Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
A discussion regarding proposed changes in [[WP:LABEL]] is found [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Proposed changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels|here]] in the hope that changes may help avoid situations such as presented in the above thread. [[User:GregKaye|Greg]][[User talk:GregKaye|Kaye]] 11:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
A discussion regarding proposed changes in [[WP:LABEL]] is found [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Proposed changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels|here]] in the hope that changes may help avoid situations such as presented in the above thread. [[User:GregKaye|Greg]][[User talk:GregKaye|Kaye]] 11:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
===Search results re [[WP:UCRN]]=== |
|||
*[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=(terrorist+OR+terrorism)+AND+%22in+London%22&espv=2&biw=1076&bih=575&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=EHQBVarYOuOt7gaarYD4BA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ (terrorist OR terrorism) AND "in London"] got "About 355,000 results" in news |
|||
*[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=(terrorist+OR+terrorism)+AND+%22in+London%22&espv=2&biw=1076&bih=575&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=EHQBVarYOuOt7gaarYD4BA&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAQ (terrorist OR terrorism) AND "in London"] got "About 197,000 results" in books |
|||
*[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22terrorist+incidents%22+%22in+London%22&espv=2&biw=1076&bih=575&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=qnMBVcmhJvPX7AaIioCABg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ "terrorist incidents" "in London"] got "About 334 results" in news |
|||
*[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22terrorist+incidents%22+%22in+London%22&espv=2&biw=1076&bih=575&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=qnMBVcmhJvPX7AaIioCABg&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAQ "terrorist incidents" "in London"] got "About 2,250 results" in books |
|||
*[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=(%22Violent+non-state+actor%22+OR+VNSA)+AND+%22in+London%22&espv=2&biw=1076&bih=575&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=T3QBVczNBMne7AaC4YHQAg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg ("Violent non-state actor" OR VNSA) AND "in London"] got "1 result" in news |
|||
*[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=(%22Violent+non-state+actor%22+OR+VNSA)+AND+%22in+London%22&espv=2&biw=1076&bih=575&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=T3QBVczNBMne7AaC4YHQAg&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAQ ("Violent non-state actor" OR VNSA) AND "in London"] got "About 183 results" in books |
|||
[[User:GregKaye|Greg]][[User talk:GregKaye|Kaye]] 11:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:16, 12 March 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The War-torn London section
Since when were the Nazis terrorists? Don't get me wrong, I'm not fond of them, but they were the government of Germany at the time and it followed an official declaration of war made by Britain--Elfbadger 10:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Something's missing
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the July 7 London Bombings be placed in this as well? And if it is, I think this page should redirect to that and this should be a disambiguation page as most people who come to it would most likely be looking for the July 7 bombings.
JUST TO ADD- Something else missing, the 2001 Ealing Broadway IRA bombing is missing as well
ALSO TO ADD- The 1976 West Ham Tube bombing.. shouldn't that also be on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.144.200 (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
Name of this article
Is POV and should be altered to a more correct or neutral title--Vintagekits 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Does anyone have any suggest as to what this list should/could be changed to?--Vintagekits 14:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Criteria for addition
What is the exact criteria for adding incidients to this list?--Vintagekits 14:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Should this also include the song by Eskimo Joe ?
Should the song by Eskimo Joe Called London Bombs also be included in this wiki page or added as a Disambiguation ? Remingtond 14:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Middle East
What's the connection between Islamist terrorism and the middle east? Misheu 10:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Terrorism in the United Kingdom
Oppose there have been enough terrotist attacks in London to justify a seperate list from List of terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom --Philip Baird Shearer 10:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
Tower of London 1974
Bomb blast in the Tower of London - Quite surprised that this is not in here... Willdow (Talk) 13:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Nothing Prior to 1867?
Noticed right away that the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was missing; likely there are many more earlier incidents missing as well. Thanks! 70.42.54.162 (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Move
This page ought to be moved as the title violates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Contentious_labels Gob Lofa (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Completely agree: VNSA is not part of normal English Cj1340 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- Anyone? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Completely agree: VNSA is not part of normal English Cj1340 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Link? 23:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Help:Contents no problem!Tmol42 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Help:Contents no problem!Tmol42 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Link? 23:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Gob Lofa, when you state that the page "violates" WP:LABEL you should have an obligation to read the context that this article section is contained in an article merely titles WP:Words to watch and which begins with the statement: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, ..." What was the violation? Similarly in the discussion that you started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#WP:TERRORIST you state an apparent opinion that "Some users seem to be circumventing WP:TERRORIST ..." (I added the emphasis and please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions). Above you, I think, argumentatively infer "breaking Wikipedia policies with your abandon". Please note that the first pillar of Wikipedia is that we build an encyclopaedia. Our priority is to present clear informative content. The rest is guidelines which, in various cases, may variously apply. This is an encyclopaedia not a WP:BUREAUCRACY. Please also see WP:WIKILAWYERING. GregKaye 10:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
Search results re WP:UCRN
- (terrorist OR terrorism) AND "in London" got "About 355,000 results" in news
- (terrorist OR terrorism) AND "in London" got "About 197,000 results" in books
- "terrorist incidents" "in London" got "About 334 results" in news
- "terrorist incidents" "in London" got "About 2,250 results" in books
- ("Violent non-state actor" OR VNSA) AND "in London" got "1 result" in news
- ("Violent non-state actor" OR VNSA) AND "in London" got "About 183 results" in books