: 'Deeds, Not Words: 'The Suffragettes and Early Terrorism in the City of London'; describes on page 53 how the WSPU carried out a 'terror campaign'.
  • City of London Police Museum: "the suffragettes' actions were and are considered by many to have been acts of terrorism" -https://artsandculture.google.com/exhibit/suffragette-bombings-city-of-london-corporation/5AJygPLt7aWiKg?hl=en
  • Bearman (2007), doi:10.1017/S0018246X07006413: "It was in 1909, and not after ‘Black Friday’, that the WSPU made the decisive step from political protest into the violence which culminated in the terrorist tactics of 1912–14." "Damage to property, and the political violence which culminated in the terrorist tactics of 1912–14, did not begin as a response to wrongs done to the suffragettes, but because the leaders decided it was necessary.
  • Kevin Grant, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 2011 (53)- page 140: "As representatives of the W.S.P.U. were heckled, pelted with fruit and eggs, and sometimes assaulted by hostile crowds, the government cracked down on the organization, now confident in its moral authority over suffragettes who, in 1913, declared themselves to be “terrorists(!).”
  • Monaghan, 1997, Vol. 9 Terrorism & Political Violence, page 65: "This article seeks to show how the militant campaign for women's suffrage in the United Kingdom embodies the characteristics of terrorism. The militant campaign involved the use or threat of use of violence, the targets selected were symbolic and the methods employed were extreme. Although the aim was to instil fear or to terrorise, one form of militancy not entertained by the suffragettes was the indiscriminate killing and injuring which has become a familiar tactic in violent protest. Even with this consideration the militant campaign can be viewed as one involving terrorism".
This is not even including Simon Webb's book, so it's not like he is the only person saying this. These reliable sources from academic books/articles or from key academics describe certain actions of the suffragettes as terrorism in no uncertain terms. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete:, that is just not true. Fern Riddell not only says that their acts would constitute terror today but in a 2018 interview states that they were also considered so at the time: see my entry above. In a BBC interview in 2018, Fern Riddell stated in response to question 'Can we call the suffragettes ‘terrorists’?' with "Absolutely. The question of whether or not we should call the suffragettes of the WSPU ‘terrorists’ is redundant to me, because they so clearly were terrorists. We’re talking about a hugely skilled and highly organised group, whose actions – bombing, arson, acid attacks – clearly match up with what we understand as terrorism today and what was understood as terrorism 100 years ago. Newspapers were actually calling it ‘Suffragette Terrorism’ at the time". See here: https://www.historyextra.com/period/edwardian/books-interview-with-fern-riddell-can-we-call-the-suffragettes-terrorists-absolutely/ Note - prev comment left unsigned by FAPeople'sCup

Seeking to coerce governments to change is not terrorism even if it induces 'terror'. We have to look at the balance of sources and the propoer place for that is the main article, present your evidence there and see what happens, if the main article is changed then change can follow here -----Snowded TALK 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Seeking to coerce governments to change is not terrorism even if it induces 'terror'" Made me laugh, I think people will make their own judgements when reading that statement. In any case, it is not for you to decide what is terrorism and what is not, we follow reliable sources and only follow what their view is. Please present examples from the historiography that disprove the idea that their actions sometimes involved terrorism. As I say, debating on the Suffragette page is not necessary since the majority of Suffragettes did not engage in terrorist acts so that page wouldn't need to be changed significantly in any case. However, this article may be changed significantly and that is why it is being debated here. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So a General Strike is an act of terrorism? You have a very slim edit history but you should know that the use of 'terrorism' is a significant issue on terrorism. If what you say is correct then it needs to be covered on the Suffragette page, if it is not significant there then it is not significant here. -----Snowded TALK 16:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say again, it's not for me or you to decide what is terrorism, we simply reference reliable sources. Provide evidence if you think that none of these actions were terrorism. Also it's not what I am saying is correct, it's what the sources say. The suffragette page already states that certain suffragette actions were considered terrorism at the time so there is nothing that needs adding. The article already states:


"The campaign was then escalated, with the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to post box contents, smashing windows and eventually detonating bombs. Some radical techniques used by the suffragettes were learned from Russian exiles from tsarism who had escaped to England. In 1914, at least seven churches were bombed or set on fire across the United Kingdom, including Westminster Abbey, where an explosion aimed at destroying the 700-year-old Coronation Chair, only caused minor damage. Places that wealthy people, typically men, frequented were also burnt and destroyed whilst left unattended so that there was little risk to life, including cricket pavilions, horse-racing pavilions, churches, castles and the second homes of the wealthy. The also burnt the slogan "Votes for Women" into the grass of golf couses. Pinfold Manor in Surrey, which was being built for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, was targeted with two bombs on 19 February 1913, only one of which exploded, causing significant damage; in her memoirs, Sylvia Pankhurst said that Emily Davison had carried out the attack. There were 250 arson or destruction attacks in a six-month period in 1913 and in April the newspapers reported "What might have been the most serious outrage yet perpetrated by the Suffragettes":
Policemen discovered inside the railings of the Bank of England a bomb timed to explode at midnight. It contained 3oz of powerful explosive, some metal, and a number of hairpins - the last named constituent, no doubt to make known the source of the intended sensation. The bomb was similar to that used in the attempt to blow up Oxted Railway Station. It contained a watch with attachment for explosion, but was clumsily fitted. If it had exploded when the streets were crowded a number of people would probably have been injured.
There are reports in the Parliamentary Papers which include lists of the 'incendiary devices', explosions, artwork destruction (including an axe attack upon a painting of The Duke of Wellington in the National Gallery), arson attacks, window-breaking, postbox burning and telegraph cable cutting, that took place during the most militant years, from 1910 to 1914. Both suffragettes and police spoke of a "Reign of Terror"; newspaper headlines referred to "Suffragette Terrorism"."


Therefore, many of the attacks that would be listed here are already mentioned on the suffragette page. Considering what is already on the article, there is no need for a discussion on that page. The debate is taking place here over whether the certain attacks information should be included on this list. Most importantly, it is not for you to decide what is 'significant' on this page- this is merely a LIST of all terrorist incidents, no point of view is added as to whether they were important attacks or not. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia works of a set of processes which include attention to weight and there is a whole body of historical discussion on what is or is not terrorism. And a host of SPAs and Sock Puppets who try and use the label. Assuming that your edit history is as shown then you only have only been editing for less than a month so you might want to listen to advice from more experienced editors. It is very simple, if they committed terrorist acts then it is significant enough to be on the main article so please take it there. Of course if you have edited before then you need to declare it. If nothing else you are stalemated here.-----Snowded TALK 17:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly did not listen to what I said, the terrorist attacks (described as such) are ALREADY included on the main article so they are already considered significant enough and so no debate needs to be had there. And well, there is at least 4 more experienced editors who believe certain acts can be labelled as terrorist acts on this page so I'd say you need to consider their views as well, if not more so than mine. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Try and make fewer asssumptions about what other editors have or have not done. The actions are reported in part in the main article but no where is the 'terrorist' word used. This is a list and substantial discussions should take place where there are SME experts and a broader group of experts so I repeat, take it to the talk page of the main article. There is no concensus between editors here so you need to do something different that simply repeating yourself. You might confirm that you haven't edited under another name or IP address before while we are at it. -----Snowded TALK 17:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes since they say that there are grounds to include the actions as the sources state they are terrorism. I will repeat again, the suffragette page does refer to it as terrorism. Thr article states: "Both suffragettes and police spoke of a "Reign of Terror"; newspaper headlines referred to "Suffragette Terrorism"." And includes a citation. Well this is my only account so yes I can confirm I haven't edited under another name or IP address. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You had better look up policy on synthesis neither of those statements make them terrorists -----Snowded TALK 18:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

FAPeople'sCup, responding to your earlier post, firstly, a technical matter, the only use of Fern Riddell sources in the article - which is USED TO JUSTIFY INCLUSION of several SPECIFIC INCIDENTS, [does not describe any of those incidents as 'terrorism']. The fact that Riddell elsewhere describes the suffragettes as engaging in terrorism, justifies the inclusion of nothing. Joining together the contents of two sources is pure WP:SYNTH. The IRA is a terrorist organisation, therefore anything it does, or whatever WP editors judge to be violent, is terrorism?
Secondly, if I implied that NO historians consider the suffragettes to have engaged in terrorism, or even no GOOD historians, then I apologise, that isn't what I intended or believe. What I first said was "characterising suffragette activity as terrorism is a disputed, and possibly minority or even WP:FRINGE position". The fact that some good historians DO endorse the description, takes it away from fringe, to minority/disputed IMO. However, nothing about the previous text and nothing about the character of a list works well with a disputed proposition and I tend therefore to agree with Snowded, ie the dispute should recorded be on the suffragette page - and if it doesn't belong there, it certainly has no place here phrased in WP:VOICE as though it were undisputed.
We would not even be having this conversation about the other groups of incidents on the page, finding sources which did NOT describe most Fenian/anarchist/middle-Eastern-inspired incidents as terrorist would be extremely difficult, yet iro suffragettism, about which millions of books, articles and studies have been written, people are fishing around, and synthing to justify inclusion. This is clearly a disputed view IMO. Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, As someone who regularly edits contemporary terrorism article, terror - especially used rhetorically, as in "reign of terror"- does not equal terrorism and newspaper headlines prove nothing, since they are, and always have been, a standard/free way to 'beef up' content. Pincrete (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, I see a lot of reliable sources listed that support the assertion that some of the actions carried out by the suffragettes were terrorism. Can you show a list that dispute that these particular actions were terrorism, to help us judge which side of the argument, if either, could be considered to be "fringe"? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: for the benefit of this debate I would like to further add these 10 (!) reliable academic sources which assert that some of the actions carried out by the suffragettes were terrorism:
• Page 88 - Their actions were a “form of terrorism”
• Page 98 – “Militancy developed into terrorist attacks”
FAPeople'sCup (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look - this is a very old pattern on wikipedia dealing with terrorism as a label - there are sources that use it and sources that don't so we have to make a decision on weight and also context. ` A list article is not the place to do that. If you won't (and I can't see why you refuse if you are confident) take it to the main article then you can always go for dispute resolution and we can bring in other editors -----Snowded TALK 22:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto, WP:V necessitates that the balance of sources endorse that these specific incidents be generally described as 'terrorism'. Assertions that "some of the actions carried out by the suffragettes were terrorism" - according to some historians -, therefore these specific incidents must necessarily be rendered as terrorism in WP:VOICE, without qualification or attribution, fail the most basic test of logic, let alone WP policy. The very least that is necessitated is to render the disputed nature of the claim. Pincrete (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, to a point. If the RS consensus is that a particular action was terrorism, then I see no problem in listing that action in this article as terrorism. However, to establish what the RS consensus is, we need to be sure we've reviewed a broad enough selection of RSes. To that end, given the number of RSes already given above asserting that some actions were terrorism, I wondered if we could find any RSes which dispute those assertions to help us understand what the balance is out there. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shakehandsman: do you agree that there is an abundance of sources on this matter which allow the material to be placed in the article? (Unsigned comment by FAPeople'sCup)
Calling them terrorists is a fairly recent fashion and seems to be generating a campaign, although some press at the time did no one was killed and the Government charged them under the 1861 Malicious Injuries to Property Act, it did not charge them as terrorists. While the main article could reference the fact that the terrorist word has been used and that some sources say they it is still a disputed issue so listing them here would be controversial. Pincrete is right on the logic here and there is a danger of drawing conclusions. Simon Webb is a controversial figure and our job here is not to represent that as truth although we should report it -----Snowded TALK 08:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

DeFacto, at least one of the sources used is a debate between two historians on that specific question and others acknowledge that they are advancing a non-mainstream view, but in general sources don't advance negative positions, Finding a source that says Donald Trump is NOT a martian would be a tall order, for obvious reasons, and would not be how WP works - the onus is the other way round and I find it fairly astonishing that this discussion is happening HERE, rather than on the suffragettes article. Pincrete (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concur - maybe the best solution is to gain consensus here to shift the discussion? -----Snowded TALK 09:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suffragette acts have long been included on this article. That is the prior consensus. Reviewing the above, a minority of editors here are seeking to change that. Might I suggest that the burden of proof is on those who want to change consensus?

I don't see much above showing RS support for a change to consensus, as opposed to editor opinion. I echo DeFacto's comments: are there RSes which dispute including acts here? I don't think Pincrete or Snowded have presented a single RS to support their positions.

Snowded wants a discussion on the main article. Snowded, you're the one who wants to change consensus. You're free to start a discussion anywhere you want to achieve this.

In the mean time, would it be valuable to focus on specific content rather than the more abstract discussion? Is there, for example, some text that could be usefully added contextualising the Suffragette acts within this article? I would favour having a subsection grouping the Suffragette acts that can have an introductory paragraph saying how these acts were described as terrorism by the press at the time and by some historians today, but that others (presuming RS to that effect are produced) dispute that. That's how we're meant to achieve WP:BALANCE. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You introduced the material last April it was reverted in August then subject to a sockfarm attack, so what is consensus is an open question. We have a recent spate of material which wishes to label the suffragette movement as terrorist - that is new and historically it has not been. See comments on Trump and Martians above. There are two questions (i) were they terrorists (ii) if they were in some way how to represent it and where -----Snowded TALK 09:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Bondegezou, I have not presented a single source to support the position that D Trump is a martian either! That's because I am not trying to insert content but questioning how current content is represented and the onus is on 'includers' to justify specifics, not generalities and to justify that theirs is the mainstream historical viewpoint if they want to use WPVOICE, not on me to disprove them! The sources actually used currently in the article support the idea that it is at least a disputed idea that these acts were terrorist, and probably a minority viewpoint. None of the sources appear to endorse inclusion of specific incidents on this list.Pincrete (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bondegezou, partial apologies. Had I fully read your last post rather than reacting, I would have seen in the second para your proposal for an intro para and general contextualising - rather than simply listing - the events and the extent to which they are deemed terrorism. That is what I believe should be done as a minimum and would satisfy me. I'm more used to working on contemporary list articles where an incident either warrants inclusion or it doesn't - so I would defer to others as to whether "qualified inclusion" is apt/possible in this list. What I object to is a notion that these incidents are generally regarded as terrorism being presented as though it were received wisdom - even the historians who advocate that they SHOULD be seen as terrorism, appear to acknowledge that theirs is not the general position.Pincrete (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suffragettes: #1 convenience break[edit]

Snowded, I believe this is the correct place to discuss what goes into this article, regardless of the views of editors on the talkpages of other articles. And no, they weren't charged with terrorism as that wasn't a specific offence in those days. That doesn't mean that what they did wasn't terrorism though.

Pincrete, I'm not asking for sources saying certain actions in London were not terrorism, I'm asking for sources that discuss the London actions without characterising them as terrorism, so we can judge what the consensus amongst the sources wrt terrorism is. With the current list, the consensus seems to me to be that they were terrorism. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources you currently use fail to describe these specific events as 'terrorist', quite a few individual sources acknowledge that they are advancing a novel, or at least disputed view. Would such a dearth of refs exist iro of any of the other campaigns of violence?Pincrete (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, I don't "currently use" any sources, I'm just adding to the discussion. In the discussion I see quite a few sources listed that describe some of their acts in terms of terrorism. Without a similar weight of sources describing the same acts in other terms, it would be difficult not to conclude that the consensus amongst the available sources is that these acts were terrorism. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a plural you, referring to the sources editors use on the article at present and those previously used on disputed text. Many of the sources listed above are so vague as to content as to be valueless, surely some historians advance a view that suffragette actions were, or should be seen as, terrorism. In so far as it is relevant, I probably agree that they SHOULD be seen thus, but history has generally made heroes rather than villians of these women.
Your reply neatly side-steps my point, which is why can no one find sources that describe these specific events as terrorism, nor why individual historians acknowledge that they are presenting a minority view within the sources used. Is it even imaginable that such difficulties would exist iro Irish, middle-eastern or anarchist campaigns?Pincrete (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded, yes, 'twas I who first introduced some Suffragette content here, 19 months ago. No-one questioned it for well over a year. It's clear we had a stable edit.
You and Pincrete are now questioning it. Great, that's how Wikipedia works. But there's 2 people arguing to remove Suffragette content and >2 editors have opposed your suggestions. Great, that's how Wikipedia works: we leave the material as is, for now.
The best way Wikipedia works is when we stop arguing X or not X and start using reliable sources to create better content. I am gladdened that Pincrete supports an "intro para and general contextualising". Pincrete: if you can supply some RS discussing the issue of whether the Suffragettes should be considered terrorism (then or now or in what sense or some acts but not others), that would be useful. Or even give example quotes of how "individual historians acknowledge that they are presenting a minority view within the sources used", that would be helpful. We need RS to create content.
At present, there are 3 major Suffragette attacks from 1913 listed under "Other attacks in the 20th century". I suggest we create a new subsection for "Suffragette attacks" (or maybe "incidents" if that's more neutral). We could expand that list to include other London incidents, as appropriate. We insert an introductory paragraph saying something like (recycling some text from the Suffragette main article):
At the time, both suffragettes and police spoke of a "Reign of Terror"; newspaper headlines referred to "Suffragette Terrorism".[1] However, modern scholarship has a range of views as to the applicability of the term "terrorism" to these events. (citations hopefully to be found)
Does this look like a good approach? I am very happy to hear suggestions for wording, or about RS we can use. Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed four months ago and then edit warred by a sock, so the stable version is the current one without the material - that is how wikipedia works. I'm pretty sure there are conventions on words like 'terrorism' in some arbcom rulings as well that require us to be cautious before using the langauge. It isn't clear to me if Pincrete supports some insertion so will wait for his/her response. In the mean time you need to find a RS for each of those incidents which describes them as terrorism, to go from some historians say that some acts were terrorist, to this act was one of terrorism is a big leap. -----Snowded TALK 15:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded says above that, It was removed four months ago and then edit warred by a sock, so the stable version is the current one without the material. This is mistaken. Not a single edit this year has removed all reference to Suffragette attacks on this page. Edit-warring and sock action have expanded and shrunk that content, but as far as I can see, some reference to Suffragette attacks have been here throughout. Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded, Bondegezou, I have no strong opinion either way as to whether ANY text should be included HERE. On articles/lists about present day criminal acts, we would expect a much higher standard of proof, specificity, and unanimity among sources than that offered at present here - but as long as proper context is given, I have no objection to the kind of section that Bondegezou proposed above, in which we outline that some historians NOW and some commentators/coverage THEN described these acts as terrorism. This isn't an area about which I have more than a general knowledge/interest, and I only involved myself in the discussion because the sources used appear to endorse a much more equivocal position than simply listing events in WP:VOICE implied. Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would remind Bondegezou that he said on the 10th August that he was "Happy to drop the matter in that case" and everything has been quiet until the latest set of sock puppets started it up again -----Snowded TALK 10:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, I thought we'd covered the specific events. Anyway, here are some examples:
  1. "Bomb Outrage: Explosion at Mr. Lloyd-George's New House". The Pall Mall Gazette. No. 14917. 19 February 1913. p. 1. The Suffragettes to-day took a new and grave departure in their dastardly campaign of violence and terrorism.
  2. "More Suffragette Terrorism: Teahouse at Kew Gardens Fired". Lincolnshire Echo. No. 6194. 20 February 1913. p. 3.
  3. "Women and the Law". The Express. Merthyr. 1 March 1913. p. 7. Within the space of a few days we have had an attempt to wreck the orchid house in Kew Gardens, a bomb explosion at a new house being built for Mr. Lloyd George, and the destruction by fire from the acts of two young women of a new tea house in Kew Gardens. ... Surely the smallest modicum of common sense should tell those misguided women that "mere man" may be reasoned and coaxed into concessions for the improvement of their social status, but he will never be driven by sheer terrorism into granting what his mature judgement convinces him would not be beneficial to the women themselves...
  4. "Day of Bombs". Daily Mirror. No. 2984. 17 May 1913. p. 5. Suffragette terrorism has compelled the London police authorities to adopt precautionary measures which savour of Russian methods.
  5. "Suffragette Terrorism". Leeds Mercury. No. 22955. 9 May 1913. p. 4. I hear that several people in the north of London are seriously thinking of applying to the Home Office for special police protection.
  6. "Today's Parliament: Suffragette Terrorism". Derby Daily Telegraph. No. 10845. 11 June 1914. p. 3. Mr. Fred Hall (Dulwich) asked the Prime Minister if in view of the danger to life and damage to property occasioned by the continued acts of the militant supporters of women suffrage, he would consider the adoption of more strenuous measures for the suppression of the condition of terrorism that exists.
Even when wrapped in the language of the day, the message is very clear. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant 'book/academic' sources. The ones currently used DON"T support individual acts being thus described. One of the sources listed below, specifically says that newspaper sources at the time of these events ordinarily used 'outrages' rather than terrorism. We know from current events that individual news headlines do not necessarily mirror the broader view, so I cannot comment on these news sources beyond repeating what I have said from the beginning, that this is not, and has not been, the mainstream view for most of the 100+ years since these women were active AFAI can see. interview has one of the sources most used in our article (Riddell) detailing the resistance she encountered from other historians in advancing her PoV - even allowing for the fact that this is a promotional interview - it, and other sources used led me to conclude that this is not received wisdom - though it probably should be. Pincrete (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It says newspaper sources ordinarily used "outrages", but that they used "terrorism" more with the step up in activity in 1913. I quote, "The word ‘terrorism’ appears regularly in reports of arson and bomb attacks from 1913." We don't currently list more minor incidents: the 3 incidents listed are arson and bomb attacks from 1913.
When we consider whether to list current events on terrorism lists, we don't generally require unanimity from media reports. We require some RS media reports to use the word "terrorism", and we discount non-RS media and statements by governments. Had Wikipedia existed in 1913, these incidents would have met our criteria. (International) RS media of the time called it terrorism (as did government, as did the perpetrators themselves in some cases).
Thank you for offering a source with that BBC piece. I interpreted it somewhat differently to what you're saying. The Suffragette movement was broad and long-running. Maybe I should have made this clearer: no-one, as far as I can see, is arguing that all of the Suffragette movement was terrorist or that all protest acts by Suffragettes were terrorist. The allegation of terrorism concerns actions by some in the movement around 1913. All sources agree that some in the movement became more militant and more violent: the question becomes whether some of those acts constitute terrorism. What Riddell is saying is that historians focused on the less violent aspects of the movement. She doesn't say that historians were denying the most violent acts were terrorism: she's vaguer than that, but seems to be saying that historians and the movement itself ("There is some indication, Riddell adds, that the suffragettes made a co-ordinated attempt in later years to remove references to their most violent acts from published memoirs.") shied away from talking about them at all. So I don't think -- given this is a promo interview not an academic paper + you're doing a certain amount of interpreting -- that this securely demonstrates your argument that "the mainstream view for most of the 100+ years since these women were active" was that none of these acts constituted terrorism. The other sources I discuss below do not support that either, although they do support that there is currently debate about the applicability of the term. Bondegezou (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one, AFAIK, has argued that NONE of the events have EVER been seen as terrorist. But you cannot put anything in a list in WPVOICE without implying that its presence in that list is endorsed by nearly everyone - that it is a FACT not one of several viewpoints. Listing measles as an infectious disease, cannot possibly be construed as meaning "some people think, or have thought, it is infectious and plenty of others haven't said anything either way". I'm afraid that this is back to "no sources say Trump ISN'T Martian, so we can go with sources that say he is" logic. We have to interpret silence as NOT endorsing an opinion. My experience of modern debates is that a high degree of unanimity is required before WP endorses controversial labels. Of course "my freedom fighter is your terrorist" always applies, but simply finding some sources that characterise some campaigns by some suffragettes cannot possibly verify individual acts or turn one interpretation of events (albeit an interpretation which appears to be gathering endorsement) into a fact. Pincrete (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's my revised suggestion for an introductory paragraph:
With increased militancy in the movement in 1913, both some Suffragettes and the authorities talked of arson and bomb attacks as terrorism.(ref to Grant, 2011; Purvis, 2019) Contemporary newspaper reports likewise spoke of "Suffragette Terrorism" in the UK[2] and US.(ref to Adickes, 2016). However, modern scholarship has a range of views as to the applicability of the term "terrorism" to these events.(ref to Bearman, 2005; Purvis, 2019; Wolton, 2017) Bondegezou (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou:, could we not also add some of the original text: "These attacks were specifically designed to terrorise the government and the general public to change their opinions on women’s suffrage by threats and acts of violence.[3]" To clarify why many historians/academics/contemporaries considered it to be terrorism? FAPeople'sCup (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems unnecessary to me. This is a list article, after all, so I think we need to reference that there is some debate, but I don't think this is the place to dive into that debate. That seems more like something the main article could do. (It does to some extent at present, but the material there could be expanded.) Bondegezou (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yes that sounds reasonable to me. Apart from that, I fully agree with your revised suggestion for an introductory paragraph. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Kitty Marion: The actress who became a 'terrorist'". BBC News. 27 May 2018. Retrieved 27 May 2018.
  2. ^ "Kitty Marion: The actress who became a 'terrorist'". BBC News. 27 May 2018. Retrieved 27 May 2018.
  3. ^ "Suffragettes, violence and militancy". The British Library. Retrieved 2020-08-02.

Further exploration of reliable sources[edit]

I've tried to do a deep dive of the academic literature on this topic, particularly looking for sources challenging the characterisation of Suffragettes as having committed terrorist acts or describing a debate.

I still see plenty of RS that describe these incidents as terrorism. I am unconvinced by claims that this is a minority view. In addition to prior examples, I note Monaghan (2007; doi:10.1080/09546559708427403), who argues strongly that the Suffragettes were engaged in terrorism. I quote:

"In conclusion, the militant campaign of the women's suffrage movement can be viewed as one incorporating the characteristics of 'terrorism'. It involved the use or threat of use of violence, mainly directed at public and private property. The nature and level of violence varied, ranging from the breaking of windows, setting fire to residences and churches to the planting of bombs. In terms of the financial cost of violent suffragette activism, this too varied from month to month. For example, in the month of February 1914, such action accounted for between £62,000 and £65,000 of damage."

I also saw Grant (2011; https://www.jstor.org/stable/41241735), who notes that the Suffragettes "in 1913, declared themselves to be "terrorists."" He cites: "Pugh, March of the Women, 206-10. Regarding "terrorists," see Mayhall, Militant Suffrage Movement, 107; Emmeline Pankhurst, "Address at Hartford," 13 Nov. 1913, in Jorgensen-Earp, Speeches and Trials, 322-49."

Ditrych (2014; doi:10.1057/9781137394965) describes Suffragette actions as terrorism in passing. Legg (2020; doi:10.1080/03058034.2019.1705078) likewise. Kay (2008; doi:10.1080/09523360802212271) hedges somewhat, but says, "Britain, it seems, was set apart in the English-speaking world by the sheer ferocity of its suffrage campaign, its emphasis on criminal acts and its espousal of tactics which could be classed as ‘terrorism’." Sjoberg & Gentry (2016; https://www.jstor.org/stable/26396168 ) offer "The suffragettes in the United Kingdom used violent tactics that could be considered terrorist in nature."

Adickes (2016; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09612020200200336 ) describes contemporary US media reports describing Suffragette actions as terrorism.

I found a couple of papers with one-off mentions of Suffragettes not being terrorists. Teichman (1989; https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751606) says:

"Destruction of property is not terrorism unless it is a precursor of a different kind of action, i.e. part of a campaign which includes phys-ically harming human beings. Thus the destruction of property by the suffragettes ought not to count as terrorism, whereas the destruction of glass on Kristallnacht certainly was, because of the attacks on Jews which followed."

But that's one mention in the whole paper. Wellman (2013; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-6007-3_1 ) explicitly argues against Teichman's position, but says nothing more about Suffragettes.

Harré (2004; doi:10.1037/10621-004) writes:

"Do you have to kill people to be labeled a terrorist? What about hungers trikers and the suffragettes who chained themselves to railings in London—how are we to label them? They did violence to their own bodies to further their causes. Such people may touch our emotions, but it is pity rather than terror that is evoked. Here then is a second criterion. A person properly called a terrorist is one whose actions are meant to create alarm and terror in certain people, sometimes in the citizens of a whole nation (as with the acts of al-Qaeda), and sometimes within the members of a narrow social class (as with anarchists of the 19th century, whose target was the authoritarian rulers of nation states). The means must be the infliction of death or the making of threats of death so that the level of actual fear and apprehension in a certain group of people should reach the level necessary to react"

But, again, that's one mention in the whole paper.

Ford (2019; doi:10.1080/17539153.2019.1618643) in one paragraph questions Clare et al. (Making Sense of History: 1901 - Present Day, London: Hodder Education, 2015) describing the Suffragettes as terrorists.

Wolton (2017; doi:10.1177/1746197917693021) is an interesting read. It discusses modern counter-terrorism policy's demands on education by considering how we teach about the Suffragette movement. To simplify a long and thoughtful paper, it basically says the Suffragettes were terrorists, but that their actions were legitimate, and considers how that overlap -- the existence of legitimate terrorism -- has implications for how we teach about terrorism. So it's describing a controversy to some degree. Even clearer if you want to describe the controversy is deVries (2013; doi:10.1111/hic3.12034), who notes:

"thousands of Britain’s readers followed the heated exchange between historians June Purvis and Christopher Bearman over whether or not suffragettes were modern‐day terrorists. With Bearman arguing that suffrage militants engaged in “carefully calculated, stage managed, cold‐blooded crimes” not unlike al‐Qa’eda, and Purvis valiantly defending their noble motives and emphasizing their bloodless hands, the sensationalized debate splashed for several weeks across the pages of the BBC History Magazine, Times Higher Education, Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph."

The clearest arguments against in the academic literature I could find were by the aforementioned June Purvis. Purvis (2013; doi:10.1080/09612025.2012.751768) offers a rebuttal to Bearman's description of "terrorist". Purvis (2019; doi:10.1080/09612025.2019.1654638) then has a longer discussion:

"As the struggle continued, the leadership sometimes referred to the WSPU’s arson and bombing campaign as a reign of ‘terror’, although this word was also commonly used by the suffragettes themselves and their sympathisers in regard to their handling by the police.49 Christabel, weary of the failed promises and repeated failures of the Liberal Government to enfranchise women, asserted that the suffragettes ‘know that Parliament never grants reform unless it is terrorised.’ Drawing on historical example, she continued, ‘The men terrorised parliament into giving them the Vote. The Catholics terrorised Parliament into giving them emancipation.’ She concluded, ‘Terrorism is, in fact, the only argument that Parliament understands! Mr Lloyd George is well aware of that fact, as many of his speeches and his earlier career give proof.’50

"Rhetoric spoken by Christabel in the Edwardian era and actions undertaken by her followers are two different things. Certainly that minority of suffragettes who engaged in arson and bombing never called themselves ‘terrorists’. Nonetheless, Christabel’s comments could justify the claim made by a small number of recent commentators that the arson and bombing campaign hindered the granting of the vote and was akin to ‘terrorist’ atrocities in the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries and, secondly, that such suffragette ‘terrorism’ was directed by Emmeline and Christabel, especially the latter.51 Let me examine these two claims further.

"‘Terrorism’ is a highly emotive term, especially in a post 11 September 2001 world when the terrorist group Al-Qaeda launched an attack in New York, killing 2996 people and injuring at least 6000. Since that time the scourge of modern terrorism which, in my view, involves the targeting of civilian populations, has deliberately killed many more innocent people.52 I disagree therefore, on the following six grounds, with those critics who claim that the suffragettes were like modern-day terrorists and that such violent tactics delayed the granting of the women’s vote."

Purvis then makes several arguments. I thought particularly of interest was this comment: "most of the press of the day referred to suffragette attacks on property as ‘outrages’ rather than terrorism—despite the fact that the majority of the press had male editors and journalists who were unsympathetic to the women’s cause. Only a minority of newspapers, such as the Pall Mall Gazette, spoke of suffragette terrorism.54" But later says, "The word ‘terrorism’ appears regularly in reports of arson and bomb attacks from 1913. The Pall Mall Gazette, for instance, explicitly uses the phrase in its headline when reporting on its front page the damage caused to the house being built for Lloyd George.32"

Gillett (2019; https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=984571905634213;res=E-LIBRARY ) looks interesting, but I hit a paywall.

Overall, I think there's enough to retain these events in the list, but also to say there is controversy. Purvis (2019) seems the best citation here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou:, I agree with absolutely everything you've said there. I must say, I find Pincrete and Snowded's arguments here very bemusing, and they are all over the place. First, your argument was that the information shouldn't be included since the idea that the Suffragettes occasionally committed terrorist acts is a 'minority' or 'fringe' view that is only supported by 'obscure' sources. But since it has been shown that this view is expressed in dozens of reliable, academic articles, journals and books, including those published by respected female historians, and is not just expressed by Simon Webb in his summary of the terrorist attacks, you have decided to abandon this argument in place of the claim that 'the attacks in question were never labelled as terrorist acts'. Unfortunately, this new claim is nonsense. Lets take a look at the specific attacks which started this reaction when they were added to this article, and see if there is evidence from reliable sources that shows that they are designated as terrorist actions:
Firstly, these six attacks:
Are all mentioned in the British Library article by Fern Riddell (https://www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/suffragettes-violence-and-militancy) in which she describes these "actions" as "what we would define today as 'terrorism'.
Then there are these incidents:
Then there are these attacks (some already covered once already) which are also described as terrorist attacks in key primary sources:
  • 1913, 19 February: A bomb planted by the suffragette movement on the orders of leader Emmeline Pankhurst exploded at the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and future Prime Minister David Lloyd George, causing substantial damage. - Described in this primary source as terrorism: "Bomb Outrage: Explosion at Mr. Lloyd-George's New House". The Pall Mall Gazette (14917). 19 February 1913. p. 1. "The Suffragettes to-day took a new and grave departure in their dastardly campaign of violence and terrorism."
  • 1913, 20 February: A suffragette attack destroyed the Tea Pavilion at Kew Gardens - described as terrorism (again) in this primary source: "More Suffragette Terrorism: Teahouse at Kew Gardens Fired". Lincolnshire Echo (6194). 20 February 1913. p. 3.
  • 1913, 8 February: Suffragettes attacked the Orchid House at Kew Gardens/ 1913, 20 February: A suffragette attack destroyed the Tea Pavilion at Kew Gardens/ 1913, 19 February: A bomb planted by the suffragette movement on the orders of leader Emmeline Pankhurst exploded at the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and future Prime Minister David Lloyd George, causing substantial damage - all described as terrorism (again) in this primary source: "Women and the Law". The Express. Merthyr. 1 March 1913. p. 7. "Within the space of a few days we have had an attempt to wreck the orchid house in Kew Gardens, a bomb explosion at a new house being built for Mr. Lloyd George, and the destruction by fire from the acts of two young women of a new tea house in Kew Gardens. ... Surely the smallest modicum of common sense should tell those misguided women that "mere man" may be reasoned and coaxed into concessions for the improvement of their social status, but he will never be driven by sheer terrorism into granting what his mature judgement convinces him would not be beneficial to the women themselves..."
  • 1913, 16 May: A suffragette bomb was discovered at Westbourne Park tube station before it could explode. - Described as a terrorist attack in this primary source: "Day of Bombs". Daily Mirror (2984). 17 May 1913. p. 5. "Suffragette terrorism has compelled the London police authorities to adopt precautionary measures which savour of Russian methods".
  • 1914, 11 June: A bomb exploded at Westminster Abbey; damaging the Coronation Chair. - Described as terrorism when reported in this primary source: "Today's Parliament: Suffragette Terrorism". Derby Daily Telegraph (10845). 11 June 1914. p. 3. "Mr. Fred Hall (Dulwich) asked the Prime Minister if in view of the danger to life and damage to property occasioned by the continued acts of the militant supporters of women suffrage, he would consider the adoption of more strenuous measures for the suppression of the condition of terrorism that exists."


And, most importantly of all, ALL of the attacks that were listed were named as being "terrorist" attacks in Simon Webb's book, which is literally called The Suffragette Bombers: Britain's Forgotten Terrorists. Even if you don't like the guy, the academic history book is fully sourced and so we should not whitewash his opinions with snobbery.
You cannot argue that these specific attacks themselves were 'not designated as terrorist attacks', because, as you can see, both contemporary sources and modern-day reliable, academic sources designate these specific actions as terrorist attacks.
So, 1) we know that the Suffragettes are considered to have carried out terrorist attacks by reliable sources. 2) We also know that these specific incidents are described as terrorism by reliable sources. What argument do you want to try next? Your arguments are all over the place, are constantly changing and keep being disproved, and none of what you have said has ever been supported with reliable evidence. Try again. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FAPeople'sCup, fistly please don't misquote me. I have never said "only supported by 'obscure' sources". I believe I said some of the sources appeared to be obscure, which is true of some of those actually used in the article. Nor did I say some of the other things attributed to me by you. What I said in my very first post is "characterising suffragette activity as terrorism is a disputed, and possibly minority or even WP:FRINGE position". Apart from amending my view to exclude FRINGE, I have not changed my position one iota, the viewpoint is at least disputed and possibly minority AFAI can see. But can I point out the absurdity of arguing that it is not a minority view since one historian (Webb) endorses it. (most importantly of all, ALL of the attacks that were listed were named as being "terrorist" attacks in Simon Webb's book … Even if you don't like the guy, the academic history book is fully sourced and so we should not whitewash his opinions with snobbery.) No, I'm afraid the most important thing is all those histories written about the Suffragettes, which DO NOT use that term. They all deserve to be WEIGHTed alongside Webb.
Your faith in that single source is touching - however a single source is never good enough unless that source is the, almost universally acknowledged, expert in his/her field, then we use that source because almost all others endorse it, not because the source is good enough in itself. Webb is not in that league AFAIK and it is not 'snobbery' to say so.Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gosh I can barley be bothered to reply to that post since it was so ridiculous. @Pincrete:, let me make this as clear as possible for you: in this thread I have provided AT LEAST 24 reliable sources NOT EVEN INCLUDING WEBB's BOOK which state that the suffragette's occasionally carried out terrorists acts, or that describe specific attacks as terrorist. HOW CAN THAT BE 'FAITH IN JUST A SINGLE SOURCE'. You clearly don't even bother reading my replies in their entirety because they are so detailed, and just hear what you want to hear. You talk about being misquoted yourself, then just make up such rubbish about what I say. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "faith in just a single source" refers to claims that specific events were terrorist in nature. Apart from Webb and occasionasl primary sources, none are provided above that I can see, certainly not 24. I have never disputed that some historians regard some suffragette acts as terrorist. It is 100 miles from some historians and some acts to it being broadly the scholarly consensus that this or that particular act was terrorist. At least one of the sources you list above (the Sky discussion between two historians - one of whom is Webb) actually endorses the opposite of what you claim. Two historians disputing whether suffragette actions were terrorist, does not endorse any specific event, it endorses that 'terrorist' is a disputed claim among historians, otherwise what are they discussing? An amicable resolution is proposed below, I have endorsed the outline of that resolution, so continued discussion is largely pointless. Pincrete (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete: look, I could spend time explaining why what you say there is wrong (for a start I also provided Fern Riddall and the British Library's article to demonstrate that at least six attacks are described as terrorist in nature: https://www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/suffragettes-violence-and-militancy), but I'm not going to, since as you rightly say an amicable resolution has been proposed. I agree with this proposal by @Bondegezou:, so I'm glad that we can agree on that matter. It seems to be to be the best way forward. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Riddell doesn't describe specific events as terrorist in the source we use, she DOES describe specific events, and says that some of their acts WOULD BE regarded as terrorist TODAY, but largely acknowledges that not all historians agree or have agreed on that description. But I am happy to record that some historians DO think this. Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Forwards[edit]

The arguments are pretty consistent and for someone who claims to be a very new editor you are being remarkably assertive and voluable :-). We don't have a consensus either way at the moment and there are arguments on both sides. The only compromise - because this is taking up far too much time and seems to promote the views of a few outlier historians - may be a highly qualified section stating the controversy and listing only major incidents specifically described as terrorism in a reliable source. That would need to make it clear that whether they class as terrorism or not is not agreed. The other alternative is to formulate an RfC which we could agree. But please no more multi-paragraph postings -----Snowded TALK 09:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowded: Well having read this discussion I just find some of the arguments blatantly unsupported. However, the good news is that I finally agree with you on something. I think that a compromise where we include the material but state the controversy surrounding it would be appropriate here. @Bondegezou: seems to be on the right track here with this and has already formualted a draft paragraph that seems okay to me. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 11:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded, if you think there is continued sock-puppetry, I entirely support that being investigated. Any material added to the article by a banned editor should, in the first instance, be reverted. Any material added to Talk by a banned editor can be struck through.
The article at present (with all sock-added material having been purged) lists three major Suffragette attacks under "Other...". Yourself and Pincrete appear to have objections to that wording, which thus goes beyond issues to do with sock-related changes. I have proposed splitting out those three bullet points and adding a contextualising introductory paragraph that reads:
With increased militancy in the movement in 1913, both some Suffragettes and the authorities talked of arson and bomb attacks as terrorism.(ref to Grant, 2011; Purvis, 2019) Contemporary newspaper reports likewise spoke of "Suffragette Terrorism" in the UK[1] and US.(ref to Adickes, 2016). However, modern scholarship has a range of views as to the applicability of the term "terrorism" to these events.(ref to Bearman, 2005; Purvis, 2019; Wolton, 2017)
Happy to hear suggestions on that wording. There seems some support for this. The next most popular suggestion is sticking with the status quo. I am happy with either approach. The least popular suggestion appears to be removing all reference to Suffragette attacks here. I oppose that approach. I don't particularly see the need to go to an RfC at present, but have no objection in principle. Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Snowded's suggestion a "qualified section stating the controversy and listing only major incidents specifically described as terrorism in a reliable source. That would need to make it clear that whether they class as terrorism or not is not agreed". If I have not suggested phrasing, I apologise, others appear to be more familiar with the range of sources than I, my involvement was largely because the sources used AT PRESENT seemed a great deal more equivocal than the act of listing implied.Pincrete (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’d just like to slide into the discussion at this point out of interest... having read the (extremely long) debate on this issue, I support either the suggestion by @Bondegezou: or the inclusion of a section stating the controversy and listing only major incidents specifically described as terrorism in a reliable source. Delayed Laugh (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Delayed Laugh. Thanks, Pincrete, for your input too. The paragraph I've tried drafting is intended to be a "qualified section stating the controversy and listing only major incidents specifically described as terrorism in a reliable source" that makes it "clear that whether they class as terrorism or not is not agreed". That is, my suggestion is intended to meet Snowded's suggestion. Let me know if there's any particular wording or use of references that you're not happy with. I am not at all precious about the details.
Thanks, indeed, to everyone. I think we've moved substantially to something that works for all. Bondegezou (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’d like to see this be put into practice. Delayed Laugh (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text has to take up Pincrete comments on the weight of this - the wording proposed suggests that they were terrorist but some disagree when it is the other way round. Happy to try and draft something later -----Snowded TALK 08:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some specific suggestions on text would be welcome.
I've been through the RS in some detail. I simply don't see support for the notion that most sources consider these more militant actions to not be terrorism. I do see a debate and a consideration for the difficulties of what "terrorism" even means or how we judge historical acts or what part of the Suffragette story we should talk about. I tried to phrase the text offered above such that it does not suggest the weight in modern times is strongly one way or another. However, I do lead with contemporary reports, where the weight is clear, but maybe that unbalances the paragraph...? As I said, I'm not wedded to the suggested text: just explaining my reasoning. Bondegezou (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou:, I think the best thing to do would be to take a vote on your suggested phrasing of the text.

Proposal[edit]

We implement the changes proposed as a compromise by Bondegezou (talk · contribs), and include his phrasing of the text.

Question
  • Question: what is the proposed text - can it be quoted here please so we know what we are judging? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: the proposed text is as follows (including the proposed references):
”With increased militancy in the movement in 1913, both some Suffragettes and the authorities talked of arson and bomb attacks as terrorism.[2][3] Contemporary newspaper reports likewise spoke of "Suffragette Terrorism" in the UK[4] and US.[5] However, modern scholarship has a range of views as to the applicability of the term "terrorism" to these events.[3][6][7]”.

References

  1. ^ "Kitty Marion: The actress who became a 'terrorist'". BBC News. 27 May 2018. Retrieved 27 May 2018.
  2. ^ "British Suffragettes and the Russian Method of Hunger Strike" by Kevin Grant, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 53, No. 1 (JANUARY 2011), pp. 113-143. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41241735
  3. ^ a b Purvis, June (2019). "Did militancy help or hinder the granting of women's suffrage in Britain?". Women's History Review. 28 (7): 1200–1234. doi:10.1080/09612025.2019.1654638. ISSN 0961-2025.
  4. ^ "Kitty Marion: The actress who became a 'terrorist'". BBC News. 27 May 2018. Retrieved 27 May 2018.
  5. ^ Adickes, Sandra (2002). "Sisters, not demons: the influence of british suffragists on the American suffrage movement". Women's History Review. 11 (4): 675–690. doi:10.1080/09612020200200336. ISSN 0961-2025.
  6. ^ Wolton, Suke (2017). "The contradiction in the Prevent Duty: Democracy vs 'British values'". Education, Citizenship and Social Justice. 12 (2): 123–142. doi:10.1177/1746197917693021. ISSN 1746-1979.
  7. ^ Bearman, C. J. (2005). "An Examination of Suffragette Violence". The English Historical Review. 120 (486): 365–397. doi:10.1093/ehr/cei119. ISSN 1477-4534.
Support
  1. Support as proposer. Delayed Laugh (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Obviously. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, but very happy to consider alternative wording. (The middle sentence needs tweaking to clarify that the reports are in the US, not the actions.) Bondegezou (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I have spent a lot of time on this article trying to make it into a balanced article about the Suffragettes rather than the mish-mash of information about suffragists in general that it was before I started editing it. The article is always going to attract edits from those with their own agenda to promote, so it is important that we get the wording right. The wording proposed seems fine to me but I am open to any suggestions for amendments. Richerman (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose as currently worded, it would be better to delete from "However" and replace with "Some recent scholarship has sought to describe Suffragette actions as terrorist but this remains controversial" which is more balanced. The discussion may be replaced by an RfC - see below -----Snowded TALK 08:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well the problem with that wording is that it implies that it is only a recent thing to characterise certain Suffragette attacks as terrorism, which it evidently is not. Delayed Laugh (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great that we have some agreement! Happy to drop the word "However". I think Snowded's wording for the final sentence implies that describing these more militant Suffragette actions as terrorist is a minority view. I do not see RS support for that position. I would prefer a more neutral wording. However, happy to see what other people think. I am taking notes and am happy to present a tweaked version of the paragraph. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Why is this article apparently exempt from the parent article's inclusion criteria? Talk:List of terrorist incidents (and all sub-articles) require entries to be notable (have a stand-alone article) and that the consensus of WP:RSes describe the incident as "terrorism". FDW777 (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suffragette actions between 1912-1914 are already listed on the parent article. Delayed Laugh (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a non-sequitur. There was an RFC at Talk:List of terrorist incidents/Archive 2#RfC: List criteria which determined the inclusion criteria for that article and sub-articles. Can anyone point me to a similarly attended RFC where consensus was obtained to ignore that consensus? FDW777 (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn’t say it’s a non-sequitur, as the suffragette attacks have been a long-standing part of the parent article, meaning that they are already considered to have satisfied that criteria. If anything, that suggests that they should all absolutely be included here, since their inclusion already satisfies the criteria for the parent article. Delayed Laugh (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the inclusion criteria agreed at Talk:List of terrorist incidents apply to the articles of the form List of terrorist incidents in 2020, List of terrorist incidents in 2019 etc. I don't see a discussion, let alone a consensus, that they apply to lists of a more focused nature, e.g. by geography. That's been my understanding. Clearly, we could discuss that if people feel this list should stick to that criterion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FDW777 I was pretty sure there was prior consensus on calling things terrorism, hence my concerns earlier. I'd suggest one location one RfC to resolve this -----Snowded TALK 08:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria FDW777 points out basically has 2 elements: (a) entries must be notable (i.e. have a standalone article); and (b) must be described as "terrorism". I supported both of those in the discussion leading to their adoption.
I see (b) as pretty obviously following from WP:RS and take it as read as applying to any list of terrorism.
I don't see (a) as applying to more specific articles, like this one "in London". I see more specific articles like this one as being an appropriate space to cover terrorist attacks that don't (yet) have their own articles. What's the point of a more specific list if it doesn't allow us to go into more detail? We'd lose the vast majority of this article if we applied (a). I think that's true of various other more specific lists, of which there are many (List of terrorist attacks in Damascus, List of Islamist terrorist attacks, List of terrorist attacks in Kabul, Lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, Attacks on the London Underground, List of lone wolf terrorist attacks, List of ETA attacks, List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, 1990s, List of bombings during the Northern Ireland Troubles etc.), most doing their own thing. I think it would be difficult to get a overriding consensus given how many articles like that there are! Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we applied (a) here, what would the impact be? First section, "Fenian attacks during the Fenian Dynamite Campaign 1867–1885", keep 1, delete 10. Second section, "Republican attacks during the Sabotage Campaign", delete everything. Third section, "Republican attacks during the Troubles", 1973: keep 2, delete 6. 1974: keep 6, delete 10.
Let's jump ahead to "Attacks related to Middle East politics": keep 3, delete 18. "Anarchist attacks": keep 1, delete 24.
Applying (a) would completely gut this article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of terrorist incidents is a parent article of this one. One set of child articles is split by year, another set of child articles is split by location. FDW777 (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By year: yes. By location: not in any remotely systematic way. The various location articles have developed in an ad hoc fashion. I do not see editors treating them as child articles.
Current practice does not apply (a) to any of the location articles I've looked at recently. If you want to suggest it should, go ahead, but please put notices on every relevant Talk page. You would be deleting the majority of content on many of these articles. Bondegezou (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it would also mean that the Clerkenwell Outrage, one of if not the most famous early terrorist attacks, would have to be removed, which would be unthinkable. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No? That's one of the few that does have its own article, so that would remain. Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it required a unanimous consensus of reliable sources to state it was terrorism, then the Clerkenwell Outrage wouldn’t be able to be included since many sources call it an ‘Outrage’ and not a terrorist attack, even though it’s clear it was a terrorist attack.FAPeople'sCup (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is spinning off in multiple directions. I don't think there's any groundswell of support in this section for change. If anyone has specific proposals for changes, we can discuss them: I suggest that would focus discussion more clearly. Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That child location articles have been created in an ad hoc fashion does not change the fact they are still child articles. The ad hoc nature of their creation is a natural consequence of terrorism itself, which does not occur in even geographic patterns. That some information will be lost by applying the criteria is not relevant, that happened to the other child articles too and was obvious to anyone who replied to the RFC, which still ended with the result that caused substantial amounts of information to be removed. For example January 2018's incidents were reduced from this list to six incidents currently listed. FDW777 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone; here's my two cents in response to a message on my talk page. I started the RFC in question. It was advertised at WP:CEN (but not WP:CENT, I should have listed it there, not sure why I didn't), the WikiProjects (terrorism, lists, disaster mgmt), the main List of terrorist incidents page, and the talk page of every child list linked on that main list, which includes every "List of terrorist incidents in [month/year]" article, and every "List of terrorist incidents in [country]" article (including List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain, which I consider to be the direct parent of this article). I did not specifically advertise it on this article or any "List of terrorist incidents in [city]" articles. In all it was advertised on over a hundred talk pages. List of terrorist incidents in Great Britain is covered by the RFC, and I would argue that List of terrorist incidents in London and all places in GB, are also bound. I think every "List of terrorist incidents in..." list is bound, because it was a widely-advertised RFC, and because it's not practical for us to consider child articles not bound by the rules of their parents. Also, as new lists are created, they should be considered bound as well, otherwise we'll have inconsistency in the topic areas and have to have repeated RFCs. I think articles that don't want to follow the list criteria should have to have an RFC approving the exception. But of course that's just my 2c and a bit of history; I have absolutely no authority in this matter. BTW I added {{list criteria}} to the GB page. Levivich harass/hound 18:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that input. I can see no logical reason why this article should be exempt from the same inclusion criteria applied to the overwhelming majority of other "List of terrorist incidents in..." articles. So I propose to apply the same criteria to this article. FDW777 (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. I completely disagree and so does Bondegezou. If you want to propose changes you will need to start a discussion and gain consensus for that. Bondegezou is correct when he says that that criteria is for the articles based on years, not location. We have already concluded this discussion on the inclusion of the suffragette material and the majority of editors agree it can remain. Delayed Laugh (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CONLOCAL, Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Community consensus on the criteria for "list of terrorist incidents in..." was made clear by the Rfc, two editors here disagreeing is a textbook example of a limited group of editors, at one place and time trying to override community consensus on a wider scale. FDW777 (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We've had a discussion of this matter here. I don't think we need an additional RfC, Levivich. There clearly isn't consensus to apply that criterion here. That criterion clearly isn't being applied to lots of articles similar to this one. Whatever the intent of the original RfC, while it was applied to the month/year articles, it didn't catch on more broadly. (When I supported the RfC, as far as I recall, I only thought it applied to the month/year articles.)
There are many terrorist events that do not warrant their own articles, yet where there are sufficient reliable sources to say something about them. It seems to me useful to have somewhere on Wikipedia to describe these events. Where should we do that? There was an 1882 bomb at Mansion House. That is a reliably sourced fact. It seems worth it being covered somewhere. It seems to me that these child articles are a good place to do that. Bondegezou (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There clearly isn't consensus here to override the community's consensus regarding the content of these lists. There was an 1882 bomb at Mansion House. That is a reliably sourced fact. It seems worth it being covered somewhere, excellent point! That's why it's already covered at Fenian dynamite campaign. So let's put this whole "lost information" argument to rest shall we? That criterion clearly isn't being applied to lots of articles similar to this one, simply because someone hasn't got round to pruning the relevant articles doesn't mean the criteria don't apply to them. That's like saying because some articles contain unreferenced material WP:V doesn't apply to other articles, which is ridiculous. FDW777 (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FDW777:, Bondegezou is a much more experienced editor than you, so I suggest you listen their advice carefully, rather than trying to delete most of the content of articles that people have worked so hard on over the years.
As Bondegezou says, I can't see any evidence that the criteria in that RfC applies to list articles by location. Specific articles by location require a different set of criteria than the list of terrorist incidents article, since they go into much more detail. The reason why the said criteria works on the list of terrorist incidents article is because it covers a massive area, i.e. the whole world, and so restrictions are needed to stop the article from becoming too overly long and cumbersome (because if you listed every single terrorist attack ever in the world then it would be a hugely and unworkably long article). That's why the main list of terrorist incidents page largely just lists the wider campaigns of terror at a specific time, linking to the wider articles which provide more detail. In specific articles focusing on a small location, no such restrictions are needed because there is greater scope to add detail and list every individual attack.
I don't see any attempt from you to try and establish whether the RfC applies to specific location based articles, you've just decided for yourself that it does. You need to build a consensus rather than overriding the views of more experienced editors and a long-standing discussion on the inclusion of suffragette attacks which has already come to a clear conclusion. Frankly, I'm not sure why you think its acceptable to re-write the long-standing conventions of an article just because you don't want any suffragette attacks to be on this article.
One more thing, I find it hillarious that you are saying "lets put this argument to rest" when you are the one trying to undo what has already been agreed on by a majority of editors on the suffragette issue! Seems like you are taking inspiration from a certain Donald Trump here, maybe you should learn how to be humble and accept results. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll delete as much as is necessary to enforce the community consensus, unless it can be demonstrated that there is consensus to ignore the wider community consensus. FDW777 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A community consensus, which, has not been shown beyond doubt to apply to this article. FAPeople'sCup (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Rfc applies to all "List of terrorist incidents in ...". The important word is the bold one. FDW777 (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are many terrorist events that do not warrant their own articles, yet where there are sufficient reliable sources to say something about them. It seems to me useful to have somewhere on Wikipedia to describe these events. Where should we do that? Nowhere! Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. That was sort of the whole point of the RFC. Wikipedia will not list terrorist incidents that do not warrant their own articles. Just like we won't list every murder that happened in London, we won't list every terrorist incident. That's why "List of terrorist incidents in..." has the list criteria requiring a stand-alone page. The whole point was to not have lists exactly like this one (or at least, that was the point I had in mind when I started the RFC, because that was what the pre-RFC discussion was about). The RFC question was not limited by time. Country articles were expressly notified. City articles were not (my mistake, because they weren't linked in the parent article, I missed them), but I agree it's nonsensical to think that time-based and country-based articles are covered by the RFC but city-based articles (which are indisputably spinoffs of the country-based list for the country where the city is located) are not. I believe the RFC represents global consensus that is binding on all pages and cannot be overruled by local consensus. Hence why another RFC, equally well advertised, would be required to make an exception... in my opinion.
Obviously as the proposer of the RFC my opinion is not only not authoritative but also biased on this subject. If it were me, I would bring this question to the pump, ANI, or AN. What we ought to do, in my opinion, is add the {{list criteria}} template to all the articles starting with "List of terrorist incidents in...". I thought I did this last year but I obviously missed the city-based articles. If I were to do it now boldly, judging by this discussion, other editors are almost certain to disagree with me. So that's why I suggest escalating this discussion from this article talk page to some wider community page to get consensus on the applicability of the RFC to this article and other "List of terrorist incidents in..." articles. Levivich harass/hound 18:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Socks[edit]

Unsurprisingly Delayed Laugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FAPeople'sCup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are confirmed sockuppets of Gordimalo (that's AmSam 13). So I see no reason why the Suffragettes addition should be allowed to stand, especially in the face of the community consensus that applies to all "List of terrorist incidents in..." articles. FDW777 (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal re. Suffragette "Terrorism"[edit]

We have above a proposal from @DeFacto as modified by Snowded that would read:

”With increased militancy in the movement in 1913, some Suffragettes and the authorities talked of arson and bomb attacks as terrorism. Contemporary newspaper reports likewise spoke of ‘Suffragette Terrorism’ in the UK and US. Some recent scholarship has sought to describe Suffragette actions as terrorist but this remains controversial".

Seems reasonable. It refers to a use of the term "terrorism" that is clearly subjective on part of those who either announced they were instituting "a reign of terror" by, say, smashing windows in the West End, or who claimed, not merely to have been outraged, but to haven been "terrorised" by the bomb damage to the Coronation Chair. But how seriously should we take a rhetoric that would confuse such actions with those deliberately intended to take life or limb, or which are indifferent to substantial risks bodily injury of loss to others? Perhaps there are exceptions, but the risks in Suffragette "direct actions" were generally those assumed by the militants themselves. Of course there were those in the press and in government who regarded the suffragettes refusal of food--their prison hunger strikes--as "terrorism"ManfredHugh (talk)

Might I suggest it would be clearer if you !voted in the section above where this is being discussed?
The proposal was from me, not DeFacto. I am very glad to see that we are close to agreement: 5 editors agree to the broad outline proposed and no-one's disagreed. Great! We're just down to the detailed wording of the last sentence: 3 for mine, 2 for Snowded's. The 2 versions aren't miles away from each other, but as per my earlier comments, I remind all that we need to follow reliable sources, and I don't think reliable sources quite support Snowded's revised wording. I am happy to see more editors weigh in, or a third wording be suggested for that final sentence. Bondegezou (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nit picking "Some recent scholarship has sought to describe Suffragette actions … " would be simpler & clearer as "Some recent scholarship has described/describes Suffragette actions … ". And is there a more specific term than 'recent'?. Pincrete (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Bondegezou has established, it would be inappropriate to simply state that “some” recent scholarship has described their actions as terrorism, since that implies that this is a minority view, and it is clear that a majority of reliable sources share this view not a minority. Delayed Laugh (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying an introductory paragraph[edit]

In discussion above, there were 4 editors (including myself) in support of my introductory paragraph draft. 2 editors supported the idea of an introductory paragraph and part of the text proposed, but wanted a variation on the final sentence. Others have supported the broad approach but have not expressed a view on the proposed draft text.

There is clear consensus for an introductory paragraph and for much of what it should say. There is some disagreement on the final sentence, but a 4:2 majority for one version. Given discussion has died down, I have WP:BOLDly edited the article to add an introductory paragraph close to the draft I proposed. I've tweaked this a bit to make things clearer and to achieve some small degree of compromise with the alternate wording suggested. I'm not suggesting this new paragraph is set in stone. I am happy to see it edited (respecting discussion here) or further discussed here, but we've had a lot of discussion and I felt we were close enough to something that it was acceptable to make this move. Bondegezou (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London&oldid=1208305365"