Talk:Chelsea Barracks bombing

Likelihood of civilian injuries
Just to highlight two edits on the page were reverted, which I would challenge.

First, the article says 'they assumed':

"The IRA unit assumed that would be a place where passing civilians were unlikely to get caught"

We can not know what they really thought or felt, of course, only what they expressed (they 'said'). Given the location the probability of civilian injury was high, which makes their assumptions very questionable to put it politely. I feel it is right to be precise, in this case, as it draws attention to the improbability of their claim, which shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value.

Secondly, I provided information about the location. London is a big place, often busy, sometimes not. I don't see why neutral information about distances from major pubic transport interchanges could be controversial, except they help undermine the claims of the IRA involved. It gives information and context to the reader, to help them draw their own conclusions. I added:

"In a residential area, it is by a busy road junction that is 0.1 miles (160m) from Victoria Coach Station and approximately 0.2 miles (300m) from Victoria Train Station."

I could have added there is a primary school just around the corner, set as it is amid high-density council housing.

I lived in that area for 11 years. Someone unfamiliar with it, as most wikipedia readers will be, could well take those improbable claims at face value. I feel wider context is needed. For example, 'Chelsea' Barracks are not actually in the area most people would recognise as Chelsea, or its origins (Cheyne Walk, etc). It's actually closer to the Victoria area.

WFS WednesdayFootSoldier (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)