Talk:Assassination of Lord Mountbatten

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

IRA support

[edit]

Although the artticle is factual and straightforward the passage: 'IRA financial support in America via NORAID dwindled, which was already in steep decline since the Bloody Sunday incident of 1972.' Is somewhat jarring as it suggests that somehow the IRA were deemed to be responsible for the atrocity. 171.6.138.123 (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 December 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma → Assassination of Lord Mountbatten – See Wikipedia:Article titles: titles should be concise. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's not unreasonably long (have seen much longer titles). The title should match with the main article that we have on the subject. As an example, note that assassination of John F. Kennedy is not at "assassination of President Kennedy". Keivan.fTalk 14:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. How often will you see "assassination of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma" in books, journal articles or web pages? Scolaire (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed. Oppose Louis —> Lord. Support Assassination of Louis Mountbatten. If help to readers is considered important, go to Assassination of Louis Mountbatten (1979).
There is not good reason to promulgate “1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma” to related pages, and that title has little relevance to this page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revert the undiscussed move:
Suggest to User:Hey man im josh that the following review was not good:
—- SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to it being moved to the suggested title because it violates consistency when the main page is taken into account, but "Lord Mountbatten" is more common that "Louis Mountbatten" (per the Ngram). And it's not like we don't have pages named "Lord X" (ex. Lord Byron). Keivan.fTalk 02:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ngrams are useful but are not a substitute for looking at actual usage in the best sources. In this case, a style change has occurred with time. Quality sources are far less deferential to royalty. The current Sea Lord, is titled simply Ben Key. Your ngram indicates that “Lord” is more frequent than “Louis”, but the Wikipedia MOS prefers to not use titles, and exceptions required a heavy preponderance for the titled form. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current First Sea Lord is titled thus because he is not a peer. The MOS prefers not to use titles except when they are a part of the common name, but a quick Google search finds "Lord Mountbatten" is far more commonly used than "Louis Mountbatten" with no title whatsoever. Richiepip (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above ngram shows :
Less, 1920-1945;
Far more 1945-2005;
More (merely more) 2005-now
I think moving forwards it’s better to drop the title in favour of his first name, as a preference. Using “Lord” is a fair option. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More sophisticated Ngrams, putting flowing words in front and behind, indicates Lord dominates. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Keivan.f. I moved the page originally to be consistent with the subject's article and "Louis Mountbatten" with no title is not his common name. Richiepip (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMONNAME is not singular. The old nobility-deferential writing style features Lord Mountbatten frequently, but “Louis Mountbatten” IS commonly recognised in reliable sources. This is one example. Honorifics such as “Lord” should be avoided, and Mountbatten does not rise to the exception for Mother Theresa or Queen Victoria. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so to clear this up; nobody is actually saying that Lord Mountbatten should be used on its own as part of this article's title, or the main article's title. But, if we are to use Louis Mountbatten then we might as well make it consistent with the main page, which does include his hereditary title (it is hereditary because it was inherited by his descendants). It would also be consistent with funeral of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma. Keivan.fTalk 06:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no. While I usually seem to find myself arguing for longer titles, usually “to help readers”, for this person, I believe including the peerage only hurts. Earl Mountbatten of Burma does not, I believe, help anyone with recognizability. It hurts concision. It doesn’t connect well to any of the many thinks for which Mountbatten is highly notable. I would move Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma to Louis Mountbatten. However, regardless of whether that ever happens, I don’t think that when adding “Assignation of” that consistency requires retaining unnecessary from the parent article. Doing so would often make titles unwieldy long. In this case, “Assignation of” adds, itself, considerable recognizability, in fact far exceeding the “1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma” suffix. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support moving Funeral of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma to Funeral of Louis Mountbatten.
    It would be better to call him “Lord Louis Mountbatten” than to repeat “Mountbatten” and include useless words 1st, Earl and Burma. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Keivan.f, for clarifying my position. WP:NCROY, though not policy is still a helpful guideline ensuring consistency and recognizability, states "Members of the British peerage, whether hereditary peers or life peers, usually have their articles titled 'Personal name, Ordinal (if appropriate) Peerage title'" there are of course exceptions to this, but none of these, I believe, fit Mountbatten as he was not widely known exclusively as his personal name and Lord Louis Mountbatten was not correct form after 1946. I could accept Assassination of Lord Mountbatten but I really see no need to move this article. Richiepip (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As an encyclopedia we should not be perpetuating false info. He was born "Prince Louis of Battenberg", then styled "Lord Louis Mountbatten" until 1946, and then "Viscount Mountbatten of Burma" until 1947. So he had ceased to be "Lord Louis Mountbatten" for about 33 years by the time he died. The words "Earl Mountbatten of Burma" are carved out on his grave stone. Also, he's the 1st earl because he has had two successors. That's how the pages on peers are titled to provide clarity and avoid ambiguity in cases where the personal names are similar. I could understand why the numbering should not necessarily apply to side pages though. Keivan.fTalk 16:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying the “Lord” is incorrect for 33 years, despite it being often used? Isn’t an earl able to be referred to as Lord? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I'm saying. An earl can be referred to as "Lord". Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer is frequently referred to as "Lord Spencer" (ex. Lord Spencer did not respond to The Independent's request for comment). He's not "Lord Charles Spencer" though. That's an entirely different form of address, typically used by the second son of a duke or an earl (ex. Lord Randolph Churchill). The subject of this article was "Earl Mountbatten of Burma" (or "Lord Mountbatten" for short) in his later life (1966). He was "Lord Louis Mountbatten" in the 1930s and 40s (1936, 1940). Keivan.fTalk 06:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And, forgive me, but the above paragraph is precisely why the article should be moved, either as proposed, or to "Assasination of Louis Mountbatten". This is an international encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, we should not be expecting readers to be familiar with the obscure naming conventions used by members of one country's aristocracy in order to find an article, while also creating numerous redirect pages to actually get people to the correct "Assasination of Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl of Tautology" page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peer review

[edit]

Assassination of Lord Mountbatten

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

The assassination of a member of the royal family was one of the IRA's early 'spectaculars', but it proved to be a contentious one for them and they were criticised heavily for killing a 79-year old along with an 82-year old and two teenagers. This article has been through a complete rewrite recently and a trip to FAC is envisaged, if reviewers think that appropriate. All constructive comments welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by KJP1

[edit]

Interesting. Shall work through over the next few days. A few immediate thoughts:

Lead
  • Francis McGirl - appears to alternate between this and McGuest, in the lead and elsewhere;
  • "and sand from Mullaghmore in his tread" - tread of his boot, discussed earlier, or his car tyre?
Background
  • "The Troubles was the conflict" - "was" sounds odd. "were"?
  • "wanted Northern Ireland to remain within the UK" - I wonder whether on first mention (though it's also in the lead) it would help to have United Kingdom on full?
  • "when they assassinated Christopher Ewart-Biggs, the British ambassador to Ireland" - would adding "when they assassinated Christopher Ewart-Biggs, the British ambassador to Ireland, in Dublin" help to emphasise the widening of the conflict from NI?
  • "The castle was a country house, built for the 3rd Viscount Palmerston" - just Lord Palmerston? If he's known at all by most readers, that's likely the name they will recognise.
Build-up and McMahon's actions
  • "The IRA planned the attack on Mountbatten for several months. Two teams worked on the attack" - in order to avoid repetition, perhaps "Two teams were involved/deployed:"
Reactions
  • "Pope John Paul II was due to visit both Ireland and Northern Ireland, with a trip to Armagh, but the Northern Ireland part was cancelled following what they described as "the brutal crimes" - who is the "they" in this sentence? The Pope's office?
  • "Three days of state mourning were announced in Burma (now Myanmar), while in India a week of mourning was observed" - the Indian reaction can be easily understood, as he was viceroy. Recording the Burmese reaction may puzzle people as the connection hasn't been made explicit, although the Mountbatten introduction does saw he oversaw its recapture. I wonder if a footnote, covering his earldom, Earl Mountbatten of Burma to indicate the particular connection, may help.
Funerals
Notes, references and sourcing
  • these all look as impeccable as ever.
General
  • Following on from Jacob's comment, the "why" around Mountbatten's assassination has always puzzled me less than the "how"? By 1979, Mountbatten was about as perfect an example of British imperialism still living and an attack on him was clearly aimed at Britain's "sentimental, imperialist heart". But HMG knew he was a target, he had a 28-man security detail, Shadow V had rightly been identified as highly vulnerable, and the surveillance car, known to have previously been used by the IRA, had been observed watching the boat. I think the article, which is a cracker, clearly sets all of this out, but I am still left wondering as to how the attack wasn't thwarted. Was there an inquiry beyond Donovan's forensic inquiry? I don't think so. Anyways, all that speculation is not for here. Sorry my commenting was interrupted. I shall look out for it at FAC. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks KJP. All done, bar one, which I’ll work on prior to going to FAC.
    In terms of the how, I think there was some naivety (and possibly arrogance) on Mountbatten’s part. To be fair, despite the warnings, etc, the IRA had not started on their “spectaculars” (as they came to call them), and the thought of them targeting a 79-year-old retired man, an 82-year-old woman and a couple of teenagers would probably have been a bit ridiculous to him (it only seems “normal” now because of some of the later attacks on civilians – Enniskillen and the rest - raised the level of madness to unthought of levels). There wasn’t any inquest, unfortunately (or, at least, there wasn’t a public inquest, or even any reference to a private one having been undertaken). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JacobTheRox

[edit]

Lead:

  • ...summer trip to his house, Classiebawn Castle on the... – I think it sounds more natural to say ...summer trip to Classiebawn Castle, his house on the...
  • Move the sentence beginning Less than two to the start of the next paragraph so it is more even and follows a clear split (summary, plan, explosions, investigation, response)
  • ...the bomb was detonated on Shadow V... – remove 'Shadow V' as we've already been told where the bomb is.
  • rm wikilink on 'gelignite' the second time
  • change imprisonment. McGirl to imprisonment; McGirl for more balanced sentences.
  • surround the UK prime minister with em dashes not commas to be more consistent with other non-clausal units
    • I think the commas may work better here, or we end up with too many dashes in one sentence for it to be easy to parse. - SchroCat (talk)
  • US and the FBI – Add comma after 'US' to separate clauses

Background:

  • Use a {{See also}} template to link to Timeline of the Troubles
  • From the start of the Troubles to 1976 the republican... is very clunky – how about Between the start of the Troubles and 1976, the republican...
  • ...as the chief of the Defence Staff until... – capitalise Chief per its article
  • and a year as the chairman... – missing a verb; perhaps and for a year?
  • ...which he used to go fishing – can be confused with the past tense when reading for the first time; I suggest ...which he used for fishing.
  • Could we know a bit more about the boat? That's an open question because I have no idea if anything more is known/published.
  • one of the IRA's explosive officers insinuates he was prone to exploding; it should be explosives officer.
  • replace "in" with a comma in Carrickmacross in County Monaghan and delink County Monaghan to prevent a chain of 'in's
  • The sentence starting Police had no record... needs repunctuating for clarity; I suggest changing ...constitution and had... to ...constitution. He had...
  • Unabbreviate Co. Leitrim for clarity and consistency.

I may come back to do the rest of the article tomorrow. Feel free to ignore anything too pedantic. Hope this helps, JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 23:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Build-up:

  • Either have ...saying: "What... or ...saying "what... (I think I can never do MOS:QUOTE).
  • Change which rose to to which had risen to
  • Add a comma after In the early 1970s
  • In 1976 steps were taken to assassinate him – add a comma before steps; could you expand on what these 'steps' were to any extent. I think "In 1976, the IRA began preparations for an assassination attempt" would sound more professional.
  • The sentence beginning Following the assassination... feels confusing to read; consider moving "according to the journalist Annabel Ferriman" to the start.
  • the police advised Mountbatten not to holiday there – you have strayed too far for anaphora; consider Classiebawn Castle or Northern Ireland instead.
  • change one built the bomb [...[ and one to "one built the bomb and the other"
  • The bomb team constructed a device [...]; the team included McMahon would read nicer as "The bomb team—which included McMahon—constructed a device..."
  • Change 9:55 am to "9:55 a.m." (MOS:AMPM)

Assassination:

  • Change 11:15 am to "11:15 a.m." (MOS:AMPM)
  • Replace typo "|" with "I" in quote.
  • One of the Garda officers, Detective Henry, was one of those... – avoid repetition (e.g. "Detective Henry, a Garda officer and one of those...")
  • doctors, on – either remove comma or replace with em dashes to avoid confusing sea of commas
  • remove hyphen from first-aid.
  • add missing punctuation (ideally semicolon) in ...casualties he...

Warrenpoint:

I will be back again tomorrow to finish my comments. A brilliant article :) JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 23:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much JacobTheRox: I'll done down to here, except where I've commented above. all very helpful indeed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox:

  • Change "Part of The Troubles" to "Part of the Troubles"
  • Caption the image so readers know which year it was taken

Reactions:

  • Consider moving footnote [h] (£2 million...) into parenthesis as it is relevant to the reader (you can just have (equivalent to £x in 2023<ref />)
  • Change "some time, and the death" to "some time; the death" to increase clarify.
  • remove unnecessary comma in "Warrenpoint, confirmed"
  • Should "Lynch allowed overflights of up to 3.1 miles (5 km)" be its own short sentence? It would work with a semi-colon to either the previous or next sentence.

Investigation:

  • "They were released on a technicality" – anything in sources about what this technicality was?

Funerals

  • Can we have a photo of Romsey Abbey (eg. File:Romsey Abbey 2022b.JPG), especially seeing as there isn't another photo of the funeral?
  • Is this photo of interest, either for this article or the funeral article? It's CC BY-SA 2.0
    • The problem is that it’s a short section which already has a good image in there. Any more images would push into the next section and the final image would end up sitting deep in the Notes or References. - SchroCat (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other general comments:

  • There is an empty "References" section at the bottom; please remove it.
  • The article doesn't really discuss why Mountbatten was a target; this seems pretty important and necessary to obtain broad coverage. Having read the article, I'd say it is the only thing I still would like to read and learn about. Do sources discuss him being a hallmark of British imperialism, and an Earl of a colony (something which Ireland considered themselves). His entire presence in Northern Ireland was also—I presume—a major factor.
  • The assassination was featured in The Crown which led to a flurry of news articles discussing its portrayal and legacy. [1] [2] [3] Is this worth discussing?
    • I’ll have a think about this. As it doesn’t fit with any of the other points of the Legacy section, it would be a one-sentence stubby paragraph saying it was recreated n the programme. None of the rest of the information in those articles is encyclopaedic. - SchroCat (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have noticed strong links between his assassination and the assassination of Airey Neave: they are both very close to British leaders (Thatcher and Elizabeth II); they are both connected to Northern Ireland in what the IRA would have considered an oppressive way; they were both killed by a bomb (although the method of detonation was different); they were both perceived by the IRA as members of the British ruling class; they were both achieved by circumventing tight security in order to plant a bomb; they both led to a change in Thatcher's attitudes to Northern Ireland and the IRA. Do sources discuss this similarity or is it just me?
    • The only ones that mention any of the above are the ones that refer to the ‘deep psychological scars’ on Thatcher. I’ve not seen any sources make the other connections. - SchroCat (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done now; I look forward to seeing this as a strong featured article candidate some time soon. Best wishes! JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 22:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these. Again, all done except where I’ve commented otherwise. I’ll do some digging on one of the points and have a think about one of the others. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So was McGirl involved or wasn't he?

[edit]

The article calls him an accomplice, but it also says he was acquitted. How come? Has more evidence emerged since he was tried? 62.73.72.101 (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]