Jump to content

Talk:Brighton hotel bombing

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


Infobox choice

[edit]

I'm not trilled about the use of the "infobox civilian attack" as there was a political motive, and the targets were not passing by civilians (as with say the Manchester or Omagh bombing. Nor would I describe it as part of a "war" (nor would 95% of other southern Irish people). Having deliberately avoided anything to do with infoboxes since 2005 I'm not informed enough to come up with other suggestions. Thoughts, comments welcome. Ceoil (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which would be better, although I note that the other attempted assassination of a PM undertaken by the IRA in modern times (the Downing Street mortar attack, so probably the most similar of articles) uses the same box as this one. I've left a message at the Irish republicanism project for input on the point. I'm not going to touch it until there is a good consensus for change - I'm not even sure it matters that much, given the readers of the article won't care which one is used, as long as what is there is carrying the correct information. If it were up to me, I'd delete the bloody thing and have done with it, but there you go (not that I'm suggesting such a step). - SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd delete it too, but its not something would go to war about anymore :) Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be a war, it would be a conflict  ;) ——Serial Number 54129 16:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pages of more recent events where political leaders have been assassinated or an attempt has been made such as Attempted assassination of Fumio Kishida, Attempted assassination of Donald Trump and Assassination of Shinzo Abe also use this infobox, so I don't think there is a better option, however I agree that civilian attack isn't the correct description for this event. The only other infobox I can think of is {{Infobox event}}, which is used on some pages such as Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. harrz talk 16:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current infobox is definitely the wrong one; this was a targeted assassination attempt in the context of a declared war, albeit a low-level one. Rightly or wrongly, we regard acts of war with a different moral compass than we do regular killings. Having a "perpetrator" field seems wrong. Operation Vengeance uses a different infobox for a (successful) assassination during a declared war. As Ceoil has said, the victims were not random passers-by but members of the establishment that the IRA were at war with. Whether there is a wider issue with how actions taken during the Troubles are depicted is another whole story. (Of course this is one problem with the reductionism an infobox brings to an article but we probably don't want to get into that.) Now, I'm on holiday so I must put my foot up and relax. I'll look in again tomorrow if I can. John (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a war and those targeted were non-military. As I've already said above, I'm not overly fussed by the actual choice, given that readers won't give a toss either way, but let's not base any change on a false rationale or the desire to disrupt things just for the sake of it. - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it was a war; both sides treated it as such, and reliable sources discuss it as such. The issue of whether IRA prisoners should have "political" status (essentially PoW status) was (as described in the article) one of the major issues the IRA was fighting for at the time. Our article on the Troubles describes it very well,
One further thing; this can be an emotive topic and is under ArbCom sanctions. I would greatly appreciate it if you could desist from making further wild claims about my supposed motivations. Try to imagine that I could be here, as I am sure you are, in an effort to improve the article. Thanks a lot. John (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ Lesley-Dixon, Kenneth (2018). Northern Ireland: The Troubles: From The Provos to The Det. Pen and Sword Books. p. 13.
  2. ^ Schaeffer, Robert (1999). Severed States: Dilemmas of Democracy in a Divided World. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 152.
  3. ^ Rainey, Mark (12 November 2016). "Special Branch officer's insider view of Northern Ireland's 'secret war'". The News Letter. Johnston Publishing (NI). Archived from the original on 21 February 2019. Retrieved 20 February 2019.
  4. ^ Taylor, Peter (26 September 2014). "Who Won The War? Revisiting NI on 20th anniversary of ceasefires". BBC News. Archived from the original on 28 March 2019. Retrieved 26 September 2014.
  5. ^ "Troubles 'not war' motion passed". BBC News. 18 February 2008. Archived from the original on 25 February 2008. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
  6. ^ Hennessey, Thomas (2001). The Northern Ireland peace process: ending the troubles?. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 48. ISBN 978-0-312-23949-7.
(edit conflict) It may be described as such, but that doesn't make it so, and it still doesn't cover the fact that the bomb was aimed at—and affected—civilians. Only one member of the government was killed, the remainder were civilians, including women. And don't try to lecture me with your patronising nonsense: I am not interested. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that the 'title' of the infobox, which is only visible to the tiny fraction of readers who look at the source code, is a bit of a distraction — we should instead be looking at the parameters it affords us and asking whether setting out those facts in an infobox is beneficial to our readers or not. Personally, I think the current infobox adds value and I don't see anything in it incompatible with a view of the Troubles as either a war or a series of criminal actions. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. You can see them in operation on near identical subjects: 1992 Manchester bombing uses template:Infobox civilian attack and 1996 Manchester bombing uses template:Infobox military operation. The fields pretty much overlap throughout, so readers won't be affected by any of it, but the terminology used for the fields is changed. So, for example, while Infobox civilian attack refers to "Deaths", "Injured" and "Perpetrators", Infobox military refers to "Fatalities", "Casualties" and "Executed by". If I had any preference in the choice, I'd go for the plain English of the civilian attack box, rather than pseudo or quasi militaristic terminology; it would also avoid using "executed by", which does have an alternative meaning. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]