Talk:Ian Gow


 * Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the, not for general conversation about the article's subject

Doubtful circumstances
Vintagekits. Both bombings were "suspicious". In the case of Neave the explosion happened in the car park of the Houses of Parliament, which was very securely guarded. Gow's house at Hankham was a veritable fortress (press reports notwithstanding). In both cases the bombs must have had very sophisticated triggering devices and there is doubt over whether such devices were directly available to paramilitaries. Thus the suspicion that some third party was involved.Izzy 16:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Didnt the IRA claim responibility or was anyone prosecuted?--Vintagekits 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits. Paramilitaries did claim responsibility in both cases, but as far as I am aware nobody was ever prosecuted. It is believed that paramilitaries did sometimes act as proxies for third parties in getting rid of awkward people. I guess the truth of the matter will never be known. Izzy 16:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bomb technology
If I may chip in on this discussion. The Neave bomb (1979) was always a questionable case. The bomb went off as Neave's car was leaving the MP's car park at Parliament. It actually detonated as the car went onto the upward ramp so people have always assumed that the bomb was planted in the car anything up to 24 hours before it went off and was fitted with both time and tilt switches. Given that Neave was very security conscious and checked his car for bombs, the whole bombing operation was pretty sophisticated. The INLA were a rough and ready lot, and it is doubtful they would have been capable of this - without assistance.

The Gow bomb was also questionable. Gow's house at Hankham was built like a fortress with fences, gates and alarm systems. Again, the bomb was probably planted in the car anything up to 24 hours before it went off. It detonated as he put the car into reverse gear. This suggests that the bomb was fitted with both time and some other switch. Gow was very security conscious, so this must have been a very smart operation. PIRA were more capable than INLA, but even so .... . There have always been doubts about who was ultimately behind these bombings. Izzy 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The IRA has an extremely sophisticated bomb making operation (source:Toby Harndon amongst others). I don't think this incident is indicative of any outside help? If you have a source for any such allegations, it would be interesting. (Nice work on this article Izzy by the way) Kernel Saunters 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

IP Edits
I have reverted the IP edits because they removed relevant information from the article, not because they were done by an IP editor. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right. Why did you revert with the edit summary "rv IP edits" then?  Why are you restoring the POV inherent in the claim that he "refused" to take security precautions?  Why is the brand of car he was blown up in relevant?  Why is the name of his house relevant to the sentence you seem determined to include it in?  Why did you suddenly start caring about this article when I edited it?  190.46.108.141 (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two other editors who agreed with me that you were removing relevant information from the article - User:Antandrus and User:Isabela84. rv IP edits was simply a short hand for going around cleaning up after you.  If I were simply reverting you because you're editing from an IP I would have reverted all of your edits.  I have only reverted your edits where they did not improve the article as here.  You need to get over your inate sense of persecution and realise anyone can edit wikipedia and if you can't accept that not all your edits will be accepted and work collaboratively, then wikipedia is not the place for you.  Wee Curry Monster talk 18:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Cleaning up" - nice euphemism for your destructive stalking. You need to get over whatever it was that made you start doing that.  Your post-hoc justification of your anti-IP attitude is unconvincing.  You have failed to answer the questions: Why are you restoring the POV inherent in the claim that he "refused" to take security precautions?  Why is the brand of car he was blown up in relevant?  Why is the name of his house relevant to the sentence you seem determined to include it in?  Why did you suddenly start caring about this article when I edited it?  Seems to me your only interest in this article is that you wanted to revert my edits to it.  190.46.108.141 (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Outside opinion here... I suggest Wee Curry Monster defend restoring the "refused to" wording, and see if there is consensus support for that defense, before restoring it. The IP's point is valid, as "refused to" implies a proactive effort on his part to not take more security precautions. Do the sources support this? --Born2cycle 21:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An online source which supports it. But that isn't the point, this is not the only information he is removing, a whole host of other details are being removed.  I note you choose not to comment on the blatant and continuing incivility - thanks for that. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that source supports saying he "refused to" take anything more than ordinary security measures. Gow says he thought his risk was relatively low and he wouldn't know what to look for underneath the car, so he wasn't going to bother to look under his car.  That's hardly refusing anything.  The "refusing" language suggests someone was insisting that he take certain specific measures, and he refused to take those measures.   The source you cited does not support that.   In fact, this language borders on blaming the victim. As to the rest of the content you two are squabbling about, nobody seems to think it matters much whether the type of car is mentioned or not.  I certainly don't. --Born2cycle 00:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "...felt it unnecessary to take any more than...", which is supported by the source. Black Kite (t)   00:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I got edit-conflicted earlier and then my browser crashed. I was going to point out that the Telegraph article contains a reported anecdote from a party, where someone asked him if he ever checked under his car for bombs or varied his route to work, and he said no.  This does not support "refused".  In addition, there is a claim on this page that his house was like a fortress.  I don't know if there is any truth in that but it suggests this needs more research.
 * "a whole host of other details"... calm down there, little man. I removed two trivial pieces of information.  Although I have asked several times, you have yet to think of any reason why the make of the car he got blown up in or the name of the house he got blown up outside are relevant to the act of his murder.  190.46.108.141 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW I meant to say thanks, Born2cycle, for the input. 190.46.108.141 (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

"calm down there, little man" Nice, another personal attack, no doubt another one that will pass without comment.

You were, and remain, a fucking idiot, You're a despicable liar.

User:Born2cycle, the above quote is just a small sample of the abuse I've had to put up with from this guy, for having the temerity to disagree with him. The edit summary "rv IP edits" he complains about endlessly was one of a number I made, when I followed an editing spree where he'd removed information from a series of articles. I went through every one and reverted only those where I did not see an improvement. I did not revert wholesale and I did not revert because he was an IP editor. In response all you get is abuse. Is this acceptable behaviour? Please User:Born2cycle I would like to hear an honest response from you as to how you're supposed to work with a guy who calls you a fucking idiot if you disagree with him? Do you think this is acceptable?

As regards the details you agree with removing. I do not. They're relevant information and whilst I would agree its a judgement call, I have already noted above other editors concur with my judgement.

As regards the comment about security instructions. You will note I commented it was a relevant online source for you to confirm for yourself. I could have named other sources off-line. A cursory search online turns up many other eg ,,. A couple of quotes: Gow, a 53-year-old right-winger in Thatcher`s ruling Conservative Party, was one of the ``softest of the soft targets,`` Wilkinson said. Unlike many other MPs, Gow refused to follow the even the most basic security advice because he said that would be a concession to the terrorists. He was one of but a handful of MPs who allow their addresses to be published; his London flat and his home in the southern England village of Hankham, where he died, were not only listed in ``Who`s Who`` and various parliamentary guides, but also in the local telephone books. Churchill-Coleman said police had consulted Gow about his security and advised him to take precautions, but Gow refused, insisting, for example, that his home telephone number remain listed so constituents could reach him easily. The police disclosed that Mr. Gow's name was among those of more than 100 prominent figures, including Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, on an I.R.A. death list that was found at a South London bomb factory in December 1988. The authorities said they had advised Mr. Gow, who was married with two adult sons, to take precautions about his security. Now unless there is a pressing reason not to, I will presently be restoring the content removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussions and agreements are all too much for you, I guess. Easier for you just to ignore all of that and just insist on the version that you had no interest in at all until I edited it.  You should have found these sources and posted them here weeks ago, instead of reverting with your pathetic "rv IP edits".  Why didn't you?
 * Do you feel entirely sure that this "refused" business in the links you provided is not post-death spin to make him look like a more impressive figure of resistance? We have the claim above that "Gow's house at Hankham was built like a fortress with fences, gates and alarm systems".  A pre-death article saying that he was refusing to take security measures might be useful.  Otherwise you are still making unwarranted assumptions about his actual intentions, which you have no way of knowing.
 * You have still not offered any reason why the brand of car he got blown up in or the name of the house he got blown up outside are relevant to the act of his murder. 190.46.108.141 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Now you're being unreasonable (note I did not say you're being a fucking idiot). Yes, he should have provided these sources earlier, and, in their absence your revert was arguably justified.  But here we are now: clearly the "refused" language is supported by RS.  Might they be hyperbole?  Sure, but unless you find a RS that raises that question, it's irrelevant to us encyclopedia article editors.  --Born2cycle 17:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Born2cycle he never once asked for sources, he just posted abuse and never once made any comment that this material was disputed. Check the revert history - its all there., Don't revert for no good reason, you fucking idiot.), Death: the make of car is not relevant. , , not relevant, rm pov and irrelevant details. Get over your pathetic little grudge, "wee curry monster").  Had he asked or indicated what was a problem, I could easily have provided sources.  If all you get is abuse, how are you supposed to respond.  As far as I could see, it was all supported by reliable sources already in the article.  All I got was abuse in response.  So what would you have done differently?  I would love to know.  Wee Curry Monster talk 17:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I would ignore the "abuse", or maybe take it up elsewhere, but not on the article talk page ("sticks and stones..."). Second, it should go without saying that when uncited content is challenged via revert, you bolster it with citations before restoring.  And this summary back on Oct 27 says, "refused" makes excessive assumptions about his intentions.  Well, how do you show that "refused" is not an excessive assumption without backing it up with references?  --Born2cycle 17:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That material was cited, the Time article, though you need a subscription to read it. Had he asked or taken it to talk I could have pointed this out - but its difficult to spot a point in a torrent of abuse. Also I did take it elsewhere, he was blocked for a week and came back and did exactly the same thing. I really don't understand why you would intervene to back up a disruptive and blatantly rude editor without comment about his incivility.  You're doing him no favours by simply convincing him his was right. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The make of car offers insights into Gow's lifestyle. For example, had he been blown up in a Bentley Continental, or a Ferrari or a Mercedes then one would see images of high-living and expensive lifestyle. But no, he was blown up in a Ford Mondeo. Don't you see the imagery and significance of that?. Izzy (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. There is no imagery or significance easily discernible in the act of being blown up in a particular brand of car.  The fact that you got the brand wrong should tell you that.  If you want to make a point that he lived modestly then make it explicitly and not with vague allusions that require a knowledge of the social implications of car ownership in late 1980s/early 1990s Britain.  Don't you see how ridiculous such an approach is?  190.46.108.141 (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you don't have any WP:CONSENSUS on this point, so if you really want to change it, you'll need to figure out how to persuade others. --Born2cycle 08:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see any harm in mentioning it, and perhaps a slight benefit. If there is no explicit question in RS about that being the make of the car, I would include it.  --Born2cycle 17:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Montego not a Ford Mondeo. I've corrected the article. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Izzy, have you got any RS about Gow's house being "like a fortress"? This would certainly refute the case that he was not taking any security precautions.  (And yes, I know about the conspiracy theories regarding his death, but that sort of OR probably doesn't belong here).  Black Kite (t)   21:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite, you refer to a comment I made in 2007 on the discussion page above. I was living in the area at the time of Gow's death and have a vague memory of meeting the fellow shortly before his demise, although I would have been very young then. The article currently follows the press consensus which is that Gow took only 'routine' security precautions. That term is capable of some interpretation. Local opinion, based on knowledge of the site, was that a terrorist couldn't just have walked up to Gow's car in his driveway and planted a bomb. While one should always be cautious about conspiracy theories, I have always felt that there was a little more to the Gow killing than meets the eye. Izzy (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Local opinion" is very often challenged by encountering military ordinance. Jabberwoch (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The fully-protected car (or its absence)
Enough of this edit-warring. Without casting blame, or while casting it both ways, I've fully protected the article--the WP:WRONGVERSION, no doubt. This is y'all's opportunity to start that RfC and settle the matter once and for all: is the car in our out? (the car removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Gow&diff=prev&oldid=609091699 in this edit). I charge you (whoever "you" may be) to craft a neutral WP:RfC, below, to hammer this out. And while you are doing that, I do not want to hear the usual "You really are an arrogant jerk", "Try to behave like an adult rather than a petulant child please", and other assorted insults. First one to use the word "cunt" gets a free block. And to make sure that we get some more opinions than just two, I'll post a note somewhere in a public page of my choosing to invite attention to the matter, and I assure you that the venue and the note will be more neutral than Switzerland. I will not unprotect the article until the RfC is over and the matter solved--if you disagree with this rather tyrannical behavior of mine (I agree it's somewhat heavy-handed), feel free to ask some other admin to look into that and/or post at WP:AN. ,, let's please settle this with discussion and consensus, like the adults we probably claim we are. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to editors: please stick to regular talk page protocol and make sure to indent properly and helpfully. IP, I've moved your last batch of comments to a separate block; hope you don't mind. Born2cycle, I've re-indented yours since it's a separate point, not a response to the previous. Thank you all. Drmies (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Another note: I had hoped that whoever started the discussion would have done so in the proper RfC form, but they didn't. However, there is only one basic question: should the make of the car be mentioned in the article--IP, WCM, that's a fair assessment, I hope. I'll find an independent admin to assess all of this in a week or so, depending on whether this is still a hot-ticket item at that time. Also, to increase audience participation, I have left notices on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sussex, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northern Ireland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography--that is, all the projects listed on the top of this talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I doubt any backbench MPs, except perhaps those who had been Northern Ireland ministers, would have either a bomb-proof car or a bodyguard; I believe the statement that "unlike most British MPs of that era, Gow refused a bodyguard" is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7000:D87F:1400:5CE3:488D:CDAC:8BDB (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Name the car or not?
Should the brand of car Ian Gow died in be named in the article? This has been the object of an ongoing edit-war. I am an uninvolved gnome, just setting this up properly (though I may !vote later). Scolaire (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for the record the talk page has been refactored to create this, the discussion below was not part of an Rfc discussion but has been edited to give the appearance it was. I consider this should not have been done and invite  to restore the narrative on the talk page as it was.  WCM email 20:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * had asked users to open an RfC. When I came along, this section was headed "RfC discussion", but an RfC had not been opened and there was no "Survey" section, so I fixed that. I made no edit to the narrative so there is nothing to restore. Three people including WCM and me have !voted, so it is too late to change the format, even if I was inclined to. Scolaire (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't stand on formalities: an RfC can do be an RfC without the label. Thanks, though, for the effort--WCM, it's all still under control, from the looks of it, and it's still going your way. Drmies (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC poll

 * No. The person's lifestyle should be dealt with in the section on his life, not the section on his death, and it should be stated in words rather than hinted at by reference to a make of car. Per point 1 of 92.234.25.254's post below, as somebody who is not a car buff I would have no idea whether the Ford Montego was a low, mid or high range of car, so including the name would confuse rather than enlighten me. It is trivia. Somebody suggested above that the make of car was relevant because it reflected his lifestyle. That would be a poor reason to include it. However, I now accept that that is not the primary reason for wanting to include it.  Scolaire (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC), edited 16:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes The central reason for including it, is because it is a sourced fact, of relevance to his death and a wikilink is provided to an article on the make of car for readers to find out more if desired.  Without the link, there is no means for a reader to discover more and it does no harm.  The suggestion given is just one reason why a reader might want to discover more but isn't the main reason for including it and the IP's comments are disingenuous in that regard, in addition I fail to see how it would confuse, maybe thats just me but I genuinely don't follow how it would confuse you.  WCM email 19:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "sourced" is a necessary but not sufficient reason for inclusion. If that's the "central reason" you think it should be in, then there is no reason it should be in.  The brand of car is not at all relevant to his death; the IRA did not blow him up because he drove an Austin Montego.  Literally no-one is going to find information about Austin Montegos useful when reading about the death of a British MP.  It is irrelevant trivia. 99.232.81.44 (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. I don't see how listing the make/model of a car can be confusing, or problematic in any way, even to someone unfamiliar with the model.  Anyone interested can of course click on the link to learn about what kind of car it is.  If they don't care, they just ignore it and keep reading.  It's a minor fact verifiable in reliable sources.  It doesn't convey anything personal, much less inappropriate or misleading or problematic, about Gow.  --В²C ☎ 00:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not good enough. If you fill articles with irrelevant trivia, people don't keep reading, do they?  Once again, "verifiable" is a necessary but not sufficient condition.  Explain why it's so important that it cannot be omitted, please. 99.232.81.44 (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes The make of car Gow was driving at the time of his demise is a significant fact and should stay in the Gow article. See the article on Grace Kelly where in the section on her Death it is stated that she was driving a Rover P6 at the time of her demise. Izzy (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it significant? 99.232.81.44 (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No. It is irrelevant trivia.  "Sourced" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion in the encyclopaedia.  I am sure we can find a reliable source which tells us which colour it was.  That would be just as irrelevant as the brand.  If we could find out which brand of clothing he was wearing when he got blown up, including such information would be similarly absurd.  86.167.71.32 (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But 86.167.71.32, I want you to think very seriously about this. When Grace Kelly crashed in a Rover P6, the fact that it was a Rover attracted massive press attention worldwide. I mean, think what the media reaction would have been if she had crashed in a Citroen 2CV!. Izzy (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But Isabela, I want you to think very seriously about this. When Ian Gow died, did the fact that it was a Ford Montego attract massive press attention worldwide? Also, this should be in the Discussion section below, not here in the survey section. Scolaire (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes it did. There was an iconic photograph of his wrecked car (it was red, I think) which appeared in all the media with a caption along the lines of "Ian Gow's Montego car after the blast". That photograph was in the WP article at one time, but was removed on claimed copyright grounds. Izzy (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not massive press attention worldwide. And Grace Kelly is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.  You have been arguing that the car make should be specified because of the "imagery and significance" of it, and yet you talked about the "imagery and significance" of the wrong brand.  You've never explained that.  Nor have you explained why, if you want to say he wasn't wealthy, you don't want to simply say that, nor how all of that squares with his manor house residence.  176.12.107.140 (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now look here, 176.12.107.140. If you feel that car makes are trivial details then you should go to the Grace Kelly article and remove its reference to the Rover P6 in which she died. Izzy (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That article is irrelevant. There is no blanket rule that says car makes must always be mentioned, nor one that says they must never be mentioned.  I've given you a thorough argument as to why, in this article, the make of car is irrelevant, trivial, extraneous detail, and it seems that you simply can't be bothered to engage with the argument.  176.12.107.140 (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 176.12.107.140, sure I am engaging with the argument. If you are not prepared to visit the Grace Kelly article then what about the Chappaquiddick incident article?. Will you go to the latter and remove reference to the Oldsmobile Delmont 88 that Ted Kennedy was driving when he crashed, on grounds that it is a trivial detail?. Izzy (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Other articles are irrelevant. There is no blanket rule that says car makes must always be mentioned, nor one that says they must never be mentioned.  If you cannot be bothered to engage with the discussion about this article, then your contributions are also irrelevant.  46.37.55.80 (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes - This RfC seems like a tempest in a teapot. I honestly don't think it really matters all that much whether or not we mention it, but it seems like relevant trivia to me. Inserting two words to describe the make and model does not seem undue. NickCT (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No (Came here from RfC page) It's trivia, and shouldn't be in a concise summary of what occurred. If it's relevant enough to be included, then a majority (or at least a large minority) of newspaper articles reporting on the incident would have also commented on the make of the car. That they didn't tells us that it shouldn't be included. Darx9url (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just of curiousity could you tell me which newspaper articles reporting on the incident didn't comment on the make of the car? WCM email 17:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ummmm... Here's one. I haven't done a thorough review, but I believe there are a lot. NickCT (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * From 1990? As I recall, as an example the 6 O'Clock news opened with images of the car, it was on the cover of every paper. WCM email 21:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, because "images of the car" is entirely as relevant to this discussion as "comment on the make of the car", isn't it. 46.37.55.80 (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Answering Wee Curry Monster question, "which newspaper articles reporting on the incident didn't comment on the make of the car?" I checked all the articles from the first page of a google search on '"Ian Gow" death', none of them mentioned the make of the car.
 * LA Times
 * NY Times
 * BBC
 * Guardian
 * margaretthatcher.org
 * Conservative Home
 * Darx9url (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, as I said in my comment just below, the Guardian did say "Mr. Gow's Montego" on the front page of the paper on 31 July 1990. Relying on Google searches can be misleading. The results are useful, nonetheless, because (1) they show the make was not mentioned repetitively in the British media, and (2) they suggest that it was not mentioned at all in the US, where people would not be familiar with Austin, except as a city in Texas. Scolaire (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * British papers don't tend to put their archives online, so a google search for contemporary 1990 reports turns up very little.  For info, the murder of Ian Gow was on the front page of pretty much every newspaper in the UK.  Most carried a picture of Ian Gow's shattered Montego, as did news bulletins.  So the conclusion based on a simple google search that this wasn't in contemporary reports isn't really sustainable.  Could someone actually identify the harm in including a minor, relevant, sourced, detail, which provides a hook for reader's to click through and find out more if they want to?  (A wikilink addresses the comment that overseas readers might not know what an Austin Montego was).  WCM email 10:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It does no harm. Can you provide a diff to somebody saying it is harmful? Scolaire (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You state its "confusing" above. WCM email 12:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Confusing" and "harmful" are hardly the same thing. However, I withdraw my "confusing" remark. Now will you please stop banging on about it? Scolaire (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you clarifying your remark. Call it detrimental rather than harmful if you wish, thats effectively what I meant, but do we need to have a semantic argument?  I simply pointed out it wasn't a strong argument so I guess I'll find it easy to stop banging on about it. WCM email 16:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What about the Death of James Dean article?. Therein it is stated that Dean crashed in his Porsche 550 Spyder car. Is anyone going to go to that article and remove reference to the make of car because it is a "trivial detail". It seems standard practice in WP articles to state the make and model of car in which the articles' subjects suffered incidents. Why should the Ian Gow article be any different?. Izzy (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And so for the third time you refuse to discuss this article but rabbit on instead about irrelevant other articles. It's moronic.  99.232.81.44 (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

99.32.232.44, sure I am discussing the article. If the community agrees that reference to the make and model of Gow's car is appropriate then I will insert the following text in the article :

"The shattered wreck of Gow's tan coloured Austin Montego car in the driveway of his home after the bombing provided an iconic image for the Northern Ireland conflict. It was displayed worldwide by newspapers and TV. " Izzy (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: to put this in perspective, the words "his Montego car" appear in the seventh paragraph of the story on the front page of The Times of 31 July 1990, while the words "Mr. Gow's Montego" appear in the tenth paragraph in the Guardian story of the same day. The Times does not carry a photograph of the wreck; The Guardian does, but the caption only says "Ian Gow's car". Scolaire (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment And yet above it is stated confidently that there was no reference to the make of car?  Which is it?  WCM email 11:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is as I have just said. There was a reference to the make of car in both The Times and The Guardian, but it was not treated as significant in either. As I say, I am only putting this in perspective. Scolaire (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Scolaire. Surely the references to make of car in the newspaper articles evidence that the matter is significant?. Do the paragraphs in which the references appear matter?. Note that reference to make of car appears in paragraph 12 of the WP article. Izzy (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To repeat, I am saying it here for information only. I will discuss it in the discussion section. Scolaire (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Isabela84, you argue like a toddler. "sure I am discussing the article", you absurdly say, before failing to discuss anything and simply suggesting some paragraph of nonsense that you want to insert.  Like I said before, if you can't be bothered to discuss the matter at hand, bugger off.  Your irrelevant witterings don't help anything.  99.249.40.159 (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Who cares? Personally, I think the bikeshed should be green. --Carnildo (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Contributing to an RfC for the sole purpose of not saying either yes or no is a bigger waste of time than arguing about the colour of a bikeshed. If you don't care, why comment? Scolaire (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * is completely right on this. Carnildo’s comment is just a waste of space. 176.12.107.140 (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the comment is smack on the money, WP:BIKESHED, an RFC over such a trivial matter is ridiculous. This isn't a content dispute, so much as one foul mouthed editor who can't accept consensus is against them.  I commend  comments as the voice of reason. WCM email 19:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * His comment (question actually) is "who cares?" Obviously you care, or you would just leave the article as it is. So how is it "smack on the money"? And the head-count is now 4–4, so where is this consensus against one editor? Scolaire (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Did I miss a meeting, when did consensus become a vote? I don't see any comments in the No camp that stands up to scrutiny including yours.   What is smack on the money is the comment on a farsical RFC forced by an IP editor whose normal mode of communication is Censored, Censored Censored You dopy little Censored, "wee curry monster". You dopy little Censored, "wee curry monster"., who refused to discuss it, when normal people could have had a minor discussion and resolved this years ago.  I thank you for rewarding his bad behaviour.  WCM email 09:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A head-count does not decide a poll, but a 50–50 split can never be called a consensus, regardless whether you think the arguments on one side are weak. Having said that, consensus would be reached much more easily if that editor did not continually indulge in combative behaviour, and I deplore some of the language used. If by stating my opinion I am seen to reward that behaviour, then I regret that very much. Scolaire (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if there is no consensus, that would mean the current status quo would be maintained, which is to mention the make and model of the car. Above you refer to the person's lifestyle, the reason for inclusion is to create a wikilink to allow a user to find out more if they like.  That might simply be one reason someone might click through but they can't if its not there.  My point is there was never any need for an RFC, just for a normal discussion, which was made impossible by the guy's refusal to follow civil norms.  I feel the RFC is unnecessary and has wasted the communities time just because one individual can't edit co-operatively.  The irony is that were this a named account, they'd have been blocked years ago and by IP hopping they get away with it.  Sorry but I'm irritated their disruptive behaviour was effectively rewarded. WCM email 17:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you're irritated, and with good reason. But you're not helping by continually sounding off like that. I noted that there was no consensus only because you said that the editor "can't accept consensus is against them". I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of what happens if an RfC fails to achieve a consensus, and I'm certainly not going to defend what I said in my !vote – I'll let the closer worry about that. The fact is that an RfC was opened, and now it has to run its course. Given that, I do think that "Who cares?" is a pointless and unhelpful contribution, though I regret saying it now: I didn't foresee that the other person would jump on the bandwagon and you would react the way you did. I think we should both just stop now, and if the other person continues to provoke, we should ignore them. Scolaire (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope. Unless it would've been an armored car (which it wasn't, right?), the make and model had no importance what-so-ever. The bomb would've blown up any car from a Beetle to a Rolls Royce with the same effect. Ergo, the car details are of no consequence to the issue at hand nor the outcome. BTW, "who cares" is a good point too.TMCk (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Question, is the fact it wasn't protected, given the fact he'd been threatened also not a signficant factor? Just a thought. WCM email 17:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Unrelated/off topic and would depend on what reliable sources say.TMCk (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No, not required per WP:UNDUE as it has close-to-zero prevalence in reliable sources. This looks like it would unbalance the account of a person's death with distracting and trivial detail. Accounts from various RS, from various eras,       etc. give it no space as a detail. We follow prevalence in sources and sources seem to be treating it as completely insignificant to the event, not unlike their non-reporting of the tailor of the suit he died in. It might be an interesting detail for a movie set decorator, but, per WP:UNDUE, it looks like the kind of minutiae that we would be giving more attention to than its prominence (or more accurately, near complete absence) in published, reliable sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E   17:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For purposes of clarity, I've removed my mention of UNDUE, as I was the only person who ever mentioned it. I do think it was being used as a detail of an odd minority viewpoint that the make of the car "told" something about the event, and that the depth of detail was being used in service to that viewpoint. Beyond that, I don't think it's required or interesting, and draws attention away from the human cost of what happened (It's a little akin to giving space to outline the price of the shoes he was wearing when he died, rather than more human considerations. Either way, it shakes down the same, the make of car is not given any prominence in sources and seems to be missing from 99% of reports then and now. Regarding objections to other "policy" arguments, only one person had any kind of link to WP:TRIVIA. In other cases, it should be clear that calling something trivia is not the same thing as citing a specific policy.__ E L A Q U E A T E  19:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but... it depends on the nature of the inclusion. It merits a passing note within a sentence, but nothing more. It is relevant for at least this mention because his death was connected to the car. Anything more than this would be trivial.-- MarshalN20 T al k 17:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How was his death connected to the fact that it was a Montego and not a different brand of car? 201.54.249.114 (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You're making a straw man argument. The point here is not that the type of car had a role in his death, but rather that a short description of the vehicle in question is indeed pertinent information on providing a good description of the event.-- MarshalN20 T al k 11:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's no reason to remove it, such a brief mention isn't undue weight, and it doesn't make the article too long. It's interesting that the model of car was being removed, and not the type of house, type of settlement in which it's located, or the fact that it has a driveway. Peter James (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it important? Would it have made any difference if he had been driving a Ford Mondeo (as one of those who insists the brand is incredibly important wrongly believed?) 201.54.249.114 (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes If the man was killed in a car bombing then it is informative to say something about the car – eg its make and model. Defo a yes on this. Robyaw (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it informative? Do you also want to include the colour, the number of doors, details of the upholstery?  Why should anyone care? 201.54.249.114 (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn’t say anything about upholstery. Robyaw (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes A small mention isn't focusing too much on the make of the car, and it relates to his death in the sense that it was a car bombing. Floatsam  (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why does the brand matter? 201.54.249.114 (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No. This is a biography and naming the car brand has not biographical value that I see. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - Minor fact but worth mentioning in passing. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 *  No Yes Trivia being given undue weight. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Change per User:Dennis Brown's comments, below. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes The arguments against it are fatally flawed. It doesn't violate WP:UNDUE as it isn't giving a minority view too much exposure nor biasing the article, so that policy doesn't apply.  WP:TRIVIA is being quoted around yet if you read it, it concerns itself with sections and lists, not individual, verified facts.  If you do bother to actually read that policy, it says that real trivia shouldn't be deleted, but instead worked into the prose.  This already accomplishes this, so the policy can't be used to exclude this information.  This pretty much reduces all the no votes to either null or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A small, verified fact should be included.  It was put into the original police report, it is factual, it hurts no one.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  17:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You might want to read up on our verifiability policy before making such statements.TMCk (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You incorrectly implied that I'm not aware that verification doesn't guarantee inclusion, but you missed the point. My point was that people were quoting policy and not understanding the actual policies.  As long as a "fact" doesn't violate policy, then it is a matter of consensus to include or not.  It is an editorial decision, not a policy based one.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * But you stand by that: "This pretty much reduces all the no votes to either null or WP:IDONTLIKEIT." ???TMCk (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Emphasis on the null votes that thought there was a policy problem with it being included.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  00:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One last question: Where does my "vote" stand in your opinion?TMCk (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * When I first looked at this, I was going to close, but decided I could make a better difference by participating. I would have counted your !vote as a clean "no" vote based on editorial preference. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  01:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You should admit that by these arguments, there's no special policy argument to include it either. All the Yes votes become some version of ILIKEIT. The No votes can't all be null if it all depends on a consensus of general editor opinion on its subjective value to the article. I don't see that sentiments like "sounds like it's worth a mention", "can't hurt", "it's interesting" are any more policy based than "sounds like it's not worth mentioning", "doesn't add value", "it's not interesting". If more editors end up finding it interesting that's one thing, but it's not somehow a void argument to find a certain detail too small too mention. Those views (subjectively not interested) must be given as much weight as the others (subjectively in favor). Otherwise, an editor could start an RFC on whether to describe the car as a "four-wheeled car with seatbelts with plastic buckles" and claim that any "No" votes against including those details had to be completely dismissed.__ E L A Q U E A T E  13:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This and your other edits make it look like you are too emotionally invested here. As for my !vote, it speaks for itself.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  20:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "emotionally invested"? That's not helpful. If you don't like an argument that's fine, but please don't take a shot at me personally. I don't think it's the end of the world if it goes either way, but we shouldn't say an editor's arguments should be thrown out en masse if someone disagrees with a single part of them. I think we agree that there's no policy that would stop us from excluding this material as well.__ E L A Q U E A T E   20:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with . "It's relevant" and "it's trivial" are equally strong arguments, and equally policy-based, i.e. not at all. If you're going to call them null votes, then all the votes are null. I also agree that 's ad hominem was uncalled for and unlikely to help the discussion. BTW, we still need somebody to close this. Perhaps another request at AN? Scolaire (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't see an ad hominem there and to add I could point to edits you made here that I considered were unhelpful. Dennis makes the same point I did earlier, the arguments for removing material weren't strong and thats a comment on the argument not the person.  This really is an editorial decision that never needed an RFC to decide.  It just needed the discussion to be kept WP:CIVIL.  OTOH this issue has wasted too much of the communities time and needs to be closed.  WCM email 18:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "This and your other edits make it look like you are too emotionally invested here" (Dennis) is ad hominem. So is "I could point to edits you made here that I considered were unhelpful" (you). Dennis makes the same point you did earlier, but you are not addressing the point that the "yes" argument is equally weak and no more policy-based than the "no" argument. An RfC was necessary because prolonged discussion was not producing agreement. Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. Dennis is right on policy, and right in his analysis of the No votes. (And on a personal basis, I really don't see how anyone can think the inclusion is detrimental to the article - and yes, I have read it all) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What use is it? What is illustrated or explained by it? Why not also include the colour of the paint and the style of the upholstery? 187.17.52.174 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. Policy favours it, per Dennis. At worst, it is relevant trivia; at best, it is a significant fact that reflects his particularly unconcerned attitude to security concerns. It is only two words and the reader can decide how much significance they choose to place on them. - Sitush (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it relevant? How could the brand of car possibly reflect anything about his attitude to security concerns? 187.17.52.174 (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No it's trivial information and unnecessary. The make of car had absolutely no effect on his being killed. ww2censor (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC discussion

 * The claim has been made that the brand of the car that he was blown up in says something about his lifestyle. Unfortunately, this claim is demonstrably absurd.
 * For readers to infer what you want them to infer would require them to have knowledge of the socioeconomic value accorded by 1980s British society to a wide range of car brands. Such knowledge is not, in fact, widely held.
 * Explicitly stating that he was blown up in his Ford Montego does not rule out, and may instead hint, that he had a large collection of Alfa Romeos in the garage that he just happened not to be driving that day.
 * One of the advocates of the "let's hint at things through the use of brand names" school of biographical writing did not actually know the brand of car - see above: "he was blown up in a Ford Mondeo. Don't you see the imagery and significance of that?"
 * If you want to say he was not rich, the simplest possible thing to do is say that he was not rich. No argument against this approach has been presented; no argument against it that is not risible exists.
 * Only those with a registered user name can start RfCs. If anyone wants to create one, I'll add these comments to it.  92.234.25.254 (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is heavy handed and completely unnecessary. We have a policy of WP:BRD.  Ie when a Bold edit is reverted, it is discussed in a calm mature manner and a consensus reached.  If one editor in this exchange had recriprocated in responding politely to comments made to them it would never have happened; I don't as a rule refer to people as a "petulant child" but I am utterly fed up with being told to discuss with an editor who responds withing nothing but profanity and personal abuse.  On the record I feel your course of action is rewarding the IP editor for their bad behaviour.  If they had engaged in talk there would never have been a problem.
 * The comments above are an example of criticism by speculation, little more than an ad hominem attack on the suggestion that there is some merit in including the detail of the make of car. They do not of their own right provide any compelling reason to not include it.
 * The make of car is a fact, confirmed by a reliable source. That someone made a mistake and referred to an incorrect make and model is irrelevant, it was quickly corrected, one of the benefits of the crowd sourced approach of wikipedia is that small errors can be and usually are corrected quickly.
 * In deciding whether to include this detail, I did not make the original suggestion that the make/model and the fact it was a modest family car offered an insight into the man. After considering it, I thought it had merit as an idea and I still do.  For that reason I would continue to include it as a detail.
 * As to the claim there is a lack of consensus to include this, I note myself,, and  did not agree with its removal, we have a singular minded IP editor insisting it is removed for no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKE.  Consensus is very much in favour of including it and the discussion was simply derailed by foul mouthed abuse.  I see little point in wasting the communities time on an RFC driven by the fact a foul mouthed abusive editor cannot accept that others disagree.  WCM email 12:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "BRD" is not a policy. It's an essay, as is made explicitly clear at the top of its page.  Someone who believes otherwise, and who is so dishonest as to claim that I did not give reasons for my edit, is not someone who it seems rational to seriously attempt to discuss anything with.  92.234.25.254 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP is incorrect, AFAIK: you don't need to have an account to create an RfC. Of course, you could always sign up. WCM, thanks for pinging those other editors--were there more who have weighed in? I don't see exactly where Born2cycle disagree with removal, though I could be wrong; seemed to disagree. I'm very much interested in 's opinion. And please understand I'm simply going by procedure: this is the proper way to settle this. The last discussions here were from three years ago, and rather than blast the IP for past infractions (and they did engage in talk page discussion; see above), let's be happy they're here now so we can maybe settle this. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I thought an RfC required the creation of a new page. 92.234.25.254 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is my understanding that the make and model of the car is verifiable in reliable sources. We should not infer what that may or may not mean.  Including the information is at worst harmless, and may be helpful, so we should include it.  --В²C ☎ 16:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that Gow wore glasses is also verifiable in reliable sources. Amazingly, it's not mentioned in the article.  Why not?  Because wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  We do not include something just because it can be found in a reliable source.  92.234.25.254 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed anyone can start an RFC; you don't have to need a named account. Izzy is Isabela84 btw and thanks for paging Black Kite. You've also incorrectly described this as an edit war between myself and the IP.  I generally try to observe a personal 1RR restriction these days, if you check the last "edit war" I stuck to that reverting once, the IP was also reverted by   and Izzy , .  The IP edit was reverted by multiple editors who considered the removal of cited relevant material was not improving the article.  Further to place it on the record, I had no intention of a further revert on this occasion but had simply planned a comment in talk, to see it other editors agreed with me and expected that, as on previous occasions, another editor would presently revert and restore cited material.  I only contacted you in the first place as I'm fed up with being referred to by the use of the noun that cannot be mentioned with a block.
 * I would respond to the comment about "not blasting the IP for past infractions" by simply pointing out that you've only locked the article and forced this because they refused to edit co-operatively and have been blocked repeatedly. I'm very much open to editing by consensus and mature discussion but I honestly don't see an RFC forced by the bad behaviour of one editor as a useful and valuable exercise of the wider wikipedia community's time.  If they are prepared to cut out the abuse then I am to happy to forget about it and discuss the matter.  WCM email 17:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The reference to the make of car Gow was killed in is relevant. This matter has been discussed several times in the past and consensus was arrived at - the make of car should stay in the article. I see no justification in taking the discussion to another forum, or in protecting the article. Izzy (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You've totally dazzled me with your thorough debunking of the four points I raised above. 92.234.25.254 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Talk page discussions on content leading to a consensus require that you engage editors in a WP:CIVIL manner.
 * Point 1:
 * *For readers to infer what you want them to infer would require them to have knowledge of the socioeconomic value accorded by 1980s British society to a wide range of car brands. Such knowledge is not, in fact, widely held.
 * Whether such knowledge is in fact widely held is immaterial, we provide a wikilink to an article where a reader wishing to avail themselves of such information can readily access it. One of the advantages of any online publication is that you can click through to find more information.  Of course if we remove such links that becomes impossible.  A reason why we include reference to the car is that editors can click through to find out more.
 * Point 2:
 * *Explicitly stating that he was blown up in his Ford Montego does not rule out, and may instead hint, that he had a large collection of Alfa Romeos in the garage that he just happened not to be driving that day.
 * An irrelevant strawman derived from criticism by speculation, we know that Gow didn't own a fleet of Alfa Romeos and anyone with sufficient wealth to own a stable of decent cars wouldn't have been seen dead in a heap of shite like a Montego.
 * Point 3
 * *One of the advocates of the "let's hint at things through the use of brand names" school of biographical writing did not actually know the brand of car - see above: "he was blown up in a Ford Mondeo. Don't you see the imagery and significance of that?"
 * Irrelevant and argumentative and already addressed above. Noted that the rebuttal was ignored.  To reiterate, that an editor made an honest mistake is not a suitable argument to remove material.  Wikipedia has a self-correcting mechanism and that error lasted a very short space of time.
 * Point 4
 * *If you want to say he was not rich, the simplest possible thing to do is say that he was not rich. No argument against this approach has been presented; no argument against it that is not risible exists.
 * Irrelevant and argumentative. The central reason is that it is a relevant detail and is sourced and provides a means for editors to click through and find out more.  The suggestion for including it is that as a modest man he didn't possess an extravagant car and provides some insight into the man is just an editors opinion that other editors share.  The fact one editor has a different opinion is not grounds to edit war material out of the article.  The onus is on that editor to convince other editors to agree with them not to bludgeon his view into an article with personal abuse and edit warring.
 * All 4 points rebutted explicitly, noting that in fact they were previously. Next?  WCM email 22:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * [Moving IP's comments: please no interwoven discussion--it's confusing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)]
 * ad 1: A knowledge of the social implications of car brand ownership in 1980s Britain cannot be obtained by clicked a link to an article about the Austin Montego. The use of 1980s car models to make hints about social status and aspirations is not a good way to get a point across. ad 2: We don't know that he didn't.  The article doesn't state it.  Nor does it state that a Montego is a heap of shite.  Perhaps you could explain how, if ownership of a Montego unambiguously indicates relative poverty, he managed to own a 16th century manor house. ad 3: Talk about spectacularly missing the point.  The editor who didn't know what make the car was insists that the make of car unambiguously tells us something.  That they got the make wrong tells us that it doesn't. ad 4: It is not a relevant detail.  You have never tried to explain why you think it is.  "sourced" is not a sufficient reason to include anything. Fail.  Your responses do not address any of the substantive issues.  Just calling someone making an argument "argumentative" is not useful.  Looking at the article history, it seems that all but one of the edits you've ever made to it have been reverts, starting with the rather telling edit summary "rv IP edits". Your motivation is very clear. 92.234.25.254 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I see nothing of substance to respond to. The response is unrelated to the main point, the wikilink exists to allow a reader to click through and find out more information.  If removed as you insist that possibility is gone.  We suggest one reason why a reader might want to, attacking that reason is a common debating ploy but doesn't address the underlying reason.  I'm not going to address the second point again, it was your own strawman argument and I've dealt with it.  An honest mistake tells us nothing, the names are not dissimilar; any jaundiced conclusions you draw from such a mistake are immaterial to a discussion on content and are little more than a personal attack.  Other people consider a relevant detail, its a detail considered relevant enough for sources to mention it and media reports from the time to do so.  WP:IDONTLIKE is of itself not a good reason to remove content that others consider relevant.
 * Yet again I see a personal attack from you claiming I only reverted you because you were an IP. I have dealt with that repeatedly and the relevant detail is here.  WCM email 12:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You only edited this article because you were going edit-stalking after a petty dispute on another article. Your edit summary was "rv IP edits" which is unambiguous.  Pointing this out is not a personal attack.  If you don't wish to be accused of anti-IP bigotry, don't be an anti-IP bigot.  176.12.107.140 (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Paging, could you please put a stop to this, its getting really boring now and is not helping any discussion. You were reverted because some of your edits were crap and no other reason.  WCM email 17:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WCM, there is no way that I can close this: someone else will have to do it. And if I did, I'd have to discard some of the arguments, like the mention of "Ian Gow's Montego car after the blast" in a paper--yeah, the car's make is mentioned, but the picture isn't of a Montego but of a mangled car. So, no, I think this should run for a little bit longer, and then we'll find someone to close it. Alternately, you can always place a notice on WP:AN to ask someone to look into it--there's plenty of jobless admins around who've never looked at this article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate if you would put a stop to the endless whine "they're picking on me, 'cos I'm a little IP" as it is A) bollocks and B) bores me. WCM email 21:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If it bores you so much to be called out for your deeply unpleasant harassment, then stop being a deeply unpleasant harasser. Dead simple.  46.37.55.80 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful to the discussion if both of you stopped sniping at each other. No useful purpose is served by this endless name-calling. Scolaire (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Improper use of Poll section
It is ridiculous that people are continuing to hold discussion on the "Poll" section when there is a separate section for discussion. All of that should be moved down into this section, especially since people are only saying the same things over and over. Scolaire (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That some editors keep repeating the same thing and don't engage in talk is one of the reasons why this RFC was started. However, it is common for people to comment on statements made in polls and sometimes for extensive discussion.  Please don't encourage further disruption of the talk page by suggesting that an editor should refactor the discussion again.  Remember don't shove beans up your nose. WCM email 11:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Iconic
I am copying the following from the Survey section to here:
 * If the community agrees that reference to the make and model of Gow's car is appropriate then I will insert the following text in the article:
 * "The shattered wreck of Gow's tan coloured Austin Montego car in the driveway of his home after the bombing provided an iconic image for the Northern Ireland conflict. It was displayed worldwide by newspapers and TV. " Izzy (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is preposterous to say that the car was "an iconic image for the Northern Ireland conflict." It was no such thing. Nobody even remembered the car afterwards. You yourself said above, "it was red, I think". You couldn't remember, and you were wrong. Your YouTube link shows half-a-dozen contemporary news reports, in none of which the word "Ford" or "Montego" is to be heard, and in which the car is only seen for a split second a few seconds. And, by the way, the link would by copyright violation per WP:YOUTUBE.
 * If the community agrees that reference to the make and model of Gow's car is appropriate then it should be put back in exactly as it was. Adding a fact that it demonstrably false is out of the question. Scolaire (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Scolaire. You say the car image appeared for "a split second" in the TV news item. On my viewing, it looked more like 5 seconds - from 2:05 to 2:10. Izzy (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Izzy, got to disagree, if you want to say Iconic, you'll need to find a source which states that. I do agree that the image of the car was on every news bulletin and dominated the front pages of the papers.  WCM email 11:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * WCM. As you say, the image appeared worldwide on TV and newspapers around the world in 1990. It has appeared subsequently on a number of occasions. My own view is that such exposure makes the image "iconic", but other views are possible. I will hear what anyone else has to say on the matter. Izzy (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * , as you can see here – and I know you've seen it because you replied to it – the image did not appear in The Times at all, never mind "dominating the front page". What evidence have you that it "dominated the front pages" of all the other papers?
 * , do you mean that every photo that appeared on the front pages of multiple newspapers since the first ever photo was printed is "iconic"? If so, that is absurd! Scolaire (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Scolaire. Every photo that appears on the front page of a newspaper is not necessarily iconic. But when a photo appears on the front page of every newspaper over a period of time then it probably is iconic. For sure, the image of Ian Gow's bombed Montego car is iconic. Izzy (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Over a period of time? Over what period of time? Was it every day for a month? Every week for a year? Every month for ten years? In every paper? You're making this up as you go along! There isn't even one single picture of the wreck that was published in multiple papers, just a whole lot of different (and not especially good) ones. A picture of a wrecked car is like every other picture of a wrecked car. There never has been an iconic picture of a wrecked car: not James Dean's, not Grace Kelly's and most certainly not Ian Gow's. You need to let this go. Scolaire (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire. We have to agree to disagree on this. I think that Grace Kelly's Rover P6, Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile 88 and James Dean's Porsche Spyder are all fundamentally iconic. And Ian Gow's Austin Montego is no different to that. They are all cars where celebrities suffered life altering incidents. If we are not allowed to show images of the cars concerned then we must describe them by their makes and models. Izzy (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Stop trying to change the question. Shut up about "iconic", that's not what we are discussing.  Have some respect and stop wittering on about other articles.  Give us your reason for including the make in this article.  Who the hell ever said that we are not allowed to show images of his car?  What the hell does it matter if he got blown up in a tan-coloured Montego or (as you earlier believed it to be) a red Mondeo?  99.249.40.159 (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to close this so I think I can weigh in a bit. I can find no evidence whatsoever that this car is discussed anywhere as "iconic" or even important. Dean's Spyder, sure, Grace Kelly's Rover, maybe (some stuff about the lack of a dual braking system), but nothing about Gow and his Montego, nothing but a few mentions. This whole edit war is kind of lame to begin with, but this stuff about "iconic", that's not based on anything one could call reliable or even basically verified--the mentions prove that the information is correct, not that there is an argument for including it, and the idea that the car proves something about the man is nothing but original research; the IP's dissection of the various arguments is valid, in my opinion. Of course newspapers are going to mention it--why not? But that doesn't make it encyclopedic. That doesn't mean it has to be left out, but there are no significant reasons other than "that's what he was driving" for its inclusion, and we can't really call it more than trivia. WCM's suggestion that it "does no harm" is probably correct, though. So, I wish the closing admin the best of luck in cutting this Gordian knot; it's little more than editorial preference (it's relevant trivia or not) to leave it out or stick it back in. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry Drmies but I have to disagree with your suggestion that the IP has "dissected" various arguments.
 * The reason for including the link is that it allows you to click through and find more information on what is a relevant detail. I've seen nothing to refute the argument.  The suggestion that the make/model of the car gives some insight, is just that a suggestion.  Its one reason why someone might want to click through and find out more.  Picking on that suggestion is not debunking the first point, its simply being argumentative and whilst a common debating device, picking on one suggestion to discredit an otherwise sound argument, its not helpful in a collaborative environment.  I would suggest this isn't encouraged as its deeply unhelpful.  This isn't dissecting arguments for inclusion by any means.
 * Izzy has also provided plenty of examples of other deaths where cars were involved, they all show that the make/model of the car is mentioned as a relevant detail. I don't think anyone is suggesting its anything other than a relevant detail to the article.  The response is repetitive argumentation that doesn't address the point, again this is helpful in a collaborative environment.
 * The arguments for not including it are A) papers didn't mention it, this is untrue as demonstrated above, B) it would somehow confuse readers (but no one suggests how) or C) an editor states it is irrelevant triva. A) was refuted, B) is speculative and hardly a strong reason and C) is down to editor preference. And we wouldn't have needed an RFC if one editor hadn't tried to impose his view on the article in the face of an opposing consensus.  In reality, there are no strong arguments to remove this information and a quite reasonable suggestion for retaining it.  There is not so much a Gordian knot as ignoring a lot of needless argumentative text that has bloated this RFC. WCM email 11:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But that needlessly argumentative text comes from "your" side also. Just one example: there is not a shred of evidence that the car is actually discussed anywhere. Not a shred. So Izzy can cite all the other cars she likes--it simply does not matter. Repeating it doesn't make it more true: there is evidence, as I indicated, for some of those other cars to be relevant (that is, not trivial at all). There is no such evidence for Gow's car. And repeating that there is "an opposing consensus" doesn't make that true either: I look up the page and see that opinion is clearly split. Aren't there at least three editors saying it shouldn't be included? Your A, B, C is somewhat correct, and C it is, clearly: a couple of editors say it's needless trivia. (I'm sort of on the fence.) Some poor admin is going to have to decide--if your side had found any reliable, in-depth discussion of the importance of the car model, we wouldn't be having this argument. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "wee curry monster", do not make false claims as to what other people have said. It's immature and disruptive.  No-one said that the car was not mentioned.  Your dishonesty is very telling, as is the fact that you never contributed anything to the article, you've only ever reverted other people's edits and you only ever got involved because of a grudge.
 * Also do not make false claims as to what your own argument is. After repeatedly insisting that the make and model of the car give us "insight" into someone's lifestyle, it is laughable that you now claim that this was just a "suggestion".
 * And finally, why have you and Isabela84 refused repeatedly to do one simple thing and give a reason why it is relevant? You've just repeatedly, boringly, moronically repeated that you think it is relevant, without once having the sense to give a reason.  What does it matter if he was blown up in a tan-coloured Montego, or a red Mondeo (noting that Isabela84 laughably managed to get every detail of the car wrong while asserting how important the details are).  99.249.40.159 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The colour and model of the car are as irrelevant to this article as the number of seats and doors, the capacity of the engine, the type of fuel it took, and the diameter of the steering wheel. It's time you grew up and realised that.  99.249.40.159 (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny, I've never thought discussions should have sides and taking sides isn't something that should be encouraged. Editors should argue their case for their position but discussions should not be about taking sides.  I'd also point as regards (C), its only since you widely publicised this RfC a couple on none-involved editors have suggested its trivia.  Their reasons for doing so are either (A) or (B) and you acknowledge neither are sustainable arguments, which somewhat undermines their position.  In terms of strength of argument, which is what decides consensus, its fairly clear IMHO.  The consensus to include it is also pretty clear before the RFC, though its kind of obscured by someone yelling obscenities when they don't get their own way.   You'll note btw I don't consider the suggestion by  that its in anyway iconic to be sustainable, since we need a secondary source to make that claim, its not something that editors can decide upon.  I don't see anyone saying its anything other than a relevant detail, no one is arguing its vital importance.  WCM email 15:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you even understand that you need to give a reason why it is relevant? 99.249.40.159 (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's silly to deny that there is a group of editors that want the car in and a group of editors what want the car out. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting use of language, . On the one hand you say that "taking sides isn't something that should be encouraged." On the other you use phrases like "none-involved [sic] editors" and "undermines their position." Sounds like you're not only taking sides, but you don't have a lot of respect for those who don't take your side. Scolaire (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary my comment about undermining their position is addressing the strength of argument not the person.  The comment about none involved simply addresses that people have commented without being aware of the history.  If for example, someone asserts that the make of car was not referred to in contemporary media reports, and contemporary media reports did, then its not unreasonable to conclude their remarks were made in ignorance.  If for example, someone asserts that reference to the make of car is somehow confusing, and I question huh? how? and they don't elaborate, then its not unreasonable to question the value of such a remark.  This is nothing to do with taking sides but commenting on the strength of argument.  Equally if you wish to make a bad faith conclusion from such a remark that I somehow disrespect the person that is entirely your own personal issue.  Just because I don't agree with a person doesn't mean I disrespect them.  I can and do hold a fundamentally different position from  but engage in a cordial discussion, so I would suggest to you that you see something different is illuminating.
 * And responding to, I never said any different, I commented that there are strong arguments for including the information but weak arguments for excluding it. This is not just "us" versus "them", consensus is fundamentally about strength of argument is it not?  You see plenty of examples on wikipedia of admins loudly criticised for closing discussions in favour of the wrong "version" by those advocating a different argument from a majority position; it was their argument that was weak. WCM email 22:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Funny Drmies, I've never thought discussions should have sides" is a rather patronizing remark and, as Scolaire points out, rather...interesting, given the context. But this is tiresome; I'm beginning to see why the IP editor was losing patience. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The remark was not intended to be patronising and TBH I think you know that. Normally if I've offended someone albeit unintentionally I'd apologise.  On this occasion I won't. I find your remark about the IP editor extremely patronising, given I've gone out of my way to discuss matters civilly with him, despite chronic abuse from the guy.  This RFC is a complete waste of time, its a minor detail and you've forced an extended discussion, making a mountain out of a molehill, because one IP editor wouldn't discuss matters in a civil manner. In the normal course of events a discussion about a minor detail like this shouldn't have needed kB of discussion.  All that was needed was someone to keep a lid on incivility.  WCM email 06:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is all becoming tiresome. Six proper account users have expressed a view on the matter of whether or not reference should be made to Gow's Montego car. Surely that is enough to establish a consensus?. Will our attendant Administrator please bring this matter to a close?. Izzy (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And still, in all of this discussion and despite repeated requests for them to do so, neither of the two editors who want the make of the car to be mentioned have given a reason why they think it's relevant. 99.249.40.159 (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"He was the first .. minister to resign under Thatcher's prime ministership"
Are you sure that is correct, George LaCombre?. Just off the top of my head I think of Lord Carrington who resigned as Foreign Secretary in 1982. Sorry if I am missing something obvious here. Izzy (talk)

I stand corrected Izzy! Re-reading I think Alan Clark meant to convey (and I missed) that he was the first resignation (or many!) arising out of a difference of opinion/policy difference with Thatcher. I've now removed this reference. George LaCombre (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish Agreement
The section on Ian's opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement (1985) makes the claim that...

The agreement would ultimately lead to devolved government for Northern Ireland, power sharing in the province and engagement with the Republic.

This is not sourced and IMHO highly tendentious and NOT a neutral POV. The said agreement was highly unpopular with Unionists and a central demand during the later negotiations of the Belfast Agreement/Good Friday agreement was that the Anglo-Irish Agreement (1985) was repealed, admittedly with similar arrangements replacing it.

My issue with the current claim is that it makes it appear that Ian Gow was on the 'wrong side of history' in opposing the '85 agreement which was negotiated without any involvement of Northern Ireland's Unionist representatives. One could strongly argue that those who insisted that Unionist involvement and consent was vital were correct in 1985 and it was their view which prevailed in 1998.

It's also clear that Ian Gow was NOT leading Conservative policy on Northern Ireland (having resigned to the backbenches) and the claim by the IRA that this was the reason for his murder is bogus. He was targeted because he was prominent in opposing them and their works, for his political views & beliefs.78.16.141.204 (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The article Anglo-Irish Agreement contains the statement " ... it did improve co-operation between the British and Irish governments, which was key to the creation of the Good Friday Agreement 13 years later ". My understanding is that Gow's line was that Northern Ireland should be fully integrated into Great Britain (in the pre-devolution era) and that the only concession that might be offered would be to redraw the border in order to move some Nationalist majority communities from Northern Ireland into the Republic. The 1985 A-I agreement was essentially an exercise in bridge building while Gow's line was one of fence building. From the vantage point of 2016 I think it fair to say that Gow was on the wrong side of history - but maybe things will be seen differently 25 years from now?. Izzy (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Izzy, you may indeed think it fair, but Wikipedia is not a place for your (or my) subjective personal views. I don't think it's necessary to 'call' Ian Gow's right side/wrong side of history in this article, and it's pretty tasteless to speculate given that the man was murdered for his views. I agree that the 1985 Agreement probably did ease the later Belfast/Good Friday Agreement but, again, whether that it was/is 'a good thing', or not, is not our job here on Wikipedia. 78.19.6.232 (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delayed response, 78.19.6.232. My comment concerning Gow having been "on the wrong side of history" is only made on the talk page. The article confines itself to an account of Gow's position on Northern Ireland and leaves the reader to draw his or her own conclusion. In fairness to Gow, it has to said that he was looking at things from a 1970s / 1980s perspective. Izzy (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Enoch Powell
81.178.128.171.You have added a statement to the effect that Gow and Neave's position on Northern Ireland in the 1970s was influenced by Enoch Powell. I am not sure that is correct. Powell became a Unionist MP in October 1974 but he never really set the agenda for Conservative NI policy. Can you cite a credible source for this opinion that Gow and Neave were influenced by Powell?. Izzy (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Irish Democrat source (tenth reference/footnote)
This is not a credible source by Wikipedia guidelines and should not be used.

The conspiracy theory (CIA, MI5, MI6 et cetera) was advanced by an ageing Enoch Powell amongst others, so surely a better source could be found?

Better still, remove this nonsensical 'theory' completely.

It just serves to amuse those in the INLA who actually did murder him. 78.19.6.232 (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture
Is there any reason why that picture was chosen? There are much clearer ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.106.65 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Where? WCM email 19:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Referencing
please provide evidence of the existence of the story "Dame Jane opens clinic" in The Argus on 31 July 2000. A search of The Argus's website (see - https://www.theargus.co.uk/search/?search=%22ian%20gow%22&sort=posted_date_asc&headline_only=false&site_id[]=120&posted_date=&posted_date_from=&posted_date_to=&pp=20&p=0 - the square brackets in the URL mean I need to post the URL that way) does not bring up any news article remotely resembling that. There is this on the same day, rather coincidentally. FDW777 (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, FDW. The article you reference to does contain relevant information. However, my recollection is that there was another article in the Argus relating to the opening of the Ian Gow Memorial Health Centre in Eastbourne which Dame Jane honoured with her presence. Leave it with me. See : https://www.esht.nhs.uk/hospitals-and-community/community/ian-gow-memorial-health-centre/ Izzy (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, FDW, there is an internet accessible article in the Daily Mail from 2017 which covers relevant ground. See : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4855796/MP-Ian-Gow-s-widow-wants-justice-brought-IRA-killers.html. OK, I know the Mail isn't the last word in credibility, but it provides some background information. Izzy (talk)


 * WP:DAILYMAIL disqualifies the latter. The "Ian Gow Memorial Health Centre" appears to have been open since at least 1996 (definitely since 1998 at the same postcode as present). So I'm slightly puzzled as to why it would be opened in 2000? FDW777 (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, FDW. The clinic in question has existed for many years prior to the demise of Ian Gow. I believe it was redeveloped and renamed at some time after Gow's demise although I am unsure when. I recall Dame Jane attending its dedication which was in 2000. Izzy (talk)

Bodyguard (or not)
I doubt any backbench MPs, except perhaps those who had been Northern Ireland ministers, would have either a bomb-proof car or a bodyguard; I believe the statement that "unlike most British MPs of that era, Gow refused a bodyguard" is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7000:D87F:1400:5CE3:488D:CDAC:8BDB (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it is an eccentric edit slipped in around 1 October 2020. Backbench MPs never had bodyguards in that era. And still don't. I have corrected it. Izzy (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)