Jump to content

Talk:List of terrorist incidents in London

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

Proposal re. Suffragette "Terrorism"

[edit]

We have above a proposal from @DeFacto as modified by Snowded that would read:

”With increased militancy in the movement in 1913, some Suffragettes and the authorities talked of arson and bomb attacks as terrorism. Contemporary newspaper reports likewise spoke of ‘Suffragette Terrorism’ in the UK and US. Some recent scholarship has sought to describe Suffragette actions as terrorist but this remains controversial".

Seems reasonable. It refers to a use of the term "terrorism" that is clearly subjective on part of those who either announced they were instituting "a reign of terror" by, say, smashing windows in the West End, or who claimed, not merely to have been outraged, but to haven been "terrorised" by the bomb damage to the Coronation Chair. But how seriously should we take a rhetoric that would confuse such actions with those deliberately intended to take life or limb, or which are indifferent to substantial risks bodily injury of loss to others? Perhaps there are exceptions, but the risks in Suffragette "direct actions" were generally those assumed by the militants themselves. Of course there were those in the press and in government who regarded the suffragettes refusal of food--their prison hunger strikes--as "terrorism"ManfredHugh (talk)

Might I suggest it would be clearer if you !voted in the section above where this is being discussed?
The proposal was from me, not DeFacto. I am very glad to see that we are close to agreement: 5 editors agree to the broad outline proposed and no-one's disagreed. Great! We're just down to the detailed wording of the last sentence: 3 for mine, 2 for Snowded's. The 2 versions aren't miles away from each other, but as per my earlier comments, I remind all that we need to follow reliable sources, and I don't think reliable sources quite support Snowded's revised wording. I am happy to see more editors weigh in, or a third wording be suggested for that final sentence. Bondegezou (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nit picking "Some recent scholarship has sought to describe Suffragette actions … " would be simpler & clearer as "Some recent scholarship has described/describes Suffragette actions … ". And is there a more specific term than 'recent'?. Pincrete (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Bondegezou has established, it would be inappropriate to simply state that “some” recent scholarship has described their actions as terrorism, since that implies that this is a minority view, and it is clear that a majority of reliable sources share this view not a minority. Delayed Laugh (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying an introductory paragraph

[edit]

In discussion above, there were 4 editors (including myself) in support of my introductory paragraph draft. 2 editors supported the idea of an introductory paragraph and part of the text proposed, but wanted a variation on the final sentence. Others have supported the broad approach but have not expressed a view on the proposed draft text.

There is clear consensus for an introductory paragraph and for much of what it should say. There is some disagreement on the final sentence, but a 4:2 majority for one version. Given discussion has died down, I have WP:BOLDly edited the article to add an introductory paragraph close to the draft I proposed. I've tweaked this a bit to make things clearer and to achieve some small degree of compromise with the alternate wording suggested. I'm not suggesting this new paragraph is set in stone. I am happy to see it edited (respecting discussion here) or further discussed here, but we've had a lot of discussion and I felt we were close enough to something that it was acceptable to make this move. Bondegezou (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]