Talk:Downing Street mortar attack

Entire cabinet
One night in hackney, you reverted me too quickly, I was just about to do it myself! I would query whether it's the whole cabinet, as the war cabinet is usually a smaller group, isn't it? Bigger digger (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "cabinet" is used to refer to the "War Cabinet" after the first use. I'm not keen on using "War Cabinet" throughout the article, but will if it's really needed? And it isn't my claim that the attack almost killed the entire cabinet, it is one from a reliable source. 2 lines of K  303  13:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, interesting one. It didn't nearly kill "the entire cabinet" though. I think that's my problem with it, especially in the lead. It's not quite accurate enough. I guess there's a balance between prose style and meaning, and at the moment I don't think it's quite right. Bigger digger (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How about changing the lead:
 * Original:
 * The attack, originally planned to target Major's predecessor Margaret Thatcher, was an assassination attempt on British Prime Minister John Major and his War Cabinet, who were meeting to discuss the Gulf War. One shell exploded in the rear garden of 10 Downing Street, almost killing the entire cabinet.
 * Proposed:
 * The attack, an attempted assassination on British Prime Minister John Major and his War Cabinet who were meeting to discuss the Gulf War, was originally planned to target Major's predecessor Margaret Thatcher. One shell exploded in the rear garden of 10 Downing Street, almost killing the entire war cabinet.
 * This separates the two mentions of war cabinet and starts with the target of the attack, rather than the original target. Bigger digger (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Given jackyd's points below, would someone be so kind as to enter into a discussion about this, or shall I just edit away? Bigger digger (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm not about at weekends, and would have had no problem with you making a stylistic change such as that without waiting. 2 lines of K  303  13:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I made the change and inserted the additional "war". I've also added the distance the shell was from the building when it exploded, it is fact which helps reinforce the "nearly killing the cabinet" part.
 * BTW, your new signature's a bit confusing, I thought you were someone totally different at first! Bigger digger (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed it back, for now. "War Cabinet" is a proper noun, and therefore you either need to change "cabinet" to War Cabinet throughout the article (not just change the lead) or you can accept the use of "cabinet" after the initial use of "War Cabinet". I don't mind which you want to do, so just change as you see fit. I've amended the distance too, as it's unlikely the Guardian journalists had actually viewed the scene of the attack to get an idea of the distance involved. Whereas Taylor had actually (at a later date) been to the rear garden and seen where the shell landed in relation to the office, so I'm more inclined to use his figure. 2 lines of K  303  13:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries about the distance, I just went with the source I could access! Bit stuck on the Cabinet/War Cabinet issue. The official site suggests Cabinet is also a proper noun, although interestingly Cabinet doesn't bother with capitalisation but Cabinet collective responsibility does! War Cabinet says there were only 5 members of the Gulf War Cabinet and my concern is that entire is misleading - it's missing maybe 15 Cabinet members who weren't present. There's a danger that I'm doing a sort of synthesis so will defer to the current edit as consensus. You're also right in suggesting it reads better. Perhaps when it's reviewed for GA it could be considered again, good luck with it. Bigger digger (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Someone seems to have claimed this review before I could get to it, but if you're interested I do have some pointers. On the whole this is a very good article: well sourced and well written, congratulations.
 * Don't forget that many readers are not from the UK and may need things spelling out in more detail than you or I would need. Thus a brief description of The Troubles would be useful ("the armed campaign against the British government by Irish nationalists" or similar) and 10 Downing Street ("the office of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom"). This would give a small amount of context for readers unfamiliar with the politics of the late 20th century UK. Similarly, the second sentence includes the phrase "originally planned to target Major's predecessor", but you haven't actually explained who John Major was at the time, or even linked him before this sentence.
 * Not done. Still no mention of what Downing Street is, and I'd like to see this in the lead (which in my opinion is a little short) as well as the main body of the text, so that people reading either are given all of the important relevant information. It doesn't have to be a long explanation, just a clear one (The one on the Troubles in the main body is good, although I have added a comma).--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried again... 2 lines of K   303  13:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Better.
 * Better.


 * I have a problem with "almost killing the entire cabinet" both in the lead and in the main body of the article. I understand that it is sourced, but it is at root an opinion and thus it would benefit the reader to known whose opinion it is. Something that almost happens is by nature uncertain and thus the outcome cannot be anything but a person's opinion. I'm not sure whether it is Taylor, Bell or both that expressed the opinion, but I would credit them in the article text directly, preferably with a quote.
 * Unfortunately Taylor uses the euphemism "wiped out" (or might be "wiping out") rather than killed so I'm not keen on quoting him direcetly. How about splitting off the offending phrase into a new sentence prefixed by something like "The shell landed 30 yards from the cabinet office...", thus ensuring that it's clear the "almost killing" refers to the distance the shell landed from 10 Downing Street itself?
 * That might be OK, I'd have to see it in the text first. Let me know here when you've had a go. I don't actually have an objection to using the term "wiped out" as long as it is in a direct quote, but I'll leave that up to you.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think Anglophones might struggle with yards, I'd think some might equally struggle with "wiped out". Unless a specific group or person involved is being quoted, I'm not keen on quoting someone verbatim for the sake of it if the quote includes euphemisms, when the exact same meaning can be conveyed by paraphrasing. If the remaining mention in the lead is a problem give me an idea of what you want it changing to. 2 lines of K  303  13:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a fair point. Another suggestion is to explain exactly how it almost killed the whole cabinet: was it just luck that they survived? If the shell had been closer would it definately have killed them? etc. I'm just not comfortable with the phrase "almost killing the entire cabinet" as it is: it still smacks of opinion rather than fact.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hardly a tabloid source saying "OMG they almost killed the cabinet!!!11!". And it does explain it, it gives the distance the shell landed from the meeting. Downing Street was not constructed of three feet thick reinforced concrete walls complete with an external blast wall. Considering the damage a 20-30 lb (claimed by the IRA as 100 lb of another explosive as they didn't want the British to know they had Semtex at the time, see Dillon) Semtex bomb did at Brighton, a 40 lb Semtex bomb impacting on the building at a considerable velocity would have taken the entire building down, and destroyed virtually everything nearby. The 30 March death was caused by a shell containing 3 lb of Semtex, which was dropped by hand from a balcony and penetrated the roof of an armoured vehicle (see Geraghty). If 3 lb does that to an armoured vehicle, what do you think 40 lb would have done to Downing Street? Exactly what Taylor says! Peter Taylor is doing nothing except stating the obvious, he's been to the rear garden of Downing Street, he's got years of experience of dealing with bombs and their effects, and he's more than capable of stating the obvious. I'm really not happy to insult him by relegating such a statement to a mere opinion. 2 lines of K  303  11:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To suggest we are insulting Taylor is a bit of an exaggeration - all that is being asked is that more explanation is given for a statement of fact which is actually an opinion. Making comparisons with other attacks (unless a published source has also done so) is OR and is not adequate for this purpose - if published sources have done so then quote and source them. The fact remains that an event that "almost" happens is by definition a matter of conjecture and perception and if it is presented in a Wikipedia article then we need to know whose conjecture or perception it is: if Taylor is such an expert, then there really is no problem in changing the sentence to something like: "30 yards (30 m) from the office where the cabinet were meeting. Journalist Peter Taylor, who has written on the subject, states that the explosion "almost wiped out [killed] the entire cabinet"."--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have no intention of agreeing to that change being made. If you insist on that change then please fail this nomination, as I would rather have a B class article I am happy with than a good article I am unhappy with. 2 lines of K  303  13:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you object if I took this to GAR to gain a wider consenus on this issue? I really don't want to fail the article, which I think is generally excellent, but I just feel that that particular phrasing is unencyclopedic. I'll be happy to abide by an decision reached there.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also point out that I have a problem with this sentence as well, discussed above. It seems the consensus is leaning towards a change in this sentence. Bigger digger (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is based on strength of argument, and I don't find "I don't like it" a compelling argument. 2 lines of K  303  13:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be time to split out this discussion into its own heading but I'll leave that to someone else. I am not the one guilty of not liking it, I am trying to improve it with verifiable fact rather than an author's opinion on a speculated outcome. I don't doubt that it would have been very likely to kill everyone, but equally it cannot be stated as fact. Perhaps the structure of the building would have collapsed in a way that only injured the majority of the War Cabinet, or some of them. Look at the current Brighton Hotel bombing article, it presents the facts which make it clear Thatcher was nearly killed, it doesn't need to say it, which fits in with the usual "show, don't tell" ethos. Conversely, I doubt the JFK article says something about him nearly surviving if the bullet was 2 inches either way, as that is speculation and opinion, not fact. It is useful to include Taylor's opinion for an idea of how powerful the mortar was, but it is misleading to the average reader to include it as fact. See also Reliable_sources.
 * You quite clearly state above that you would rather it was a B-class article than make the change that two fellow editors have suggested as an improvement. That suggests not only that "you don't like it" but could lead to accusations that you own this article. I think you've done a fantastic job on this page, it is generally well balanced, is well sourced and well written. I came here to review it for DYK and it was on the main page, but a GA review also suggests this improvement and you are still resistant. I would kindly urge you to reconsider what's best for the article. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would urge you to think about what words mean before replying, in particular what the phrase "I wolud rather" actually means. 2 lines of K  303
 * It means you would prefer to have a B-class article that you personally prefer than a Good Article that a random contributor and a GA reviewer are in favour of. Please correct me if I am wrong. Bigger digger (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the only remaining point, I'm still unhappy with an unqualified "almost killing the entire cabinet" as it is still only an opinion yet the article states it as fact. Either explain in whose opinion the entire cabinet was almost killed, explain how they were almost killed or try to work out another solution.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The background section paragraph is too long. I recommend splitting long term background and short term background at the sentence which begins "Instead the Army Council sanctioned a mortar attack on Downing Street," although then modiyfy it by either losing or explaining the "instead".
 * You didn't have to create a whole new section, a new paragraph would have done fine. However I have no objection to the change and will leave it with you to decide.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't have to create a whole new section, a new paragraph would have done fine. However I have no objection to the change and will leave it with you to decide.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Convert the weight measurements into metric using the convert tool (1 lb), to assist those unfamiliar with Imperial measurements.
 * Not done pending discussion. I strenuously object to conversions of inexact figures. While exact figures such as 26 miles 385 yards=42.195km are useful, ones that deal with inexact figures are not. Do you think that the figure of 200 yards is an exact one? Do you think if instead of yards they had used metres the figure would have been anything other than 200? 200 yards is 182.880 metres, but giving that conversion or anything similar is just pointless, inaccurate and misleading in my opinion.
 * Your point it well argued, but misses part of the reason that conversions are required. Aside from their uses with precise measurements, the conversion tool makes Wikipedia more accessible to people worldwide. For example, an anglophone French man who has never used Imperial measurements reading an English Wikipedia article may well have no idea how far 200 yards is and so it is useless even as an approximate distance for him. With a conversion, even one that seems unnecessarily precise to those of us familiar with Imperial measurements, he can gain a clearer understanding of the approximate distance involved.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found a way to convert without an insane degree of accuracy. 2 lines of K  303  13:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "near to the" - "close to the" would be a better way of putting it.


 * Any idea who the two other people injured were? Downing Street staff or people in St James's Park?
 * Sort of. NYT gives a total of three injuries, the two policemen and an "unidentified Government worker". Dillon gives a total of four injuries, two of them policemen. So while I could have written something like "two policeman, a Government employee and another person" this may actually be slightly factually inaccurate, as for all we know the fourth person may have been a Government employee as well. So rather than put something which may be wrong, and as it isn't that important really, I thought it better to err on the side of caution and put something that is definitely correct.
 * Fair enough, good answer.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise a very nice short article on the incident, good work. I've missed your input on these articles, which brings a sense of sanity to a heated area of the encyclopedia.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. 2 lines of K  303  13:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made some replies, although I don't think there will be any serious delay on my part in this review and am pleased with the work done so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Replies given above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed the lead and made some other changes, including adding Churchill-Coleman's comments. I am going away for the weekend and will not be back until Tuesday, so if any changes need doing please do them yourself or wait until then. Thanks. 2 lines of K  303  13:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

On hold
Good points above from Jackyd101, who is welcome to join in with the review. I have put the review on hold until the end of May to allow further development of the article and to judge stability, especially given that there is a spat already and the article is only a few days old.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * SilkTork, I have to assume you're referring to my actions as a spat, but that's not quite the case. I came along and too boldly altered the lead without looking at the sources. I was quite rightly reverted (I was going to revert myself only to find someone quicker than I) and have posted on the talk page. I think we're now waiting for some of the original editors to comment, but it's not a spat and the article is stable. Maybe my language above is a bit spikey but I wanted to agree this quickly and move on. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Having just read your GA review, I see there are a few other issues that might need sorting out and perhaps, again, I have not read sufficiently before editing and am a bit defensive! However, I'd point out that the article does mention that the main IRA members returned to Ireland, cite note 4h. Bigger digger (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 4h. Thanks. I didn't notice that.  SilkTork  *YES! 21:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Per my comments here (you are so inept you haven't even transcluded the page....) I consider you a wholly unfit editor to review this article. Should Jackyd101 wish to discuss any of the issues you have raised I will discuss them with him, but I suggest you take no further part in this review as I will ignore everything you say so you will be wasting your time. 2 lines of K  303  13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

300m / danger
The third shell exploded in the rear garden of 10 Downing Street, 300 yards (300 m) from the office where the cabinet were meeting, almost killing the entire cabinet.

I think they could have been standing in the open; if 20kg of semtex went off *three hundred meters away* they would have been utterly untouched. I am not an explosives expert, but I have read military history for twenty-five years and so I think I have a good rough idea of the realistic danger ranges for explosives. It is *possible* to be injured at this range, of course - anything can happen with metal splinters hitting someone in the skull - but "almost killing the entire cabinet" is IMO materially misleading. Toby Douglass (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good spot Toby, a typo there - it was 30 yards, then a convert template was introduced but suddenly it was converting 300 yards to metres! Bigger digger (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, quick query, the Guardian states the shell fell 40 ft away (1 yard = 3 ft so 13.3 yds) whilst the article (and presumably the Taylor source) says 30 yds, which is over twice as far away. Just looking for confirmation that Taylor states 30 yards and not 30 feet. Bigger digger (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The author, title, publisher and ISBN are in the article, feel free to get your own copy as I'm not interested in helping you in any way. 2 lines of K  303  13:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an unfortunately unhelpful attitude towards someone trying to improve the article. The reliable source that I have access to states 40ft, and as it is verifiable and a reliable source I'll edit the article to state that. Bigger digger (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't view as you trying to improve the article, I view you as an unhelpful irritant. The majority of your edits to the article have been unhelpful, in particular your last one. Before even thinking about making it again, consider that what you added was not even accurate, and also has a significant effect on the rest of the sentence. If you lack the intellectual capacity to work out exactly why you shouldn't make it, then do everyone a favour and don't bother. 2 lines of K  303  10:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked you to verify the distance and you told me to check myself. I used the sources available to me. I'm sorry you feel that way about my contributions but can't you see from my side I'm just aiming for a better encyclopedia, however mistaken you might think I am? I will take it on good faith that 30 yards is the distance Taylor calculated until I have access to the book. Bigger digger (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, so you've not bothered to work out what the problem with your edit was. Your edit said the shell exploded "40 feet from the office where the cabinet were meeting)". What does the source you added say? "40ft from the building", spot the difference? Sloppy edits like that do not improve the encyclopedia. 2 lines of K  303  12:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a new to mainspace article, only two days old, so stability is difficult to establish, but there was a revert in the first day. I'd like to see this in mainspace for at least 14 days to see what unfolds before deciding on the GA status.

The article is short. Short articles are acceptable for GA, but they have a slightly higher demand on them to be broad in coverage as there is an unconscious expectation in some reader's minds that short equals lite or incomplete. The article has the three main sections one would expect - before, during and after, though there are aspects that a reader might expect that are missing: the Reaction section has 2 statements from the IRA, a large quote from the Police Anti-Terrorist Branch which seems more fitting in The attack section, as it describes an expert's view on the mechanics of the attack. There are the views of the politic leader's of the day. And there is a suggestion of the reaction of the Irish rebels. But there is nothing of the reaction of the British public, nor the general Irish public. There is no information about how security was stepped up in Downing Street after the attack. In the section on The attack, there is no mention of the police sealing off the area. There is no mention of the weather conditions which was speculated at the time possibly prevented the deaths of tourists who might have normally have been in the area. The is no mention anywhere of the police investigation into the attack. There is no mention that the key IRA personal returned to Ireland before the attack.

The writing is clear and the article is neutral, though it could be said that the selection of material and quotes in The reaction section is slightly weighed to give a favourable impression of the IRA's role. This could be solved by moving the quote on the mechanics to The Attack section, and by including a wider range of responses.

Cites appear to be reliable and support what has been said, though I haven't checked them all.

Putting on hold until the end of May to allow discussion of points raised about broad coverage generally and balance in Reaction section; and to judge stability.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would a quote from an expert in REACTION to the attack not belong in the REACTIONS section? You are correct in that there are no mentions of the reactions of the British or Irish public, chiefly because the secondary sources do not cover it. Which begs the questions of why if the secondary sources do not cover it why should we, and also how can we if the secondary sources do not cover it? Perhaps you should actually learn how to write a question such as "Do the sources include any details of reaction from the British or Irish public that we can include" rather than making a statement of fact. The same applies to various other statements you have made. Moving on to other matters, you claim that there is "no mention that the key IRA personal (sic) returned to Ireland before the attack", have you actually read the article?


 * "Once preparations were complete the two IRA members returned to Ireland, as the IRA leadership considered them to be valuable personnel and did not wish to risk them being arrested in any follow-up operation by the security services."


 * Is there some part of the first half of the sentence you have difficulty understanding? You claim that there was speculation that the weather conditions prevented the deaths of tourists, speculation by who? Source for that claim? The closest I have seen is "On a good day, the Horse Guards on Whitehall, opposite the spot from which the mortars were fired, would have been thronged by scores of tourists. But the snow and bitter cold kept most of them off the streets". However if you think that sources the claim you made, you are very mistaken. There is no mention of security being stepped up, largely because there is no meaningful information about how security was stepped up. The work was secret other than the installation of a new blastproof front door, though why public money should be wasted on a blastproof front door when the front of 10 Downing Street is virtually inaccessible for an attack is anyone's guess! No mention of the police sealing off the area, well why should there be? It's standard police procedure, adding some information about the police aimlessly standing around talking into their lapels doesn't really tell the reader much. Why would there be details of the investigation? Your statement that the article is lacking those details seems quite ignorant of police procedure. When investigations pertain to matters of national security, unless arrests are made details of those investigations rarely enter the public domain. So as no information is in the public domain about the investigation, it isn't going to be in the article. How is the reactions section weighted? It makes sense for the IRA's admission of responsibility to come first. Then you've got negative comments from Major and Kinnock, then you've got an objective opinion from an expert (and as a member of the Met's Anti-Terrorist Branch who actually dealt with the attack, I'd say he's pretty objective and his "praise" is reasonable enough as he's got no reason to say anything "positive" unless he means it"). Could the opinion of Commander Churchill-Coleman be included? Possibly, but the Met are well known for making self-serving and incorrect statements on the same day as an incident. His claim that the attack was "badly executed" is just nonsensical. Let's examine the facts. The IRA had one shot at it, they couldn't have a practice shot beforehand then try again at a later date or hang around and adjust the aim after launching a shell or two. The IRA couldn't hang around Whitehall with surveying equipment measuring out exact distances. Even parking the launch vehicle was a precision job, pointing the van a few degrees to the left or right significantly effects where the shells may land when you are firing them 200 yards and especially when you have no line of sight to the target. Mortar trajectory is not an exact science especially when using improvised mortars, so even with the best planning in the world you're still trusting to luck somewhat about where the shells will land. And that's not just my opinion, it's essentially the one expressed by Peter Gurney. I could see that Churchill-Coleman's view could be included just prior to Gurney's, but for the reasons I suggested I don't believe it should be.


 * Now for your competence as an editor. Look at this edit where you add the text of "Between 1970 and 1985 seventeen UDR members were convicted of murder or manslaughter, 99 of assult, and "others" (no exact figure) were convicted of charged or convicted of armed robbery, weapons offenses, bombing, intimidation and attacks on Catholics, kidnapping, and membership in the UVF." which I originally posted on the talk page here. However your copy and paste neglects to remove my note of "no exact figure" and the quotes I put around others to emphasise that, tremendously done! This coupled with your comments above and your actions at Articles for deletion/Harry Roberts (murderer) and related articles, mean I have zero faith in your competence as an editor. As such I consider you totally unfit to review this article, and I will ignore everything you say from now on and will revert any attempt by you to take any action relating to the review of this article. 2 lines of K  303  13:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to comment here, although I'm not going to formally take over the review without further discussion from SilkTork. Firstly, I encourage One Night in Hackney (or do you prefer 2 lines of K now?) to stay clam when replying and not to drag up interactions on other articles here unless there is a clear and direct connection to the subject under discussion. Secondly, I think that he makes a number of valid points: I think the Anti-Terrorist officer quote is in the correct place and I agree that it is not feasible to expect details that have not been published. I do however think there is a case to be made for including the quote from the police officer: accurate or not, the reaction of the police to the event is important and the other quotes and information in the article should be enough for readers to decide whether their reaction was justified or not. I also see a case for the weather conditions to be included, with the conclusion that this prevented injuries in the park if it is merited by the sources.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In light of Hackney's comments above, it would be appropriate for Jackyd101 to take over reviewing this in order to avoid drama. I will withdraw my name on Good article nominations, and Jackyd101 can then formally take over.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)



Further comments
I have raised the problem with the article at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations in an effort to gain some additional opinions into the impasse that has developed above. To summarise the issue, I (the reviewer) believe that the article (which is otherwise excellent) cannot pass GA with the phrase "almost killing the entire cabinet" as it stands. I have made my point above, backed up more eloquently by Bigger digger, that something that "almost" happens is inevitably a matter of opinion, in this case journalist Peter Taylor to whom the sentence is sourced. It is therefore wrong to present this as an irrefutable fact and the sentence should be changed to indicate in the article text whose opinion it is. The main editor has flatly refused to change the sentence and has stated that "If you insist on that change then please fail this nomination, as I would rather have a B class article I am happy with than a good article I am unhappy with." I am reluctant to fail an article that is so good in so many other areas over something so relatively minor, but neither am I happy passing the article with the sentence as it stands. I therefore am seeking additional input before proceeding and am happy to abide by whatever consensus develops.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The only thing that saved them was the bomb proof netting on the windows of the cabinet office which muffled the force of the explosion. Just a little closer and even that would not have saved them. They almost wiped them out with this attack. -- Domer48 'fenian'  13:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we have a source and attribution for this statement?--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There you go.


 * Stephen Cook and Michael White (8 February 1991). "IRA shells the War Cabinet". The Guardian Friday February 8, 1991
 * Harnden, Toby (1999). Bandit Country. Hodder & Stoughton. pp. 21-35. ISBN 034071736X
 * Taylor, Peter (2001). Brits. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 317–318. ISBN 0-7475-5806-X.

They are in the article. -- Domer48 'fenian'  14:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A quote to the effect of the statement you made above that can be used in the article would be great, can you provide one?--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you bother asking the pondlife over there anything, at least one of them is seemingly incapable of reading which you wouldn't expect from someone watching that page. After looking at the sources more Taylor deals with slightly different aspects in each book. In Provos he says "The IRA had almost succeeded in wiping out the Prime Minister and his entire Cabinet. I stood in the garden of Number Ten with Peter Gurney as he pointed out the geography and explained how lucky the Cabinet had been to survive (followed by big quote)" followed by the quote from Gurney in the article. He also details how Gurney was sitting in his office 200 yards from Downing Street when he heard an explosion, the force of which knocked a picture off his wall. We aren't dealing with firecrackers here you know? The bomb proof curtains are covered in virtually every source that's already cited also.


 * It's a simple statement of fact that a 140 lb shell with a 40 lb Semtex warhead impacting on 10 Downing Street at speed would have killed the Cabinet, and if that can't be accepted for whatever reason please fail the nomination or I'll just withdraw it as I'm not wasting any more of my time with this. 2 lines of K  303  13:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's a simple statement of fact. Cant we get on with something more constructive now.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have been around here long enough to know exactly why attribution is required for the opinion you have incorporated into the article, and being unpleasant to editors you disagree with isn't going to achieve any sort of favourable result. You've also been here long enough to know WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF inside out, which leaves you with absolutely no excuse for referring to other editors as "pondlife". If you want to make some sort of "statement" about this issue by withdrawing the nomination then that is your perogative, but bear in mind that you do not WP:OWN this article and if some one else wants to come along and finish it off to the required standard then they are totally within their rights to do so. Be warned that I will also be watching (although probably not reviewing) any future articles of yours that come through this process to check for similar problems.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a simple statement of fact. It would certainly have made a big mess, and would probably have killed everyone in the room, but to suggest fact is the same as expert speculation is a bit off the mark. Unless you have some alternate-dimension time travel device it is impossible to verify that it would have killed every member of the Cabinet. Therefore, it's not a fact (please see the lead of that article). Let's include it, but please let's include it as a quote. I think the next step to resolve this is an RFC. Following an opinion there I will probably re-nominate it. Bigger digger (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you 2 lines of K for the quote above, "The IRA had almost succeeded in wiping out the Prime Minister and his entire Cabinet. I stood in the garden of Number Ten with Peter Gurney as he pointed out the geography and explained how lucky the Cabinet had been to survive" this being an obvious fact. Unless of course editors have an alternate-source to verify that it would not have killed every member of the Cabinet. Bigger digger you have not provided any alternative sources which challage this, and suggesting RFC and re-nominate is just forum shopping. So apart from yourself, do you have any Verifiable and reliable, third-party, published sources which challange this information? If not this discussion is pointless. Thanks again 2 lines of K. -- Domer48 'fenian'  17:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And a quote of someone's opinion is all it is, not a fact. Even when a precisely placed bomb explodes, there is no guarantee it will kill its intended victims. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 17:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (editconflict) Are you suggesting that this quote be used in the article?--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on what is going on here do we need to have sources for what is an obvious fact it has been stated by verifiable refs that it is in fact the case as VK says lets get on to something more constructive. 79.97.179.100 (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Per my post above. -- Domer48 'fenian'  09:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be constructive to include the quote, get this article through GA and then move on. Would you all be happy to do that? I can't provide verifiable and reliable, third-party, published facts to refute opinion on possible alternative outcomes, because the opposing opinion is just as unverifiable. Trying to improve the article and get it to Good Article status is not WP:Forum shopping! Bigger digger (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Amending this article to appease the reviewer's political bias wouldn't make it a good article, that's why it isn't being changed. 2 lines of K  303  11:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And in the article other opinion is quoted: Commander George Churchill-Coleman, described the attack as "daring, well planned, but badly executed". Shall we remove these quotes and state as a fact that the attack was badly executed? Or insert Churchill-Coleman's opinion that the attack was cowardly but use it as fact? I don't think those two paths are right, just as I don't think the use of an opinion as fact in the Taylor issue is right. See opinion and the useful link it provides to What is the Difference Between Fact and Opinion?. Bigger digger (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it now seems clear that other editors don't agree with the clearly politically motivated opinion that it isn't a fact. When you learn the difference between a fact and an opinion come back, but I don't see it being this Ice Age. 2 lines of K  303  11:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how my opinions, unknown to any editor here, are influencing my editing of this article. Assume good faith that I am trying to improve this article. This is a content dispute, please don't make it personal. I understand the difference between a fact and an opinion, because I read the links I included previously. I think it's time for an RfC to have some uninvolved opinion. Bigger digger (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am slightly worried that this will be abused, but in order to ensure neutral wording of the RfC I would ask anyone interested to propose the text at User:Bigger_digger/mortar_attack. It's no problem if you can't be bothered / don't want to / think I'm wasting everyone's time but I would like to ensure as far as I can that the wording is fair. I expect to post the RfC next week. Bigger digger (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (to 2 lines of K) I take serious exception to your accusation that my request for you to sort out your sloppy prose was in anyway politically motivated. You do not know me, you do not know my background, you do not know my political affiliations (if any) and you have absolutely no grounds to make any sort of inference about my motivations. I'd demand an apology if I didn't think you'd just respond in a the same graceless and unpleasant manner you have above. Bigger digger has explained twice exactly why you are completely wrong in your assertion that what you wrote was a fact and not an opinion and myself, Bastun, a number of editors at GAN and even Domer48 all agree that the quote should be incorporated directly into the article rather than sloppily paraphrased - You are the only person resisting this change and you haven't managed to provide a single sensible reason for it, except that you don't like it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackyd101 please don't! I did not "agree that the quote should be incorporated directly into the article." Bigger digger has said they can't provide verifiable and reliable, third-party, published facts to refute the verifiable and reliable, third-party, published sources. So what is there to discuss? Could you please strike through your comments, thanks -- Domer48 'fenian'  14:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I misunderstood who you were replying to above. Remarks stricken. I would be interested though on whether you object to the incorporation of the quote into the article and why?--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jackyd101 for removing that. Jackyd101 you say "[2 lines of K] You are the only person resisting this change" I really don't think they are as two other editors along with myself agree with 2 lines of K, so could you possibly address that comment also? Would you also like to confirm that you were also resisting it? Bigger digger has said they can't provide a verifiable and reliable, third-party, published source to challange the verifiable and reliable, third-party, published sources provided, can you? Thanks again, -- Domer48 'fenian'  15:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No one other than 2loK has insisted the quote be kept out of the article, which is the change I was referring to, so as far as I can see that part remains correct. What are you referring to when you say that "you were also resisting it?" - I'm not sure what you mean. The issue here, as explained above several times, is that the statement "almost killing the entire cabinet" is an opinion and an unqualified one at that. Since none of the cabinet was even injured, it is not possible to state conclusively that any of them were "almost" killed, let alone all of them. Therefore, I and others have asked 2loK to qualify the statement by quoting the person whose opinion is represented by that statement, which he has flatly refused to do. We are not suggesting that it be removed from the article - as an opinion, it is reliably sourced and a valid viewpoint - all we are asking is that it be represented as a viewpoint and not as an established fact. Again, what is your opinion about whether this quote can be used in the article and why?--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jackyd101, could you possibly strike the comment re: "[2loK] You are the only person resisting this change" as its not true, two other editors and myself also disagree with you. Now again, we have a source that is verifiable and a reliable, third-party, published source, which you are challanging. Now are you going to provide a verifiable and reliable, third-party, published source or not. Attribution is something I'm very hard on when sources can be challanged, if you supply a source which contradicts the information, I'll obviously review my position. Thanks again, -- Domer48 'fenian'  18:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you opposed to the quote being used in the article?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please Jackyd101, I've answered your question! Could you now extend me the same courtesy, thanks, -- Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  19:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have answered my question at all - I certainly haven't seen any rationale from you about why the quote should be excluded. In answer to your question, a senior police officer described it as "a badly executed attack", which doesn't sound like it was close to killing its target. The New York Times reported that "a loud bang cracked but did not shatter the bulletproof windows in the Cabinet room" and "There was a loud bang, but fortunately we've got shatterproof glass in the Cabinet room, and nobody got hurt". Those look like the attack wasn't that close to killing the Cabinet at all. If the article had said " almost killing the entire cabinet, who were saved from injury by shatterproof windows" then we'd be closer to the truth but still only expressing an opinion.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that's not the point the source makes, considering I've said what point it actually makes several times now I'd hope you'd actually be able to keep up and stop rambling on about irrelevant points. I count three editors who agree with me, Vintagekits, Domer and an anonymous IP who based on a previous talk page edit is BigDunc forgetting to log in. So where do you get that I'm the only editor saying it should stay? Your bias is evident when you accept what Bastun said, which was "And a quote of someone's opinion is all it is, not a fact. Even when a precisely placed bomb explodes, there is no guarantee it will kill its intended victims". Now when I made a comparison to the Brighton bombing you immediately yelled OR, but you are strangely quiet when someone on "your side" does the exact same. But it's not even the exact same, I gave information from sources with regard to facts about other attacks, whereas Bastun gave information from, well, his own ignorant and ill-informed imagination it seems. How do I know this? The mention of a "precisely placed bomb" is hilarious. Does he think the IRA phoned in advance to find out which room Thatcher would be staying in, and asked to book a room a floor or two underneath, or maybe the same room so the bomb could be planted right in it? Here is what a reliable source (Dillon) has to say about it, instead of his ignorant and ill-informed assumption.


 * "[GHQ] identified an additional problem: which room would be allocated to Margaret Thatcher? They believed she would be confined to an upper floor where she would have privacy and heavy security. If they could get a bomb into the building, it should be concealed on an upper floor and timed to explode at night, making rescue operations extremely difficult."


 * He then goes on to detail Magee's instructions when booking a room, which were to book a room high up in the hotel with a sea view and find a convenient place in the room to hide the bomb. So bearing in mind the number of convenient hiding places (especially ones that have to be undiscovered for a month) for a bomb in a hotel room are somewhat limited, it's rather staring you in the face that the bomb probably couldn't be placed at an optimum place to cause maximum structural damage. Sorry, what was Bastun saying about a "precisely placed bomb"?


 * If you wish to criticise my "sloppy prose" (please, my sides are splitting) then maybe, just maybe, you'd like to think about why I'm so resistant to your proposed sentence of "30 yards (30 m) from the office where the cabinet were meeting. Journalist Peter Taylor, who has written on the subject, states that the explosion "almost wiped out [killed] the entire cabinet". If you read the talk page you'll find out what's glaringly wrong with it. As your whole argument (and that of others) is based on the false premise that your proposed sentence is in any way acceptable, anyone supporting you based on it can be ignored in my opinion. 2 lines of K  303  12:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well put, 100% agree with that analysis. Also well done on outlining your thoughts in such a manner - I wish I had the patience to make such thoughtful response in situations like this.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Vk agreeing with ONiH - now there's a surprise. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 13:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we always agree. That would be why I supported him being banned for a year. Do you ever say anything you haven't made up? 2 lines of K  303  12:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to be like that. I have weighed up the evidence and come to my own conclusions. Anyway because I really couldnt predict your stance on any issue prior to you jumping on a bandwagon! xxx --Vintagekits (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Your personal attacks aside, ONiH, "The organisation detonated a thirty-pound bomb in the section of the hotel where many politicians, including Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, were staying..." "Precisely" may have been over-stating it, but the fact is in that case the IRA planted a 30-lb bomb in the right section, in the upper stories, with the result that some people were killed, some were maimed, and some were uninjured.
 * Is it my fault you make things up in an attempt to influence a discussion? Hardly, so your attempt to occupy the moral high ground is a failure. What personal attacks? I said your opinion of how the Brighton bombing transpired was "ignorant and ill-informed", is it my fault you make things up to suit your argument? I didn't say you personally were ignorant and ill-informed, but directed my comments towards the particular content you placed on this talk page. Commenting on content not the contributor if you will...


 * Seemingly you still don't get the planning of the Brighton bombing, despite me saying what the source says. Where the bomb was planted was purely speculative, as while they had an idea whereabouts in the hotel Thatcher may have been staying, it was impossible for them to know for sure. Therefore the bomb was placed in a speculative, imprecise location. Last time I checked "imprecise" was the exact opposite of "precise", or do you disagree? 2 lines of K  303  12:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ONiH, Domer, VK and BigDunc... I think we may have an ownership situation on this article. It's a shame you're being so intransigent on this, ONiH, because its a very well written article, deserving of GA. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 13:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You and others will find WP:OWN is actually a double edged sword. You assume that you have the right to make any edits you want to an article despite opposition from other editors, when that's exactly the same situation the alleged "owner" finds himself in. One group of editors are in favour of a sentence being worded a particular way, another group of editors are in favour of a sentence bring worded another way. The same principle applies equally to both of them. 2 lines of K  303  12:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Bastun could you comment on content and not on the editors in case you have forgot read WP:NPA but you have been told enough times you probably now it verbatim. BigDunc Talk 13:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That request would be worthy of some respect had you also asked the same of ONiH following his personal attacks above... <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 16:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(to 2 lines of K) At the time I wrote those lines, neither Vintagekits nor IP/BigDunc had opposed the presence of the quote, and as far as I can see neither has categorically done so even now - certainly no one other than yourself has attempted to give a rationale for avoiding the quote, and yours is virtually incomprehensible. As best as I can make out, you are resisting the insertion of the quote because you think the prose used in that quote is unencyclopedic. That may or may not be the case, but what is certainly unencyclopedic (and sloppy) is presenting what is obviously an opinion (again, something that "almost" happens is by its very nature an opinion) as a fact, as the article currently does. I would certainly agree that my proposed insertion could use some polishing: notice how when I suggested it I said "changing the sentence to something like", which you might have noticed (had you read my suggestion carefully before becoming upset) clearly indicates that it was an example, not a demand.

In response to your rationale for the ridiculous assertion that I'm somehow motivated by partisan attachments, I don't think I have mentioned the Brighton bombing at all in my replies here, (I certainly haven't suggested anywhere that it be incorporated into the article or used in support of material in the article, which is where a problem with OR would develop) and the only time I mentioned Bastun was to indicate that there is a consensus building up that supports removing the unqualified opinion and replacing it with an attributed quote (in whatever form). Therefore I don't really see how he and I are conflated (Although I mean no disrepect to him, he certainly has not been abusive or unpleasant in the way you have). You seem to have taken my suggestions for the article very personally, and your willingness to resort to insults and unfounded accusations indicates that seem to be struggling with the principle of WP:OWN. Perhaps a break would do you good, give you a chance to calm down? The article will still be here when you get back.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For clarification IP was me I had forgot to log in. BigDunc  Talk 14:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bastun please comment on content, not on the contributor, I have not commented on you or your motivation. Please show me the same respect.-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  18:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop attempting to argue semantics with me. You said "the only time I mentioned Bastun was to indicate that there is a consensus building up". As you must be aware, consensus is based on the strength of argument. Bastun's only argument for it not being a fact was because a "precisely placed bomb" didn't kill its intended victim. Therefore you readily accepted his argument (a comparison with another bombing based on no sources whatsoever) yet dismissed my argument (a comparison with another bombing actually based on the sources) as OR. Double standards much?


 * Why are you putting words in other editor's mouths? Can you provide the exact diffs from Vintagekits and BigDunc where they say there are in favour of inclusion of the quote? I cannot see either saying that at all, and you've already had to backtrack with regards to a similar claim you made about Domer.


 * I have added an additional source, and amended the wording to take into account the cabinet's million-to-one chance of actually surviving a direct hit. 2 lines of K  303  12:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankyou, that is all I was asking for. --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break for editing ease, feel free to move me around
It would be nice if we could all keep our comments on the article and not on the editors, if only to keep this discussion to a sensible size. Thanks! It is a straw man argument to discuss refuting one WP:verifiable opinion with another. The discussion is that to suggest Taylor's opinion as fact is not suitable, and this has not been addressed in the preceding debate. Fortunately, I have finally found the piece of policy that this discussion has needed: please see WP:ASF, part of WP:NPOV. Bigger digger (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's another diversion to find fault with Jackyd's proposed quotation. There are better ways of phrasing it, but that is not the crux of the matter. The point is that it is an opinion and should not be used as a fact. Please read WP:ASF and then illustrate how that policy supports the use of an opinion as fact. Bigger digger (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure you will be able to provide reliable sources that suggest otherwise? You disputing something does not make it any less of a fact, only a reliable source disputing it... 2 lines of K  303  12:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Downing Street mortar attack. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605033552/http://www.newsplayer.com:80/ira-mortar-attack-on-downing-street-video to http://www.newsplayer.com/ira-mortar-attack-on-downing-street-video
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513083940/http://www.newsplayer.com:80/john-major-reaction-to-ira-mortar-attack-video to http://www.newsplayer.com/john-major-reaction-to-ira-mortar-attack-video

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath details welcome
Anticipating some readers may want to know what happened after, I have added detail (copied over from the 10 Downing Street article the immediate effect on No 10, repairs made, PM's decamping to Admiralty House, and security improvements. Readers may also be wondering if the perpetrators were found - did police enquries draw a blank or is the case still open for investigation?Cloptonson (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)