Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Some were Armed

It should be put forward in the introduction that two of the protesters were reported to be armed, otherwise the whole article comes across as bipartisan. Jimmy Mcgovern's documentary 'Sunday' clearly shows two armed protesters. These were seperate from the thirteen unarmed shot dead, yet it would still be wise to posit the armed protestors, to provide a more balanced viewpoint for a first time reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.150.241 (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources and details now, please. A lot of people would be interested in these "weapons", and we can presume you are not talking about the nail bombs planted by the British Army on 17 year-old Gerald Donaghy as Gerald lay dead on the street? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Fianna Éireann

The Fianna are/were not a "Junior IRA brigade," rather they were and are a Republican scouting movement. Many members would go on to join the IRA but I can't recall any Fianna bombings or shootings.

If I recall it was precisely on this point that on July 31 1997 Proinsias de Rossa won £300,000 from the Sunday Independent which, through an article by Éamon Dunphy, alleged he had been a member of the IRA when he had, in fact, only been a member of Fianna Éireann. Check The Irish Independent July 31 1999, for a background to that case. El Gringo 18:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Older comments

Shouldn't this be organized under Northern_Ireland/History or something? I see that there's quite a bit of information spread around, under The Troubles, Ireland/History, IRA, etc, but the history of Northern Ireland is so unique that it deserves a seperate page, in my opinion. -Guppie

If you had a special page on Northern Ireland history all brought together, it would take up half of Wikipedia. Encyclopedias operate on the basis of enquiring about a specific event, person or organisation. It wouldn't work if to find out about Bloody Sunday you had to go in though a detailed category list: Northern Ireland/history/troubles/Bloody Sunday. It should have links to all of those, but not be buried on one. JTD

Jtdirl, your rewrite of this page was excellent. Keep it up on Wikipedia! - AW

This article is extremely partisan and missrepresentative. -- MartinSpamer

Wow! Such insight! Could you perhaps give some specifics or edit out the POV in the article yourself? --mav

Ive tried but each time I try to improve it Jtdirl makes it worse. -- MartinSpamer

---

Why does this article hav such a specific title? Was there another event called Bloody Sunday that also happened in 1972? --mav

There was another Bloody Sunday in 1920. I don't know who put this name on this file (I don't think it was me!) but I suppose it makes sense to link it to its two distinguishing characteristics, Northern Ireland and 1972. The other is Bloody Sunday (Ireland 1920), when British military Auxilaries massacred people attending a gaelic football match in Dublin during the War of Independence. It is quite possible that the term 'Bloody Sunday' is also used somewhere else in the world. I suppose some unionists might be annoyed if this one here was down as Bloody Sunday (Ireland) and some people may know about Bloody Sunday and where it happened but not the date, or the date but not where it happened. Who knows, in years to come, Wiki may be teeming with 'Bloody Sundays', Amritsar 1924, Oklahoma 1948, Outer Mongolia 1971, the Orkney Islands 1982, etc. (these are all fictional, BTW.) JTD 04:45 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

---

I added the fact that the British never claimed any soldier was hit by a bullet, nor was any bullet recovered afterward (except those shot by the British soldiers). I also added claims by people in the crowd that no shots were ever fired on the British soldiers, that these people claim that the British soldiers were the only ones who did any shooting.

I removed the word "riot" from the first paragraph. I do not feel this is NPOV. The march was to the city square, but the British soldiers decided to block it (I guess the British have the right to determine where Irish people are allowed to go in their own city). Some of the marchers began arguing with the soldiers who were blocking their route, while the majority decided to go by an alternate route which was not blocked. Anyone who wants to use the word riot should point out why here. I think it would be less controversial if you two or three paragraphs in gave a description of the progress of the march, so that people could decide for themselves what kind of riot there supposedly was. An unqualified description of riot in the first paragraph is in my opinion, not NPOV.

To term this march a Civil Rights Association march as a riot is unfair and unjust. Differences must be made between the Civil Rights Association and the I.R.A. While Martin McGuiness second in command of the Derry brigade was in the march the claims of IRA sniper fire have never been proven.

Perhaps some context might be given somewhere in the article. That is

1. We have had very recently in Iraq examples of what happens when a armed and nervous set of soldiers is confronted by a large crowd in a hostile atmosphere.

2. The IRA deliberately killed civilians on several occasions. This doesn't excuse the British actions on that day, but the idea that the republican movement was peaceful on the model of Gandhi or Martin Luther King is a false one.

Keeping my head down now

This was not an I.R.A sponsered march while members where among the marchers (unquestionsbly) this was a Civil Rights Association march the I.R.A council had little or no authority over these marches to suggest that protesters in Derry were all active I.R.A members is absurd. Bloody sunday is considered in Republican Circles as the I.R.A s greatest advertisment for recruitment. The I.R.A as an organisation was not as powerful in 1972 as it had been previously in 1916 or as it became. The Civil Rights Association basic demands were 1. An end to Gerrymandering (Particularly evident in Derry where the city with an evident Catholic majoraty in 1972 anywhere from 75-80%) Was governed though Republicans claim ruled by a Protestant council. 2. equal oppertunties for All not just Catholics. The Derry Bogside was the most economically blighted area of Derry which did not have the same heavy industry as Belfast had throughout the 20th century. 3. In all the basic demand was "One Man One Vote"

I don't think the article requires editing it is not particularly biased to one side it sticks to both sides of what is a disputed event he does not call the Widgery report straight out a Whitewash which it is considered in Irish circles. Exonerating British Soldiers from any wrongdoing and calling the firing of over 100 live rounds into a built up area of apartment blocks 'At worst possibly wreckless' the authuor of the article makes an account of the 'Bloody Sunday Guns' some of which turned up in Little Rock, Beiruit and Sierra Leone and the guns which were destroyed in the Donnington Armoury in the midlands of England. A fair article and in no way Partisan

Exile

They are perfectly fair points. And please don't keep your head down. Keep editing! (But then I have been accused on wikipedia of being a right wing tory, an apologist for the IRA, anti-Irish, anti-British, anti-Catholic, a catholic church spy here pushing a Catholic agenda, a homophobe, an outrageous pusher of the gay agenda, an Australian monarchist, an Australian republican etc etc etc. Your points are perfectly valid. Oh dear! I guess I'm going to be accused of being a right wing tory again! Or is it a provo-supporting Brit-hater? I'm losing track of which I have been called on the various Irish pages! FearÉIREANN 17:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The present Inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday has nearly 2,500 statements from people involved, which seem to answer many of the questions raised here, and are all available on the Inquiry's website. It is acknowledged by the authorities that it's suspicious that no British soldiers were shot that day. It seems that the crowd were 'unarmed' in that they were not carrying firearms, but those who were rioting (acknowledging that many at the riot were in the wrong place at the wrong time) were throwing rocks. The witness statements are adamant that some of the people shot at were throwing nail bombs, and that some were in buildings with firearms. An MI5 agent has provided evidence that Martin McGuinness has claimed to have fired the first shot; he denies this and in fact claims that he was nowhere near the shooting. No soliders admit to having fired into the crowd, only to having fired at those with firearms and nail bombs, and to have shot into the air above the rioters heads to attempt to disperse them. But the critical question remains whether these actions can account for all the deaths (and I agree, that it should be known as 14 rather than 13 as that's the number who died as a direct result of the shooting that day).

Bono is a Catholic?

"It should be noted that Bono, a native Dubliner, was brought up as a Protestant though he later converted to Catholicism." Really? I don't think this is correct! As far as I know he went from being a Protestant to simply describing himself as a Christian. His mum Protestant and his dad was Catholic, but his father is said to have believed that children should not be so seperated from their mother by faith, so he opted to have both his sons (Norman and Paul-Paul is Bono's real name) raised as Protestants. His wife, the georgeous Ali, is the daughter of a Protestant clergyman. So, could someone get this right? Fergananim (who is neither prod nor taig).

Actually I think the Catholic parent was the mother not the father who was a Protestant (Ronan)

I added it. AFAIK Bono is somewhat close to organisations like Opus Dei. Delete it if you like the main point was that he was brought up a Proddy and is therefore unlikely to be signing songs advocating the murder of Proddies.GordyB 15:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bono is most definitely not a Catholic. He is a member of the Church of Ireland. Bono also has nothing whatsoever to do with Opus Dei. That is the weirdest claim I have ever heard. Ali, who was a college colleague of mine, will crack up laughing when I tell her of your claim! FearÉIREANN 20:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay if it's wrong delete it, obviously I got it wrong. Whether or not he is a Catholic is irrelevant in the paragraph anyway.GordyB 22:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At a certain point, reports of an IRA sniper were heard in the British command center. The order to fire live rounds was given and one young man was shot and killed. The aggression against the British troops escalated, and eventually the order was given to move the troops out to chase the tail of the main group of marchers to the edge of the field by Free Derry Corner.

Despite a cease-fire order from command, several hundred rounds were fired directly into the fleeing crowds. 12 more were shot dead, many of them killed while tending the wounds of the fallen.

Instead of arresting those involved, the British paratroopers proceded in "chasing" innocent civilians women and children with armed weapons and shot dead 13 innocent civil right marchers.

Events of the day section

The Events of the day section is seriously lacking. As someone that doesn't know very much about the event I'm left with very little information about the actual event rather then the politics after it. It would be great with a more detailed timeline as well as more details about where and when the different events occured. Some suggestions for additions:

• How many people attended the march? Over 50,000
• Who were they? The majority was working class Catholics but also has some Protestants in attendance.
• Why did they march? In protest against the descrimation of Roman Catholics by the British.
• Why were there barricades? They did not get permission to March so the barricaded were put in place to stop the marches.
• Did the group of teenagers manage to break through the barricade at Guildhall? NO - The Guidhall was not the scene of where this happened, altough the plan was for the march to end at the Guidhall the marchers did not make it past William Street the first barricade.

Did more people follow them? How big was the group? Nobody followed, a group of 20-30 youths protested at the barricades where water cannons had been used against them

• If they did manage to break the barricade, what happened then? Did the police let the march go on peacefully at first and not until later start firing? NO again they did not get through the barricades.
• Where was the first boy shot? Around the Guildhall barricades? Was there any reason he was signled out? Again the Guidhall barricades were not insight, all shootings took place in the Bogside.
• When and where did the rest of the firing take place? The text only mentions that orders were given to stop firing, not that firing started. There are several statements made that firing was taking place from the city walls over looking the bogside, beside the flats in the Bogside and within Glenfada Park.
• When did the cease-fire order happen in relation to the firing? As soon as it started? Before it started? After it had been going on for a while? The shooting had been going on for some time and continued after the cease fire order was given

I realize this is a contagious issue, but it's better to put in some uncertain information that then can be discussed and tweaked, then to put in nothing at all. Sicking 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully I've answered the first part of the first question, the rest will take a bit more time... SeanMack 06:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

So, is there any possibility to have access to other version of this event like, of people who claim that there are evidence of the precense of a sniper or that some bullets were shot not only by the army ?

• • I know some of these things you want clarified, which i will now add to the article, namely about the first killed - my uncle Jackie Duddy, and the situation surrounding his shooting. I also altered his name, as you had him listed as John...I also know for a fact that one single soldier was injured on the day itself - but that was an accident before the paras even left their barracks that morning, when he shot himself in the foot while cleaning his gun. Interesting?

Well done on this entire article, it provides invaluable insight into what is still a very important and, as yet, unresolved event in our lives. (JC, Derry. November 2005)

The fact that no weapons were found on the dead and wounded does not mean that there were no 'Weapons' used at this particular incident. bottles filled with nails, bricks and other assorted projectiles were found at the site and in it's immediate surroundings. having served in Ireland as a paratrooper myself, I have experienced being on the receiving end of this type of weapon myself, they are just as deadly as a ballistic weapon. The scene was tampered with before any investigations could be carried out. The comment that no armed IRA men would flee like rabbits while their bretheren were being fired upon is complete nonsense.

• • No, its not complete nonsene. Sure not all IRA men would have taken a stand, but some would have.

An IRA gunman is not a Hero, or have any hero like qualities. If they were why would they attack 2 british soldiers as part of a large group ? bomb innocent civilians? wear balaclavas?

• So because some members of the IRA did wrong, all of them do? By the same logic, I can "prove" you would shoot an innocent civilian, because at least some Paras did on 30.01.72.

I served in Ireland as a member of the Parachute Regiment and have seen first hand how cowardly these so called "Hero's" are. When British soldiers are attacked should they just stand by and not defend themselves?

• This question is kinda rhetorical, because thats not the way I believe it happened. Even if the soldiers took fire, they didnt respond to the attackers, but attacked civilians in at least a few of cases.

NO !!!!!!

• Would the IRA gunmen "flee like rabbits" while their "comrades" were being shot at. Hmmm yes i believe they would. the IRA would never engage in open street warfare with the British Army. I also think its important to mention that the saville inquiry hasn't made its decision yet and that no "common consensus" exists yet about what happened - among unionists, yes; among nationalists, definitely but among the whole community, no.

I think really we need to wait until the new inquiry into what happened gives it's version of events. At least then it will be a half decent account of what happened on that day, unless of course its a £155 Million cover up (which if it is accused to be it'd be a pretty poor attempt, why waste £155 Million when you have a perfectly good Widgery cover up?).

In the section about the Saville inquiry, an Australian judge is mentioned. Later on it states that he only arrived in 2000. I propose that this section be rephrased to make it clear and easy to understand. At present the impression is given that he was there from the start.

And at the end of the day thats all we are looking for. The truth. Simply yelling and accusing each other and arguing the toss isn't going to solve anything. I'm the son of a Para who served in NI during the 70s and one of my good freinds is a senior member of Fianna Fail's youth wing (and he isn't exactly brimming with praise for Sinn Fein/IRA either to put it lightly) so seriously chaps it can be done! Now lets get back to making this article accurate, concise and neutral!--Pudduh 15:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a terrible article! Why is the Events of the Day section so small? The account given is clearly biased in favour of the Nationalist viewpoint. As it stands this article has very little informative merit. To the main authors: by providing such a biased account you undermine any truth in what you say, can't you see that? A few more counter-arguments by a knowledgeable author seem to be needed. Fc252 18:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Historically, I suspect the main reason is that much of the detail that should appear in a straightforward chronological narrative is included in the sections on each of individual killed/wounded. I contemplated doing something more conventional a couple of months back, but held off pending the Saville Report, although that now seems some way off even now. All that said, I'm somewhat mystified by your request for "a few more counbter-arguments." To what, exactly? What do you think is missing? Nick Cooper 21:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he wants more information like was added in this edit? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... Nick Cooper 21:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed unproven claims about John Lennon

These claims about Lennon:

- He gave money specifically to the "Marxist" IRA organization - He paid for Bloody Sunday funerals

Validation and proof please? Don't see any - the John Lennon article also put forth a one-sided view, ignoring the very insistent denials of Yoko Ono, prominent Marxists who knew Lennon, and Lennon's biographer (who has been fighting for years to get ALL the FBI documents).

Lennon might have given money to the IRA, Sinn Fein, or even the Orangemen ... and there are factual statements showing he supported Irish civil rights... but until it can be attributed by a valid source, the above claims about funerals and "Marxist" IRA donations don't belong here. 67.10.136.147 08:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I found a picture that seems to suggest his support for the IRA [1].SCVirus 08:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

exMI5 person David Shayler made the claim that he had 'seen' documents from MI5 saying Lennon gave money to the IRA under the guise of "Irish civil rights" here. The john lennon article says he was giving money to the Workers' Revolutionary Party at the time. Shayler says he was doing that and giving cash to the IRA. This article quotes one biographer who says he wouldnt be suprised if he did give cash to IRA, also quotes 'Sinn Fein' saying the same thing here. Better article here describing the FBI's interest in him (who Shayler says were feeding FBI information) and his song about Bloody Sunday 1972.

All very "He said, she said". I dont think the allegations or "whatever" (even if they are true) belong in the article. Fluffy999 02:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

David Shayler now believe himself to be some kind of deity, son of God, or other supernatural type being or have supernatural type powers. I would say his credibility is a little ropey. DETCORD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.36.6 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hiya, guys. Some interesting stuff, but I think the layout at least needs to be sorted out. I'll have a thing about looking at this in the future. Will try and get that going, while potentially trying to help over the neutrality dispute.

Cheers, John Smith's 23:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on an improved version. I removed the tag, but I hope we can all strive to make it even better. John Smith's 19:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Can someone please tell me why its says 13 people were shot dead instead of 14 just because one guy took longer to die? If someone dies directly because of something you do, even if its a long time after, its still considered murder. Or should we change it to 12 because one guy might have taken a full minute to die. Where do you draw the line. YOU CAN'T draw a line it should be 14 not 13. SCVirus 22:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

---

By saying shot dead means they were killed in the spot they stood - one person died at a later date from the shootings.

The claim that the crowd was armed is in fact just a claim. The people who have made this claim have provided no evidence, other than the fact that I.R.A members were in the march. Now,hopefully we can leave behind this ridiculous debate about I.R.A members courage behind. If these men were armed the situation would have almost certainly degenerated into the sort of gun battle that was happening basically everyday in West Belfast at that time. The fact is that British soldiers killed 14 innocent, unarmed civilians. In my view, that amounts to cold blooded murder no different than any I.R.A atrocity. Bloody Sunday should be regarded by all right minded people as what it was, one of the worst atrocities of the troubles. how courageous of you to remain anonymous;)Samgb 15:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Shot in the back or shot in the chest?

The article has Jackie Duddy being killed both ways.Kidigus 23:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the general concensus is that he was shot in the chest whilst fleeing (?)- this is what it says on the CAIN website which is run by the University of Ulster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.85.93 (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have noted the same discrepancy - it's now September 2009 - does anyone have access to the postmortem or coroner's reports, to clarify this point. Scartboy (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the book: Bloody Sunday in Derry: what really happened by Eamonn McCann (ISBN 0-86322-274-9), p 108: Duddy was shot as he turned to look behind him whils't fleeing. The bullet hit him in the right shoulder and travelled horizontally through his body, exiting his chest near the left shoulder.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Official IRA

The Official IRA article places gunmen at the scene shooting;

"On Bloody Sunday (1972), an OIRA man in Derry is believed to have fired several shots with a revolver at British troops, after they had shot dead 13 nationalist demonstrators - the only republican shots fired on the day"

but this article doesnt, which article is correct? Fluffy999 11:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no source for that statement on that article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.84.101 (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of Dead

Should the number of dead not be changed to 14? Or at least mention in the introduction that another marcher who was shot on Bloody Sunday subsequently died from his injuries?GiollaUidir 16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed that now. El Gringo 11:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good good. Wasn't sure if there was some accuracy reason for it being the way it was...GiollaUidir 19:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Greiss Tests

I've removed the specific reference to positive results from Greiss tests on some of the deceased, as in fact all those tested proved negative. The appropriate section in Widgery (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/widgery.htm#part3) states:

"The clothing of 11 of the deceased when examined for explosive residues showed no trace of gelignite. The two others were Gerald McKinney, whose clothing had been washed at the hospital and could not be tested, and Donaghy, in the pockets of whose clothing there had, on any view, been nail bombs and whose case is considered later."

Since the tests carried out were negative - and so would not have been "prosecution evidence" - it is irrelevant to cite cases where positive results secured convictions. Nick Cooper 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OIRA gunmen?

I'm curious to see the evidence behind the claim that 'one man was witnessed by Father Edward Daly and others haphazardly firing a revolver in the direction of the paratroopers'. I'm writing a paper on Bloody Sunday, and have found no reference to this alleged OIRA gunman in any of the sources I've examined - where did this come from? (I am not disputing the claim; rather, I would like to examine the evidence supporting it, to determine if this is something I should discuss in my paper.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.98.151 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 January 2007

Bishop Daly has spoken about this on a number of occasions, notably in the 05 Dec 1991 Secret History Channel 4 TV documentary, which also showed the photographs (now apparently "lost") of the gunman. He naturally also covered it in his statement to the BSI [2] (paragraph 24). He mentions having previously referred to the incident in a contemporary statement, which may be in Eyewitness Bloody Sunday, but I don't have my copy to hand to check at the moment. If you Google on the phrase "Daly's guman" it comes up with numerous hits on both the BSI site and BIRW's one covering references by both Bishop Daly and other witnesses. Nick Cooper 11:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the help there - now that you mention it, I do recall reading something about that in Eyewitness Bloody Sunday. I'll have to get the book out again to look it up. Thanks again.

If such pictures of a gunman did exist wouldn't they be splashed around every newspaper in the North? Anyway, it's hardly suprising stickies began claiming there were gunmen given their transition to neo-unionism.Irish Republican 02:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"If such pictures... did exist"? Nick Cooper 06:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There never was pictures of a Sticky gunman at bloody sundayIrish Republican 18:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny that Father Daly freely refers to the man in question, then. And that Secret History managed to include the photographs in their documentary. And that they were discussed at the Saville Inquiry. And that both Jimmy McGovern and Peter Greengrass included the incident in their separate films. Nick Cooper 18:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the word of a member of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy in Ireland isn't going to convince me. However, I accept such photos may have existed though I find it odd they've simply been "lost".Irish Republican 03:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fr Daly was one example; there are other witnesses who testified at Saville to having seen the man in question. In any case, the photograph still "exists" in the Secret History documentary (24m 54s in on my recording), even if the originals have been lost. On the programme it's somewhat dark, but the man is obviously holding a semi-automatic pistol similar to a M911 Colt or a Browning Hi-Power. Nick Cooper 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Republican, I read your comment and was pretty appalled. The implication that Edward Daly, a priest, would lie over something as serious this is pretty ridiculous when you consider he was there on the day and guided the injured out at his own risk. If there was anyone there on that day that could convince me there was a gunman present, it's Daly. John Smith's 15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Civil rights movement

I've often heard it said that Bloody Sunday marked the end of the Civil Rights movement in the north can anyone offer any fact of this and should it be added to the article (14:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

One way or another, numerous sources have said just that, and it's certainly worthy of inclusion (surprised it's not already). Nick Cooper 15:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt obviously mention the attack on british troops —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.38.74 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 27 March 2007

By any other name....

State sactioned murder! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.30.202.19 (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

World view is in. It was state sactioned murder!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.19 (talk • contribs) 14:15, April 11, 2007

Shit happens. Go on a march when your pals in the IRA are taking pot shots, then watch out . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.49.206 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 30 May 2007

Let's try and keep things in perspective. To call the incident 'State sanctioned murder' is wrong. One quiet day in Hungerford one man shot dead 16 people. Over one hundred Paratroopers were in the field that day, if they were there just to kill people, there would be bodies everywhere. As the saying goes; 'you will never go forward if you are always looking back'.Johnwrd (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

General Cleanup

I hate to do this, but 'Derry' is a contested title for the name of the city involved, and a recent case in the High Court ruled that the city's official name remains Londonderry. As a result, I suggest the legally accurate name be adopted in the article, and I have amended it to reflect the fact. (cf [3] ) Hugorudd 00:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted you, the city is not referred to as Londonderry on Wikipedia, see here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that it is the "official" authorities who organized the sending of the troops, we can hardly count them as a neutral source even for the name of the town! 90.16.169.148 (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Artistic reaction

I think the first half of this section is more than adequate without the ever-growing collection of lyrics in the second part, so I've nuked the second part accordingly. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, I'm thinking about moving details of the play about the Saville Inquiry into that section as well, as it seems out of place where it is. Any objections? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hugh (Pius) Gilmore/Gilmour?

One Night In Hackney, I see you've deleted the middle name and changed the surname to "Gilmour" as per the referenced CAIN page, although this has created a conflict, as "Gilmore" is retained within the subsequent text. Widgery gives his full name as "Hugh Pius Gilmore". Googling this along with "Hugh Gilmore" returns around 400 hits, marginally more than "Hugh Gilmour" and "Hugh Pius Gilmour". The BSE specifically uses both, with a Gilmore:Gilmour ratio of 17:3. Hard to call this one.... Nick Cooper 12:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Gilmour specifically states that Hugh was his cousin, and Gilmour is a prevalent name in media coverage as well. I've no particular objection to either, and I didn't notice the subsequent uses of the name as I'm just taking it one part at a time. The middle name seemed slightly superfluous to requirements to be honest. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We have middle names (or initials) for many of the deceased, which I think it legitimate for first use, but obviously subsequent mentions don't need to be specific. Nick Cooper 15:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll put it back on my next edit. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why were the Paras there?

Has anyone questioned why the Paras were there, and who ordered them to be there? The Paras are not exactly model peacekeepers and shouldn't be expected to do a Police role. If they are attacked in any way, or even threatened with attack, they are trained to react with extreme aggression -- SteveCrook 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The batallion was not stationed in Derry, but rather was "bussed in" from Belfast on the day and then left immediately afterwards. The official explanation was that they were the only extra troops available, while it has been suggested that they were specifically chosen for their more agressive character. It has been reported that this created a certain amount of resentment from the established units in the city, both because it was fealt that they would not have handled the situation in the same way, and also that the Paras acted with impunity in the knowledge that someone else would then have to deal with the situation they created. Nick Cooper 06:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And have the people that put them there been questioned by any of the enquiries? I think that would be a much more meaningful discussion than trying to question the soldiers themselves -- SteveCrook 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Edward Heath was questioned at Saville, but like many others he demonstrated a remarkable and/or convenient failure of memory.... Nick Cooper 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid POV criticisms of the British Army based on patent ignorance. It is not unusual to move trrops around; during Op BANNER not all units were allocated a TAOR and thsise that were could be redployed. --MJB 10:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What happened to objectivity???

After listening to U2's "Sunday, Bloody Sunday", my 11 year-old son asked me what the song was about. I told him it was about the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. As he asked more questions, I "googled" the topic, and got the Wikipedia article. I read the entire article and was shocked to see how biased the article was! Was it written by the IRA? As an American (with American roots from the 17th century), I have no particular point-of-view regarding Irish/English issues. My knowledge of the event has been based primarily on American, British and international media coverage of the events of that notorious day over the past thirty years. As Wikipedia seeks to be a true "encyclopedia", I was disappointed that it's coverage only shared one perspective. Lief in the US; 6/24/2007

Only since the 17th century? The Irish can hold a grudge a lot longer than that :)
The section The Dead appears to be particularly odd with a lot of people shot in the chest or stomach while they were running away. Did they run away backwards? -- SteveCrook 03:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Those that your refering to as shot in chest etc, were moving away from the main body of troops, but other troops, at the time where positioned on the Derry walls above and to the front of the crowd who where trying to escape in that direction, so they where caught in a crossfire.--padraig3uk 12:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When most of the credible evidence - whether it is eyewitnesss, forensic, documentary or cicumstantial - points to one particular course of events, it's hard to categorise giving it its due weight as being "biased". Nick Cooper 07:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The shooting of the kids in their backs is one thing. The lies, deceit and fraud of the British state in covering all of this up for the past three decades is another. The confiscation of cameras and film rolls (such as of that Italian couple- I don't know if the article mentions them), the destruction of other incriminating evidence and the state whitewash that blamed the civil rights protestors for the massacre- all of this and much more make this an extraordinarily ugly chapter. Maybe, Lief in the US, you can put forward the British case here. I guarantee you that when you do, the board will be filled with editors presenting eyewitness accounts disproving the lies of the British state on Bloody Sunday. Please put forward their defence. Wikipedia is yours as well. For that matter, to help you along, here is the British State's current inquiry into it:http://www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org.uk/. You will have all of the eyewitness accounts of the survivors on that website. 193.1.172.104 17:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that pro IRA supporters (the kind that don't feel any remorse for all the civilian deaths inflicted by these cowardly terrorists) have decided to contorl this page. Spreading they're lies abroad where people actually believe them. There is no justification for terrorism, it's not a war, it's not right. unsigned comment by 62.172.72.131 08:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What did this event have to do with terrorism? I'm certainly not pro IRA. I'm not even pro Republican. I'm British. But by any measure this was a shameful event that should never have happened and should be recorded objectively. Personally, I don't blame the individual Paras, I blame the people that sent them in. The Paras are not trained to do police work or other "peace keeping" -- SteveCrook 12:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the link here is obviously that all those damned natives were terrorists (just as all of their savage kind had been for centuries, you see). And all those wonderful colonialists were only trying to civilise them on Bloody Sunday. Ungrateful wretches, those Paddies. Simple! 193.1.172.104 17:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your opinions to yourself - Wikipedia is a place of facts. Logoistic 14:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I remind you of your own edits today with regards Bobby Sands.--Vintagekits 15:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion of my edit on that particular article is not relevent here. Logoistic 19:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to be like that, maybe it is your opinion which is not relevant here? 193.1.172.104 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Dead

This section needs to be removed per policy, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. To quote: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The victims are not notable in their own regard. It is perfectly clear from the article that the victims were massacred and much of what needs to be said about their individual killings is covered in the article already. To reiterate, this is WP policy and has been applied to other incidents occurring in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a memorial. The list gave precious little background information about any person, merely important information about the circumstances of their death which needs to be in the article. Please provide specific examples of other articles this has been applied to. Yeast Power 11:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that there is a policy against memorials, but in this case the list is given details of how each person was killed and where, this was subject to a public enquiry, as the British Army claimed that these people where armed and engaged in attacking troops at the time of their deaths, the evidence proves that this was not the case as most of them where shot from behind and some whilst trying to give aid to those already shot. Also none of the people killed that day where shown in tests to have been handling firearms or engaged in any armed attack against British troops. So in this case the list is not a memorial in that sense.--padraig3uk 11:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the list gives details of each victim's death largely so that they can be named in the article. Padraig, what you're saying is already in the article or can be summarised very easily - "Many victims were shot in the back as they ran away, others were shot dead as they lay injured." Or even as you have it, "None of the people killed that day where shown in tests to have been handling firearms or engaged in any armed attack against British troops." - with references (which are available). It is not necessary to name the victims. Yeast Power - see Omagh bombing (and its talk page) for an example. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While there are similarities between some of the death, not all are in identical circumstances, and there is nothing inherently wrong with detailing exactly how each one died. I also sthing that you're misinterpreting WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which actually states: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The dead are named within the context of a notable event; the event is the subject of the page, not the individuals. Nick Cooper 12:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Omagh Bombing as with the victims of other such attacks are different, nobody claimed or suggested that any of the victims in these where in part responsible for their own deaths, with Bloody Sunday the situation is different in that the British Army and the British government tried to claim that those shot were engaged in a gun battle with or otherwise attacking British troops, the details of the circumstance showing how each person died totaly refutes these claims, this is important, and cannot be proven in a single statement covering all the victims.--padraig3uk 12:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question about how the people killed at Omagh died whereas there are (or have been) many questions about how the people died on Bloody Sunday. They're not really comparable events. And saying something like "Many victims ..." isn't very satisfactory. How many is many? -- SteveCrook 12:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well - four, according to the text. So, "Four victims..." Why is there a need, for example, to state:

1. Michael G. Kelly (17). Shot in the stomach while standing near the rubble barricade in front of Rossville Flats. Widgery accepted that Kelly was unarmed.[9]
2. John Pius Young (17). Shot in the head while standing at the rubble barricade. Two witnesses stated Young was unarmed.[9]
3. etc.

instead of

1. Four unarmed youths were shot dead as they either stood at the rubble barricade or were moving away from it, one going to the aid of another at the time he was shot.

It is blatantly clear from the article, references and external links what happened on Bloody Sunday. There is no need to state multiple times that each victim was unarmed, was shot while running away, etc. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that so much detail is used to justify the inclusion of the names. It is not necessary. Padraig - yes, the British made claims, and the claims don't need to be refuted with a single statement. Nor are the circumstances of the victims' deaths in a section titled "The Dead" the way to do it. An inline section headed "Refutation of claims" would be the non-memorial way to go there, quite possibly referring to some of the individuals where this was warranted (though personally I feel the claims are already well refuted throughout the rest of the article). Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the page clearly does not fit the definition of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Nick Cooper 12:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the comments of others above. There may be a case for removing duplicated information in places, but not the haphazard removal of an entire section (including a link to the Gerald Donaghy article), which also broke a reference in the process. I think context needs to be established first, as individual people are discussed in more depth later. Unless the article establishes who died where and in what circumstances, when they are discussed later it lacks context. Yeast Power 13:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say it fits it OK. The page, or even just that list, isn't acting as a memorial to honor departed friends and relatives. And the people listed are notable. They weren't famous before Bloody Sunday but being killed at that event made them famous. If you don't like them being included in the main page about the event, why not move them to a subsidiary page? I would still like to question how people can be shot in the chest or stomach while they're running away (Duddy & Gilmour) -- SteveCrook 13:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The circumstances of a person's death do not make them notable (as per discussion on various other pages including Omagh bombing and various American High School shootings). Otherwise there would be justification for including a list of the dead of Omagh, Columbine, Dublin and Monaghan, the M62, Birmingham, et al, in their respecitce articles. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the fact in most cases the circumstances of each death was different (only the three on the barricade can be meaningfully grouped together). In detailing how each person died, it doesn't seem particularly logical to not name them on the grounds of a rather spurious reading of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. It is equally spurious to compare this to bombing incidents, where everyone is pretty much killed at the same time and in the same location. Hungerford massacre is a more apt comparison, and the victims are appropriately named in the narrative of events. Given that we are not contrained by considerations of space and so are able to detail how each those killed on Bloody Sunday died, it doesn't made sense to not name them. For one thing, it hampers debate, if rather than saying, "who are the witness to Kevin McElhinney's death" one has to say, "who are the witnesses to the man 'shot from behind while attempting to crawl to safety at the front entrance of the Rossville Flats'?" Nick Cooper 08:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good arguments, Nick. I would still prefer to see that section written more like Hungerford Massacre - i.e., chronologically (insofar as possible) and in-line, and the ages removed, but I'll concede on the main point that the names should be included. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's undeniable that what the page has been lacking for some time is a more chronological narrative of how events unfolded, but I suspect that the reason nobody has done it yet is that they were waiting to see the results of the Saville Inquiry, which should hopefully iron out most of the disputes in this respect; certain that was why I haven't done it myself. However, since the Report seems further away than ever, I'll see if I can come up with something over the weekend. Nick Cooper 15:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, don't wait for the results of the Saville Inquiry to be published. We might not live that long :) -- SteveCrook 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve I answered that in the section above this, they where running away from the main body of troops, but unknown to them there route of escape was towards other British soldiers based on the top of the Derry Walls above them, it was these troops that then opened fire on them so they where being fired on from both the front and behind.--padraig3uk 13:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That should be in the article, Padraig. Useful information. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It already is in the case of Michael M. McDaid Shot in the face at the barricade as he was walking away from the paratroopers. The trajectory of the bullet indicated he could have been killed by soldiers positioned on the Derry Walls. Which is another reason why the information on how each person was shot is necessary. What would be handy is a map showing the position of the crowd and the different locations of the soldiers. --padraig3uk 14:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't wondering about that one myself, because one can be shot in the face from pretty much 270 degrees. Moreso the ones where it is stated that people were moving away and were shot in the stomach. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In the book 'Eyewitness Bloody Sunday - The Truth by Don Mullan ISBN 1-903583-16-4 p148, it shows a picture taken at the time showing the front of the flats and shows the derelict buildings on the high ground above in the background on the other side of the Derry Wall from which the British soldiers were firing from. One of the issues in this is wether these troops were part of 1st Para, or where they from another regiment and was there presence and there position known to the Soldiers on the ground before the shooting started.--padraig3uk 14:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur that there may be reasons to list the dead, if there is additional information in that list. However what is currently in the article is far too long, and has some aspects of a memorial. As such it currently does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. If the list is to remain, it needs a rewrite. --81.132.246.132 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to identify what constitutes "aspects of a memorial"? Nick Cooper 17:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This type of comment lends nothing to the discussion. I would ask that editors assume good faith and avoid what could be considered a a personal attack. Thanks--Domer48 09:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What a snide comment and hardly a personal attack. Please remember, all assumptions are subject to evidence to the contrary. If it is appropriate to Birmingham it is equally appropriate here. The circumstances are available elsewhere in the article; a list of names adds nothing. --MJB 10:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit, since the section is demonstrably more than a mere "list," containing as it does much factual information about the exact circumstances about the killings. Birmingham is hardly a valid comparison, as all or virtually all of the dead there were killed at essentially the same time and in essentially the same manner. As I have pointed out previously, the circumstances of each of those killed on BS varied enough to merit differentiation in the currenty manner. Your edit summary is erroneous in claiming that the timeline is enough, which id clearly isn't in fully explaining what happened. Nick Cooper 10:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A solution may be to aggregate the dead into categories e.g. (1) 4 were shot in the back and died immediately; (2) 3 died in hosital of wounds x days later . . . et.c. If you check the Birmingham Pub Bombings article I have endeavoured to respect the dead without creating a memorial. The same must apply here. --MJB 11:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not as you suggest comparing like with like. Nick Cooper has illustrated this point quite well. --Domer48 12:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Domer has expressed willingness to compromise regarding the list here and a list for the victims of the Birmingham Pub Bombings; at User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion. ie why do we not include both lists as opposed to excluding both Aatomic1 07:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation by Aatomic1, and I will respond on your page accordingly. --Domer48 09:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist categories

The article does not state or include any references that this was a terrorist incident, so I've removed them. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4

The Friday Play, BBC Radio Four, Friday 18th January 2008, 21:00 to 21:58 GMT

Bloody Sunday: Scenes from the Saville Inquiry. First of a two-part dramatic reconstruction of the hearings about the events of Sunday, January 30, 1972, focusing on the testimony of civilians who witnessed Bloody Sunday. Adapted by Richard Norton Taylor. Directed by Nicolas Kent. Starring: Mark Penfold, Alan Parnaby, Thomas Wheatley, Michael O'Hagan

Listen online for up to a week after the broadcast -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The dead

I have removed the dead since the dead of terrorist attacks by the IRA are usually removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.68.67 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute notation

It's quite obvious that this article has abused the NPOV wiki standard extensively, almost exclusively taken from a anti-british view point and until it's re-written from a far more neutral point of view should remain so noted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov

Twobells (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel the whole article is WP:NPOV or sections of it? And have you any suggestions on what should be changed and why? thanks. BigDunc (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire article and I will be addressing it as as possible. Twobells (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed tag per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed tag? PLEASE observe wiki standards, and do NOT remove the disputed tag but attempt to discuss it here. Its quite obvious that the entire piece is pov and none neutral and by attempting to remove the POV tag without major reconstruction following the wiki neutrality standards makes it obvious JUST how biased the piece is. Twobells (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, removed tag. And oh, I did it again! READ the page I linked to.

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

If the POV is as obvious as you say, you should be able to cope with that right? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down, I am at a loss as to your reasoning, you removed the dispute stamp after I had attempted to start redressing obvious bias both in the discussion field and the piece itself, it will take some time to complete so please refrain from doing so again.Twobells (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you stop deleting sourced content to unbalance this article, otherwise you risk being blocked from editing. And you can't do the above? Good, the tag won't stay then. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourced content that is pov and therefore unsuitable, I suggest that your 'sourced content' is biased and has no place in a wiki article, its a mess. Twobells (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 'Unbalance' a biased article? Let me remind you of the wiki standard on neutrality:

) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

I suggest that the article has broken at least two of the strictures and requesting arbitration. Twobells (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to be threatened for attempting to remove obvious bias from a piece and am requesting adjudication of the entire piece.I suggest that the article has broken at least two of the strictures and requesting arbitration. I cannot even attempt to start editing in both discussion and article fields without reset every few minutes then it's hopeless. Twobells (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration? Been there, done that - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. I'd suggest reading that very carefully, including the subpages. If you choose not to, you will be responsible for any consequences. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your arrogance is sickening I have to say.Twobells (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And I hope you win the lottery tonight! Now, why don't you make a list of things you allege are biased in the article? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, lets take the first paragraph as the first example: 'Many witnesses including bystanders and journalists testify that all those shot were unarmed.' Why did you feel a need to omit Edward Daly's evidence stating otherwise? Or include in the whiteash link the bbc piece? It only comments at the end a personal opinion by one person while the meat of the bbc article stated the actual facts?Twobells (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"all those shot were unarmed", not "all those there were unarmed". There is a rather substantial difference. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You just proved my point, by attempting to use sophistry rather than unbiased pov exactly how biased this article is from top to bottom.Twobells (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So biased you're still incapable of providing a list? Tell you what, I'll come back when you've produced one and not before. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not made clear what you feel is biased bout this article, it is not enough just to say the whole article is biased without providing evidence for your assumption. BigDunc (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I had been attempting to clear the most obvious bias in the article in favour of a more balanced pov while making notations in the discussion field but as soon as I started it was reset. Twobells (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC) My next task is to take advice from a couple of senior wiki contributors as I have never come across this behaviour before.Twobells (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Even before I have done that someone has removed the npov stamp again, when will the person responsible realise that the article is not his personal possession but an article to state the facts, all of them neutrally and not pick and choose according to their political ideology.Twobells (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It does need to be sourced, but the parade was illigal wasn't it?Traditional unionist (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted some of the recent changes, not so much for POV reasons, but for appalling grammar. You can't stick random words into a completely formed sentence like that. In any case. I think it's time to stop arguing about the POV template and start addressing the POV itself. -R. fiend (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

POV? Its almost entirely lifted from socialist dogma.Twobells (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You reverted the changes before they had been edited thats why, I tend to save stuff as I construct I wil stop that, but you just reverted work in progress. Twobells (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

TwoBells, I have reviewed all the edits you have made, and the overall tone seems to be of minimising the events of the day, even to the point of introducing notes of justification. You have alluded to some facts completely out of context (e.g. what Fr Daly saw), or have added others without the most basic level of source citation. I have therefore reverted all your edits. If there are specific points you wish to raise, then do so here and we can all argue whether your porposed changes are appropriate. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, so Father Daly seeing armed ira operatives amongst the protesters is out of context while the piece draws almost word for word out of the world socialist website's pov?? And describing the actions of the soldiers is 'minimising' is it? Ok, I see where this is going. Twobells (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's examine the recent changes:

"Several witnesses testified that they heard gunfire and explosions prior to the soldiers exiting their armoured personnel carriers."

• Bollocks, to be frank. The one witness I can find who says that is an RUC officer, whose evidence was repeatedly challenged and not supported by eight other RUC officers closer to the scene. There's no way there that belongs in the lead. Where's the exact source for that claim that's been added, the "several witnesses"?

"The soldiers stated that it was difficult to see through the smoke"

• Source that applies to those exact shootings mentioned after that addition? Or just a source in general for starters?

"yet it left five of those wounded shot in the back as they attempted to flee the violence"

• Comical! There were four people shot in the back (that five number might need a good look at, unless it was one of the wonded) - Patrick Joseph Doherty as he tried to crawl to safety, Bernard McGuigan as he went to aid someone else, Kevin McElhinney as he tried to crawl to safety, William A. McKinney as he tried to aid someone else. Not one person was demonstrably trying to flee the violence.

It's clear the attempt to remove bias is nothing but the addition of unsourced commentary and POV, and I call for it to stop with admin intervention if needed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Twobells, Fr Daly saw one armed man, who was demonstrably not amongst those shot (either dead or injured). You used a vague reference to this incident in the context of a sentence about those shot being unarmed. It was highly misleading of you to do so. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Me. I'm misleading? Oh thats rich. Twobells (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What is astonishing is that ANY attempt to present a more neutral pov seems to be attacked by certain people here, its not what I was trying to do but that to attempt it was to be stopped. Twobells (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Any attempt to add unsourced commentary should be stopped, and rightly so. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Potential POV issues

It seems to me the issues are:

• The legality/illegality of the protest, and where and how that should be addressed. If it was illegal, it should be stated and sourced, but not presented as if it were a justification for what occurred.

Understood, no matter what people on this board might think my belief is while it was illegal that didn't justify loss of innocent life. Twobells (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reports of armed protesters. I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that the position of the army on that day was that there were armed men among those marching. That side should be presented with sources, but with distinctions carefully made between armed men in the area, armed men in the march, and the status of those who were actually shot (is there any dispute that those specific people were unarmed?). This seems to already be at least partially addressed in the paragraph dealing with Daly and the unidentified man drawing a revolver, and the part about reports of a simper. Also, the "get some kills" reference seem unsourced, which is significant.
• The "Whitewash" and who has dismissed the investigation as such. Some? All? Many? It seems to me specifying "by some" is fair. Obviously there are some who think that it was not a whitewash.

Some of the other additions made by Twobells seem they would be fine if sourced. I'm not sure what's wrong with adding that those shot in the back were attempting to flee, as it doesn't seem POV, and it's stated quote clearly that was in the case for at least one person further in the article. If it's a matter of sources one should note that the "shot in the back" sentence is not sourced in its current state either. The perspectives of the soldiers can certainly be legitimately included if they are referenced.

Anyway, here are some issues that can be added to, discussed, dismissed, whatever. Better than edit warring. In any case, I think there is enough here to warrant a POV tag until this is addressed. Considering 90% the damn articles in WP have this or some other such tag on them, it's not exactly a huge deal. -R. fiend (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood, I have re-added the pov stamp and will work with contributors on my thoughts on how to obtain a non-emotive npov PRIOR to submitting them to the article. It will take a while to source the material from dedicated media libraries. Twobells (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Several points:

I've never seen a single source that's documented armed men on the march itself. There were reports of a couple of Officials being disarmed, and obviously the single sniper shot.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bsunday/irgovt2d.htm Twobells (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between the march and the firefight? It's very obvious. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See above re: fleeing. The four that are explicitly documented were attempting to aid others or crawl to safety. "Fleeing" doesn't fit.

I and other editors have nothing against a discussion regarding improvements to the article, you'll see we repeatedly requested it above. All we got in return was "it's biased" then the addition of lots of unsourced stuff. Hardly the way to go is it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I tried to ascertain the issues at hand from examining the edits made. Certainly this "it's biased"/"No it isn't" is going nowhere. It's good to see some actual discussion. We may actually get somewhere now. -R. fiend (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that "fleeing" carries negative connotations, although as ONIH points out, most of those shot in the back can't be described as "fleeing" in even a vague general sense. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just sorted out the "get some kills" quote. It's in Geraghty, and it's also online here. Despite them using "to get some kills" at the start of the article, they give the Geraghty quote of "let's teach these buggers some lessons [Geraghty says "a lesson"] - we want some kills" further down. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. While I think some people tend to over-footnote some universally acknowledged things, statements like that are really the sort of things that need to be referenced. Glad it's taken care of. -R. fiend (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As for no documented armed men on the march, the article currently says "In the event, one man was witnessed by Father Edward Daly and others haphazardly firing a revolver in the direction of the paratroopers." Since he apparently wasn't targeted you could almost say it's irrelevant, but it does some to indicate that at least someone on the march was armed. Unless they guy wasn't among the protesters, in which case the article has to make that more clear.

As for "fleeing", I disagree about the negative connotations, but if some of them were not, in fact fleeing, but attempting to aid others, then that, at least, should be dropped. There are still other issues, however. -R. fiend (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The paratroopers basically came in then it all kicked off. For example two priests and several reporters reports several cars full of armed men come down from the Creggan after the Paras got to Rossville Street. The Paras weren't stewarding the march or anything. Once it kicked off there were guns about, but I've never heard anything about weapons being see before the Paras arrived, other than the documented single sniper shot. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's what Daly said to a television interviewer: "The fellow came out of Chamberlain Street...in his twenties. He had a firearm, a short firearm and he came along to the edge of the wall and fired one or two shots. We screamed at him to go away because we were afraid the Paras would have thought we were firing from where we were". So as I say, Daly's gunman was at a time when there wasn't a march as such. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so it's a matter of the article being unclear. I think the entire article could use a bit of reorganization. The "Events" and and "perspectives" sections seem to overlap in what they cover, but not really be in good cohesion. The "deceased" section in the middle could maybe be moved further down? These are basically separate issues.

As for POV: Was the march "illegal" (and what exactly does that mean?). If it was, it's certainly worth mentioning, not as a justification, but as an explanation of why the atmosphere was so highly charged and what the military was doing in the first place. It's a relevant fact, if true. Also, is it really unfair to add "by some" (or something along those lines) to the dismissal of the inquiry as a "whitewash"? It could at least go into a bit more detail. -R. fiend (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The march had been banned, but that's here nor there really. Let's face facts, if you've got a politically volative situation (as the Troubles were) you're not going to arrest 5,000 people for taking part in a banned civil rights march are you? The Paras were there in case the march turned into a riot, and mini-riots were a daily occurence at "Aggro Corner" in Derry at that point (see here for details), which wasn't unexpected. They were there to arrest rioters, not arrest marchers. So pointing out that it was an illegal march in the lead seems a bit excessive, as it didn't really have any direct bearing on the events of the day despite what the Widgery Whitewash said. It wasn't that there was an illegal march, it was that there was a march full stop - the legality or lack of had no real impact. There would still have been a riot at Aggro Corner, just like every other day. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't know if it's as irrelevant as you seem to indicate. I would say it's worth mentioning (not in the opening, perhaps). Sure, they weren't about to arrest everyone, but taking part if a banned march in what is already a highly volatile situation is only going to make the atmosphere more tense, and some sort of altercation more likely. If its illegality an established fact, its removal strikes me as a bit POV. Who can honestly say for sure it had no bearing? That seems speculative to me. -R. fiend (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say don't mention it, I just said don't mention it in the lead. I just don't see it as having the bearing that Widgery claims. He claims if there was no march, there would be no deaths. I don't see how he draws that conclusion. Two possibilities:

1. Even without the march, there'd still be a riot at Aggro Corner, which was what caused the Paras to go in, not the illegal march.
2. The march goes ahead legally, and there'd still be a riot at Aggro corner...

Neither the legality or illegality of the march, or the presence or lack of presence of the march caused the riot at Aggro Corner - it was a daily occurence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be part of the problem, at least from my perspective: you talk about things like "arrival of the paras", and the "riot at Aggro corner", but I don't see those covered in the article. Honestly, I don't even know what the riot at Aggro corner is. To me the article seems poorly organized, and while I just read what you said on my talk page about waiting for the results of the inquiry (I wasn't aware it was imminent), there seems to be some pretty sizeable organizational issues that should be addressed. As for your statement that it's "dubious to repeatedly claim an entire article is POV and yet be unable to produce a list of reasons why," I wholeheartedly agree, which is precisely why I was attempting to pinpoint what the areas of contention seem to be. Since Twobells doesn't seem terribly inclined to address the specifics on the talk page, maybe its not worthwhile. -R. fiend (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See this link I posted above - they had a riot at "Aggro Corner" every day. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I skimmed through the article, but the point remains that this Wikipedia article does not address this, and if it's significant, it really should be included. Also when "paras" are mentioned, is that paratroopers or paramilitaries? It's unclear. -R. fiend (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a much better sourced version of the plan to retake the Bogside that I have somewhere. IIRC there were two or three options with varying degress of force and danger to civilian lives, and what happened on Bloody Sunday was the Para(troopers) basically followed through with the plan (acidentally it seems) with the maximum degree of force and penetration into the Bogside and what was predicted in terms of casualties came true. As I said on your talk page, nobody really wants to make any major edits to the article off their own initiative until the Inquiry reports, as when it does it's going to cause a massive, massive rewrite anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, though it's a shame we have to wait to make some needed some needed improvements to the article. Here are some of the issues I'm noticing:

• Lack of much background information. It doesn't say what the march was for (beyond the vague "civil rights"), nor discuss the daily rioting in the area that the military was evidently there to attempt to put down. Ivan Cooper (who I believe was the primary organizer of the march) is hardly mentioned at all, and only in passing.
• Separate but overlapping accounts of the events, in the opening section, Events of the day section , and the The perspectives and analyses on the day section. There should be a single, more straightforward narrative of what was happening, as well as when and why. The analysis should them come afterwards. Additionally, the deceased section really needs to be moved towards the bottom. It's out of place where it is.
• Clarifying the "two phases" (march and the violence) that you specified below.

I understand why people would be hesitant to make major changes to an article right before a shitload of important information on the subject is about to be released, but I think these issues should be kept in mind, if not addressed sooner. -R. fiend (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with some improvements now, just they are better off being background and stuff, which does need expanding for more context. A fresh pair of eyes always helps. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think some sort of rewrite/addition of a background section would really be helpful. It would also have the advantage of likely not needing many changes after the report comes out, as it will probably address the events of the day, not the occurrences prior. I think it could use a sentence or two to briefly address the Troubles as a whole (for those readers who really know nothing of the situation), and spend a paragraph or two or the situation in Derry, including the unrest, as well as the organization and purpose of the march (this would also be a good place to mention that the march was banned by the government). A chronological narrative of events should follow, but that can probably wait until the Inquiry is released. This is of course all separate from the alleged POV issues, which can wait until it's made known exactly what they are. -R. fiend (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I just read the article on the Saville inquiry won't have a report until the second half of 2008 (which is probably government-speak for the first half of 2010), so it's not like this major rewrite is just around the corner. I don;t think it makes sense to hold out for it. -R. fiend (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make

It's easier if you split the events of the day into two phases:

1. The march. Other than a minor spot of trouble (and the sniper shot), it was mostly peaceful.
2. The Paras arrive, and all hell breaks loose. I do not refer to anything after that point as a "march". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good. I think there may be an overall issue with the format of the article, which is separate from any POV questions. The narrative of events is sort of broken up. This sometimes happens when articles are written by committee, and is one of the drawbacks of wikis. Maybe that should be addressed too. -R. fiend (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just easier to understand the timeline for discussion purposes that way. When people talk about guns "on the march" are they referring to pre-Para involvement, or by "march" do they mean any point during the afternoon? If I say march on here, it's pre-Para. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Whitewash

Regarded as a whitewash by nationalists, relatives, the people of Derry, the Irish Media (no direct link due to premium content) and "widely regarded". Do what you will with the wording.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

'pro-irish/socialist' fits it pretty well I'd say. Twobells (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say "honest" is better. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

From your pov which is EXACTLY my point all along.Twobells (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So that's why the evidence at the new inquiry has proved that it was a complete whitewash? You really don't have a point, you don't have sources, and you still haven't provided a single justification for the tag. If you want to make a list do it, otherwise this is getting very fucking tedious. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol, it proved no such thing the new enquiry wasn't ordered because of a 'whitewash' but was part of the NI agreement in order that Sein Fein IRA agree to civilised behaviour. How on earth is it that the british army came in to keep apart rabid enemies and end up the bad guy? Its sort of reverse rationality. Twobells (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Twobells (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Twobells, instead of adding the POV template over and over again, why don't you make a list of your issues with the article as it stands (sort of like I tried to do for you above). You don't have to worry about the sources so much for now, if you're going to confine it to the talk page. Then maybe we can discuss what should be done. This "the whole thing is POV" is going to get you nowhere. Specifics. -R. fiend (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought we cleared this up? A POV stamp was to stay in place UNTIL work could be done on the article? Everytime I refresh the page someone has removed the pov stamp, i haven't even had a chance look at it yet but until isn't it fair that the piece is biased and the stamp remain? I am not asking weeks but a couple of days would be nice instead of the constant hounding.Twobells (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Make the list, then add the tag. It's not rocket science. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean? If I could have used the time I have had to use to defend my points then the piece would be started but instead I am here consistantly having to refute the same content again and again. Now please leave the stamp alone, let me put a list together then we can discuss it. Twobells (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a POV stamp on an article to make a list of what you think is wrong with it. Please just address the specific POV issues here and you should have no problem getting the article tagged. -R. fiend (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

POV LIST

Paragraph one A: That nowhere is it mentioned that it was an illegal march, turned riot prior to any protest deaths or that the army had received intelligence from turned ira spies [documented] that there were armed ira members planning murder amongst the protesters.

Paragraph one B: Nowhere does it mention that witnesses stated there were armed protesters in the crowd one even carrying a 'carbine' [article editors ideological beliefs aside]

Paragraph one C: The IRA sniper [who many believe to be the cause of Bloody Sunday] shot is not mentioned. While some details are made further down I believe these facts should be in paragraph one OR remove other events already there; for example army vehicles running people down [I had read that those were terrible accidents as opposed to deliberate acts and should show this]

Paragraph Two: A: 'The Widgery Tribunal' should read critised by 'a few'and not to include the Guardian or BBC articles in the form of links as 'whitewash' is a personal opinion of one person's comment against the body of the articles which state no such thing. The vast majority of coverage did not conclude the enquiry a whitewash and should reflect that with accompanying links.

The perspectives and analyses on the day:

Paragraph one A: Not 'all' witnesses apart from the soldiers stated that the crowd was unarmed. One photo journalist is mentioned by name, but other witnesses categorically state that a carbine was seen being carried as well as hand guns and explosives. [I will firm this up next week when I visit the The Military Historical Society at The National Army Museum]

Paragraph 3 A: The article is quick to state the opinion of a local coroner but nowhere are counter opinions given weight from the official enquiry and elsewhere of which there are many documented.

paragraph 4 A: 'It is now widely accepted that the nail bombs photographed on Gerard Donaghy were planted there after his death, and firearms residue

on some deceased came from contact with the soldiers who themselves moved some of the bodies'. Widely accepted by who and reported where?

The Saville Inquiry:

Paragraph 1 A: 'The evidence so far has undermined to some extent the credibility of the original Widgery Tribunal report. Allegations were made

etc...' allegations made by who and sourced where?

Paragraph 1 B: 'Allegations were made that some bodies were placed next to guns and explosives, and other substances (including playing cards) have

been found to cause false positives in tests for explosives.' Again, allegations made by who and where were thes playing cards found? Source it

please.

paragraph 1 C: 'Some of the scientists responsible for the original etc..'

Which scientists dismissed their original findings and where is it stated?

Paragraph 2 A: Why mention martin mcguiness in that context?

Paragraph 3 A: You state that O'Hara alleges to have been the second in command in Derry that day not Ward but fail to follow that up with the

response by Ward: 'I see the same pattern through all the witness statements that I have read, so they have obviously been either coerced or coaxed, or all pulled into line to make the same accusations to discredit my evidence to the inquiry." Mr Ward, who was 16 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday, said it was agreed with Mr McGuinness that a nail-bomb attack would be carried out in Guildhall Square in the city.'

Extremely important in reference to the whole piece but ignored, why? Here was a senior sein fein ira member who's testimony will prove vital to the current enquiry yet has been ignored.

And finally that the entire article has for whatever reason decided to completely ignore one side's evidence, the soldiers, which is totally unacceptable. I think the only way to go forward is that there should be TWO versions of events and let the reader decide for themselves.

I stand by my claim of extremely biased point of view and request the pov stamp to be re-instated until redressed.

Errata:

I:

I have General Michael Jacksons autobiography 'soldier' on order and it will arrive soon which covers the day in depth. Interestingly there seems to be a DA notice on some aspects of ira leadership involvement that day that mentions their plans in-depth which is under the 100 year rule, but only put in place after the Good Friday Agreement was announced,I'll try to glean what I can but it smells of political appeasement for short-term stability.

II:

As an aside earlier I was accused of mitigation because I attempted to redress what I believe [and many others from what I hear and read] bias in the article. Trying to gain balance is sometimes difficult especially when dealing with such emotive subjects but it doesn't help to make spurious accusations based on ignorance. Twobells (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I request sources for many of the claims you have just made. Without sources, they can't really be discussed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

When are you going to address the fact it was an illegal march turned riot? Or Mr Wards evidence that the IRA had nail bombs and planned to use them? http://news.scotsman.com/bloodysundayinquiry/McGuinness-is-named-as-bomb.2471861.jp Twobells (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements: http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=1159966&Action=Book&ProductID=0102220727&From=SearchResults Twobells (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Autobiography of OTD: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Soldier-Autobiography-General-Mike-Jackson/dp/0593059077 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells (talk • contribs) 10:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Both the Saville & Widgery enquiries contains all the material including some very interesting evidence from Mr O'Hara. We cannot discuss that it was a riot off an illegal march? I see. Mike Jacksons book 'Soldier' is a great source. Twobells (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All well and good but statements must be WP:V and WP:RS so could you point editors to where you got these statements with page numbers and if from books ISBN too thanks. BigDunc (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I too would request reliable sources to support this list of comment and opinion. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, and therefore must be referenced. This list without sources dose not form the basis for discussion. Rather than mention sources cite them, and then it can be discussed --Domer48 (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact here's a specific list of the things I require sources for:

• "the army had received intelligence from turned ira spies [documented] that there were armed ira members planning murder amongst the protesters" - SOURCE?
• "witnesses stated there were armed protesters in the crowd one even carrying a 'carbine' " - SOURCE?
• "The IRA sniper [who many believe to be the cause of Bloody Sunday]" - SOURCE?
• "but other witnesses categorically state that a carbine was seen being carried as well as hand guns and explosives" - SOURCE?

Sources please. With the rest, I'll tag what's needed for attribution and citations now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way. Per WP:NPOV if we are presenting two different versions of events you're going to have problems with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The overwhelming majority of the reliable sources disagree with the soldiers' version of events, which is why the article is currently correctly weighted in terms of coverage given. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

'Coverage given'? The vast weight of both national and international coverage did not consider the enquiry a whitewash and should reflect that. Twobells (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You cannot just dismiss their evidence, thats both ludicrous and toxic, we need two versions of the events.Twobells (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We haven't dismissed it, it's in the article. If you don't understand how WP:NPOV works you've no business adding a NPOV tag. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Where are the soldiers statements of events? I believe the piece to be politically- motivated pov.Twobells (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements submitted to both enquiries contain all the sourced documentation. 09:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And everything I say can be sourced to books, available from libraries or book shops. Please stop being obtuse, and provide actual sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean obtuse how? ALL the material is hard copy and available on request at the TSO, there is no better source than that, surely better than some book shop. Twobells (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The second Inquiry amounts to "at least 60,000 pages of written submissions. Nine hundred and twenty witnesses have given oral evidence, and there have been some 1,000 written statements from civilians, soldiers, police officers, journalists, government officials and paramilitaries" - vague comments about "statements submitted to both enquiries" cut no ice. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vague comments? Everything laid out above is in statements from both enquiries available at the TSO.Twobells (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If everything is laid out in statements, as you claim then provide a source to support these claims, failure to backup your claims without a WP:RS means they can't be included.--Padraig (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements: http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=1159966&Action=Book&ProductID=0102220727&From=SearchResults Twobells (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have access to Widgery, I'd like exact excerpts (complete with paragraph numbers) that back up what you say. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As above, the second inquiry runs to at least 60,000 pages. Simply saying "it's in a statement to the inquiry" isn't helpful. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements associated with the POV LIST: Statements: http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=1159966&Action=Book&ProductID=0102220727&From=SearchResults Twobells (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I will have the Saville material soon as its published, but each and every question I raise in the POV LIST is available from the TSO link. Twobells (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements for everything I say. Now please stop being obtuse, and use direct excerpts and paragraph numbers from Widgery. Assuming you have a copy, you should be able to do that with ease? If you can't do that, I'll draw my own conclusion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything YOU say? I think not my friend. However if you want excerpts and paragraph numbers then thats fine, I will paste them all in Twobells (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's called satire. So, about those excerpts and paragraph numbers? Can you provide them or not? If you don't provide them, I'll assume your answer is an emphatic "no". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Satire? I think not, arrogance maybe.Twobells (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I shouldnt need to remind editors of this policy on wikipedia. Twobells, I suggest that you are cooperative or else it is going to be difficult for you to have your points taken seriously. If you have a valid point to make, rest assured that your voice will be listened to. The first thing you need to do is provide detailed and accurate citations to back up what you are saying. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

ONIH, you have explained the case well enough. The editor should read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and cite sources, including page numbers. Citing material which they have not even read yet, should not form the basis of any discussion. The editor should also look over WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG and WP:AGF because their tone is not conductive to any positive discussion --Domer48 (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing material who hasn't read? Excerpts from the Saville Enquiry have been in every paper mentioning the people concerned by name. Twobells (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Tone? What on earth are you on about, how is that relevant to the facts? 'good faith'thats a joke. This wiki article is a travestyTwobells (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here Twobells adds Mike Jackson's book as a source, after earlier describing it as a "great source". Very interesting, so is that why you said "I have General Michael Jacksons autobiography 'soldier' on order and it will arrive soon". Have you read Widgery either? If you have, you should be able to provide those paragraph numbers right? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you assume the worse, where's 'good faith'? I read both General Sir Peter Billiere's 'Looking for Trouble' and Mike Jacksons 'Soldier' before christmas as a library loan but need to obtain a copy long term in order to move forward on the pov. Twobells (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Twobells you have not provided any refs to back up the claims you are making, so far all you have done is insert a tag and give a link to a site where someone can buy a copy of report. This is not the way wikipedia works, you need to provide the exact reference with page numbers and ISBN for every claim you make. If editors make a claim it is not good enough to put in a reference point like google or some other search engine. If I wasn't assuming good faith it would appear that there is a troll at work here. BigDunc (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself, I have already stated I will submit the paragraph numbers, but as to good faith? PLEASE. Twobells (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dunc - everything in Widgery has paragraph numbers, so once they are provided it's easy to check exactly what was said in a matter of seconds. However, if someone can't provide paragraph numbers it becomes time to question whether they have a copy. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

ONIH, to give TwoBells the benefit of the doubt, the republished Uncovered Editions version of Widgery does not include the paragraph numbers, although the online version on Cain does, so it shouldn't be too difficult to cross-reference (my own copy of the UE version is already annotated with the original numbers). The UE versuion is generally unabridged, although Appendix A listing the dead and injured appears at the front, rather than the back, as does the map (originally Appendix C), although it is a new version. The original showed a much smaller area and so did not show - as the one in UE does - the Army Observation Post on the City Walls, nor the positions of Barriers 12-thru-14 or the Army Observation Post behind and between Barriers 13 & 14. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Who said they couldn't provide paragraph numbers? 11:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells (talk • contribs)

Thats good Twobells lets see them then.BigDunc (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself again, I already said I would didn't I? Twobells (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Saville

It seems a certain editor thinks we should be cherry picking statements given to the Saville Inquiry and including them in very prominent positions in the article. I don't know about anyone else, but this clearly seems unacceptable to me. Statements given to an inquiry were just that - statements. Saville has yet to report on his findings based on the many, many statements he has received, and many of the statements in question have been challenged by other witnesses. There's no way we should be cherry picking any details from statements for use in the lead, I assume that's common sense? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No-one is 'cherry picking' you asked for corroberating evidence for my POV LIST which I listed, now you say that other witnesses refute that, well if thats the case you will have to enter all the witnesses refuting your evidence in the main article of which they are many, stop trying to cause confusion its unseeemly.Twobells (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You have provided a list with no page numbers or quotes so it is very hard to verify what you are saying please provide the exact place you took your refs from. BigDunc (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think the best thing to do is scan and upload all the published documentation that pertains to each witness allegation and assign a link to them, I am arranging storage space for the editors asap. I'll carry the cost for my uploads. That goes for all content and not just my POV list, its only fair and balanced I believe. Twobells (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm no. You'll use published WP:reliable sources, not scans. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Now who's being obtuse. How on earth can you find fault with the official records other than disagree with them? Twobells (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How am I being obtuse? Why are you wasting time with scans and uploads? It's a simple enough request that's been asked of you - provide paragraph numbers, page numbers, direct excerpts etc to support what you've actually said. Why are you intent on wasting time? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. TwoBells, you simply cannot cherry-pick from the thousands of statements made to Saville those which support your view of what happened. The job of the Inquiry is to assess all the statements as a whole, and decide on the balance of evidence which are the most accurate. Neither you, I, nor anyone else can do that. All we can do is work with proper published sources, pending the report of the Inquiry. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All I am doing is submitting the evidence associated with my contention that the article is POV. How on earth is that 'cherry picking' when it was the editors here who demanded same? My belief is that with such a contentious issue where previous editors even refuse to state in the piece it was an illegal protest turned riot ALL evidence purtaining to any allegation made in the article be available as a direct link, whats wrong with that? Twobells (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the penalty for "rioting" was summary execution by soldiers of the British Army, so what's your point? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Now really, I don't think that Twobells is trying to imply that at all. The march had been banned, and for the article to fail to mention that smacks a bit of denial. Of course, it should not be stated with the implication that getting gunned down was just-desserts for the marchers, but it still is a significant fact. It demonstrates just how much this article needs a section on the background, which is completely lacking in its current form. I'd write one myself, but it's best left to those who know more about it. Does anyone want to take it on? -R. fiend (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well adding that particlar piece of information has to be done carefully, especially if it's going in the lead. Although there was a "riot", there's not really much evidence that the people who were killed were actually anything to do with the rioting itself. It wasn't an "illegal protest" turned riot, because the march was still going on while the riot took place. It didn't go from 5,000 marchers to 5,000 rioters - that's not what happened. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is worth stressing that the march was not specifically banned in itself. All marches and parades in Northern Ireland had been banned by law since August of the previous year. It is also misleading to define it as a march that "turned into a riot". What is generally described as the "riot" took place apart from the bulk of the marchers, and at a location off the route of the march. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, this is exactly the sort of information that should be in the Background section and elsewhere in the article (I realize some of it is already, but the sequence of events could be expanded and clarified). And I don't think the ban on marching should go in the lead, but in the background section. -R. fiend (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on a background section now, should be finished later. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, that should be a substantial improvement to the article. -R. fiend (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And what terms of reference would be included in the background to this march? Would it be the foundation of Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association? And if yes will you not then have to explain its's reason for being? The sectarian nature of the Government at that time and its calls for equal rights for Catholics. Then would you not have to explain how the partition of Ireland came about, so what I am trying to say is that how far does background encompass?BigDunc (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] A fair question, and one I partially addressed at the end of one of the sections above. Right now it says nothing about the situation in Derry at the time, what the march was about, why it was controversial, etc. I think a couple sentences describing the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association and its aims would be an important addition, without going into too many details (it has its own article for that). Explaining how partition came about would be well out of the scope of the article, although keeping in mind that encyclopedias are written for laymen and one should assume very little prior knowledge on the part of the reader, briefly addressing partition and the controversy around it might well be in order. Two or three medium-lengthed paragraphs should do it for the background. Certainly knowledge of the commonplace violence in the city is essential in understanding what happened on Bloody Sunday and why; it's not like 13 people were suddenly gunned down in Eau Claire, Wisconsin on a random Sunday afternoon. None of this is really addressed in the article in its current state. -R. fiend (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not very ambitious. Something along the lines of the March was organised by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association to protest about percieved ill-treatment of the catholic minority. Fearing civil disorder the Army/NI Government banned the march. . . . The concerns of BigDinc are misplaced. To describe a ship an introduction about hydronamics is not necessary. To understand this episode a detailed knowledge of Irish history is illuminating but not essential --MJB (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with you MJB everyone knows what a ship is not everyone is aware of the climate at the time in Derry and as for your POV regarding percieved are you implying that maybe they had equal rights at that time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDunc (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

MJB, the march was not banned because the Army/NI Government "feared" anything. It was already covered by a pre-existing blanket ban, as per my comment above. I daresay that it have been contended in the past that one thing worth protesting about is the right to protest in the first place.... Nick Cooper (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I was alluding too when I asked about the background above Nick the authorities had a history of violence against marches as seen in Oct. 1968 in Derry when the police used batons on the leading marchers in Duke Street and as the marchers turned to go back down the street they were ambushed by another company of police.BigDunc (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was suggesting a "tone" for the opening para not seeking to insert any new interpretation. I am happy to leave it to others to inseert an intro that can then be picked over. --MJB (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word 'war' in 'Impact on Northern Ireland divisions' section

I think the use of conflict or perhaps another term would be more appropriate than 'war' in order to maintain NPOV. The Northern Ireland Assembly recently passed a motion against the use of the term 'war' in reference to the Troubles. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.191.16 (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The term war is onnly used in this article in reference to conflicts that actually were wars.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The strict definition of a conflict such as Northeren Irelands' is "Low intensity War". This is descriptive of a conflict too violent to be 'Civil Unrest', but not violent enough to be Elsalvador etc.Johnwrd (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

removal of verifiable fact

I am at a loss to see why a verifiable and fully referenced fact has been removed. Consensus should not trump fact.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please join the discussion above, something you've failed to do so far. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What I have succeeded in doing is proving that my edit is sourced properly and reliably, and that my edit is a verifiable fact.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you learn that something being true doesn't mean it has to be included in the article in a particular place, especially when consensus is against it. In addition....if you'd read that, you'd know I'm planning a "background" section that will cover the build-up to the massacre. In the interim, I've added it to the main body. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually see no consensus specifically against it. I see someone point out that all such marches were banned. That doesn't detract from the fact that the march that day was an illegal. Your interpretation of the consensus above is misplaced.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There's certainly no consensus in favour of inclusion in the lead, at least one neutral editor is against it in addition to various others. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet there is no consensus against it being included. Except if the discussion is between you and you.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, good, you've admitted there's no consensus for inclusion. Good, we're getting somewhere at last. Now would you like to stop this inanity and add something constructive to the discussion? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And great, you've admitted that you've been pushing a consensus argument where none exists. So I am free to add the information again.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm, no. Take a look at WP:CONSENSUS, and see how it works. You add something new, it's removed, you then seek consensus for addition on the talk page. Similarly if you want to remove something that's long-standing, you remove it, someone adds it back, you then seek consensus for removal on the talk page. Pretty simple really! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Why did you remove it? Justify your removal of a verifiable fact.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's discussed as length above, it doesn't really belong in the lead. Unless you've something constructive to add to the discussion, please stop wasting time with this frivolity. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But you've admitted there is no consensus above. Which leads to the conclusion that you're refusing to justify your removal of information.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Yet again, take a look at WP:CONSENSUS and see how it works. And yet again, if you'd read the discussion you'd know that I'm planning a background section covering all this, and if you'd actually looked you'd see I'd added the status of the march in the article as an interim stop-gap. So yet again, do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion or are you intent on wasting everyone's time with your incorrect and flawed interpretation of policy? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I know you were planning one to be finished "later" 9 days ago. There is no concensus other than the one that suits your POV. Was the march illegal? Yes. Is that fact important? Yes. Does its inclusion require disproportionate rewording or disproportionately alter the lead section? No. There is no reason not to include it.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, there's a discussion above you've yet to contribute to. Kindly do it there. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Both of you need to chill out a bit. Hack, referring to TU's inquiry as "this inanity" is unhelpful here and just stirs trouble. You already know this. Can someone point me (specifically) to where consensus has already been established, and by who? - Alison ^❤ 18:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well when I ask for constructive discussion about the actual addition and get nothing but repeated wiki-layering, I tend to reagard it as inanity. The consensus referred to is the pre-existing consensus, before TU made the addition. Even R. Fiend (who tends to disagree with Domer48 somewhat) agrees it shouldn't go in the lead. Now as you can see above there's a lengthy discussion about all this, yet TU chose not to contribute to that discussion in any way before making his repeated addition to the article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okaaay. R. fiend does seem to be saying that. However, TU's addition is sourced to the CAIN document regarding the "British Irish Rights Watch" group, and also references the British Army sources from 1974. Both seem to state that the march and demonstration were "illegal". Consensus Can Change and all that. Is there anything specifically wrong with this statment or the sources? - Alison ^❤ 19:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC) (hates "troubles" disputes)

I have a second source from an academic book. This does seem like a silly objection to what is in essence a single (yet highly salient) word.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Better addition, which is only an interim stop-gap measure until I actually finish my "Background" section, which would be a whole lot easier if I could currently find the book with all the information in :( One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see your point.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 2) So it would appear that there's nothing wrong with these sources, and that people are in agreement as to the substantive issue (the illegality), yes? However, the objection is that it should not go into the lead where it would (apparently) be given undue weight? - Alison ^❤ 19:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Simply because something is true doesn't mean it belongs in the lead, otherwise I'll be running along to add "milk snatcher" to the lead of Maggie Thatcher. The onus is on TU to demonstrate why it should be in the lead, and the lengthy discussion is above if he'd like to do it in the correct section. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually can't put my finger on why there is objection. Nonetheless, its hard to justify that this would be undue weight.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, providing there is consensus about the illegality, and that the sources are good. Having said that, this issue seems to have been through the mill already and you didn't contribute at the time. Folks are now (I think) perceiving your actions to be unilateral and that you're bypassing the previous debate - Alison ^❤ 19:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter, since I seem to be mentioned here, is that the illegality of the march certainly should be mentioned, but not necessarily in the lead. (Certainly my opinion in itself could certainly not be considered a "consensus" for anything.) I do think leaving it out of the lead, however, is a good compromise, as it can be covered more fully in a background section where it may appear to be neither glossed over nor overly emphasized. Hackney has stated a background section is on its way, but it seems slow in coming. Such a section, I believe, if done well, can mitigate many of the POV issues people see to have, and can go far in clarifying the events. -R. fiend (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It'll be done by tomorrow, and in the interim (as repeatedly stated) I've added the illegality to the article elsewhere. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm failing to see where this mythical consensus is. It is said that the illegality of the march is clearly important context to the atmosphere and perhaps even the over reaction of the soldiers. My second source is Henry Patterson, 'Ireland since 1939', 2007 pp222. "This was the background to the events of Bloody Sunday, 30 January 1972, when, after rioting that had developed in the wake of a banned civil rights march, members of the Parachute regiment....opened fire, killing 13 civilians". A respected academic author who sees the fact that it was illegal important enough to use in his opening sentence on the topic.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, please stop splitting the discussion, and contribute to the existing discussion about this subject. That's the place to make your argument, not this section. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Who exactly are you to tell me where to raise my concerns at my reverting my edits? I'll raise them here thank you very much.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone should be calm and try not to get personal here. As it is, I see no reason not to move this discussion here, as comments that are not near the bottom of the page have a tendency to be overlooked. -R. fiend (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO, R. fiend makes a number of good points here 1) everyone is in agreement as to the illegality, 2) a "background" section would be invaluable, if done right and 3) Hack is being a bit slow in producing the goods and TU is frustrated by that and may be seeing it as stalling. Having said that, it would appear that the interim solution has broad agreement and also Hack has promised the background section for tomorrow. Can we all at least wait another day or two for the new section to be added, then everyone can agree to re-evaluate ... at the bottom of the talk page?? - Alison ^❤ 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

r. feind said "If its illegality an established fact, its removal strikes me as a bit POV" on 13th Feb (I think). I totally agree. I think it is salient and a vital fact to include in the lead. Henry Patterson and British Irish Rights Watch agree.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Mhm. So even if the "background" section goes in according to plan, explaining in some detail the illegality, this will not address the issue to your satisfaction. So, background or no, illegality must go in the lead section? - Alison ^❤ 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. Doesn't it strike you as highly important to the context? No matter your opinions, ie 1)they were disloyal criminal scum who deserved it or 2)the unionists were so evil they forced the oppressed pious citizenry of Derry to break their illegitimate laws - either way its important to highlight the fact from the outset.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As for me, it does seem significant, but so does a great deal of other information and factors leading up to the event. And we are talking about it being moved, not removed. I don't currently see the necessity of having it in the lead, and, since it isn't tucked away towards the end or in some footnote somewhere, mentioning it in the second section seems quite fair to me. If you can convince me otherwise, I'm open to it. -R. fiend (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm trying hard not to express an opinion on the matter here. So, this issue is not going to get resolved with the "background" section, and thus waiting a day or two is moot. However, Hack and R. fiend seem to believe that putting it in the lead section is undue weight, am I right? So why is it undue weight, as it seems to be a significant detail? At this point, it does look like you're going against consensus (such that is it) and attempts at compromise (the "background") are being rejected? - Alison ^❤ 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And, indeed, having it in the second section seems also to be a reasonable compromise. It's not exactly being brushed under the carpet - Alison ^❤ 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See above! If the march hadn't been illegal, its likely that the event wouldn't have happened. But it was illegal, the marchers were breaking the law and as a result of this (inter alia, obviously) the security presence was disproportionately high.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As discussed in the original section, the march itself wasn't banned as all marches had been banned as a trade-off against the introduction of internment. Simply describing it as an "illegal march" doesn't adequately reflect the situation, and makes it sound far too much like that particular march had been specifically banned. And as discussed at length in the original section, the riot at "Aggro Corner" which caused the Paras to take the action they did was a daily occurrence and would have happened whether the march was illegal or not. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

First, the march was illegal, and this is context to the situation, regardless of whether it was subject to a specific or blanket ban. Secondly, what was not a daily occurance, was thousands and thousands of people marching through the streets. Derry may not have been in the throws of normality at the time, but this day was different. The illigality of the march did significently contribute to the events of the day.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) TU, it appears so, that you're making a number of inferences here, and one that the documented evidence may not actually concur with. You wish to have this in the first paragraph because it bolsters your argument. However, R. fiend and Hack seem to think otherwise and that the background to the status of the march needs to be discussed/explored in detail. It's not cut-and-dried "illegal", it would seem. Thoughts? - Alison ^❤ 19:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should continue this when my background section is done? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well first off, what inferences am I making? Also, it was cut and dried illegal. The ban was a blanket one, but that is to an extent irrelevant. The point is that it was an illegal march, which is context to the atmosphere and the subsequent reaction to it. When the background is finished and in the article it wont be "yours", and we will still be in the same place. The discussion is about the lead section.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see what R. fiend thinks of where we're at here. Second paragraph + background + subsequent debate seems to me to be reasonable accommodation here - Alison ^❤ 20:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any compelling argument against having it in the lead.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Maybe we can do a bit of a rewrite of the opening? Personally, I think the opening sentence is a bit jumbled anyway. Is naming the British officers (one of whom is a redlink) in the very first sentence really necessary? If the legal status of the march is not significant enough for the opening, certainly the names of commanding officers is not. In any case, maybe that paragraph can be altered to mention that they staged "...a march in defiance of a government ban on such assemblies" (or something)? That gets the point across without any phrasing implicating the participants as criminals. Thoughts? -R. fiend (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would we try to avoid infering they were breaking the law? They were.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed they were. However, it would appear that the background to this illegality needs to be explored according to the others here - Alison ^❤ 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We'd better dash over to Rosa Parks and change the lead to "Parks became famous for illegally refusing to obey bus driver..." while we're at it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It's true and verifiable isn't it? There is a subjective debate to be had in these particular cases though about the nature of the laws involved.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the basic phrasing I mentioned there should be a decent compromise. It covers the status of the march in the opening section, but using words that seem to satisfy the other viewpoint. If you're not willing to make any sort of compromise on the phrasing you can't expect to be accommodated 100%. -R. fiend (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But this issue isn't subjective. The march was illegal, end of story! The context needs to be explained but this starting point remains nonetheless.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not the "end of story", and more than calling MLK a criminal would be the "end of story", accurate it may be. If people were trying to pretend there was no ban on the march or trying to hide the fact, then you'd have a point, but that's not what's happening here (at least not anymore). Is the phrasing I offered inaccurate? If so explain how; if not, then why the opposition? -R. fiend (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning was "That gets the point across without any phrasing implicating the participants as criminals", which isn't legitimate. Also, its needlessly verbose, and seems to downplay the actuality to the action - by participating in the march the demonstrators were breaking the law.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to suggest that you wish the participants of the march to be explicitly labelled as "criminals" - is this correct? - Alison ^❤ 21:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Mainly as I don't believe anyone was convicted of illegal assembly for their participation, and therefore aren't criminals. Nonetheless, they broke the law by attending an illegal assembly.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So there's nothing illegitimate about not implicating them as such. In any case "in defiance of a government ban on such assemblies" (9 words) is hardly "verbose", and gives a more complete and accurate picture of the situation than just "illegal". I fail to see how it glosses over anything. -R. fiend (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how as you said you were trying to gloss over when you proposed the wording! A government ban is also a little bit hazy. I'm not legally trained in the conventional sense, but do have some basic legal training. In academic terms, I have never understood the reluctance of history writers to use footnotes for substantive points to the extent that legal academics do. Surely it would be possible to contextualize the term illegal sufficiently in the footnote attached to the word.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That might work. It's almost entirely one big long run-on sentence anyway - Alison ^❤ 20:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarise the article, so once my background section is finished we can go from there in terms of what needs adding from that section? There's no point attempting a rewrite only for it to need doing again 24 hours later after all..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Urgh! So the "background" paragraph needs to go in next and then everyone can go over the lead paragraph, yes?? TU, does this seem reasonable? - Alison ^❤ 20:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm only suggesting that because people might consider various parts of it need to be included. And it'd be a bitch to get something with nice tight wording agreed, only to have to figure out how to add more without fudging it all up. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

R. fiend's suggestion here appears to be entirely reasonable, and also serves the purpose of cleaning up the first paragraph. May I suggest (strongly, even) that we go with this? TU, this is entirely reasonable here and you need to compromise somewhere considering others are being accommodating here - Alison ^❤ 21:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems perfectly reasonable and sensible to me. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have felt no need to comment at all today reading the discussion, making the same points as some and all that, but this comment is totally uncalled for, and there is no reason for it. Why let a good reasoned discussion be tainted by this? Sorry for the intrusion. --Domer48 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you find it offensive, you clearly don't understand the point I was making.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Domer, I view this as TU describing the two extremes of POV regarding the situation by taking both to silly extremes. He's just making a point - Alison ^❤ 21:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, while drafting the additional section I discovered that during the "illegal" march the weekend before (near the Magilligan concentration camp) the mood was "relaxed and friendly" and that soldiers from the Royal Green Jackets offered the marchers tea and buns if they marched along an agreed route. Kind of puts the "illegality" into perspective a bit doesn't it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not very easy to comment without seeing the source.Traditional unionist (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a reliable, neutral, and award-winning source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I'll just have to take your word for that.Traditional unionist (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Taylor good enough for you? Bearing in mind the trilogy including the book in question won him the Royal Television Society's Judges' Journalism Award, and the book itself was also shortlisted for the Orwell Prize. It was also submitted as evidence in the Saville Inquiry, see here and either search for "buns" on the page or scroll down to page 68. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What I was actually talking about was proper context. But never mind. For another day.Traditional unionist (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a further more detailed mention of it here, again search for "buns" or scroll down to page 130. Now I'm sure you'll agree that soldiers providing refreshments for an "illegal" march puts things into a slightly different perspective doesn't it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No it does not. It is possible to police an illegal march in a civilised manner, A march can be illegal yet a judgment may be made that it is "easier" to let it continue. A victory, of sorts, if the organisers crave confrontation that they are then denied. --MJB (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a rather big different between letting a march continue, and offering the marchers tea and buns! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No doubt the evil brits had laced the buns with arsenic before returning to the concentration camp at Magilligan. It does not suit a certain agenda to accept that the Army were doing their best to police a conflict that was not of their making and which they found frankly bewildering. An Army forged in Malaya, Aden and Hong Kong riots is a blunt instrument to deploy on UK streets. I spoke with one RWF soldier who deployed on day 1 and he told me that the riot notices they unfurled to disperse crowds were in Cantonese and English. --MJB (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, in fact I've read the exact same thing in various sources. However the point I'm currently trying to make is that although the marches were strictly "illegal", this was hardly rigidly enforced. And on an unrelated note, Operation Banner is an article crying out for improvement. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, with all the talk of tea and crumpets, it seems we're getting a bit off track here. Anyway, I think an agreement is forming (I'd certainly balk at using the term "consensus" for such a small group) about how to handle this. I agree 100% that the article ignoring the fact that there was a ban on marches was a major flaw, and it is certainly important that that be remedied. Against the wishes of some, we have a proposal to include this information in the opening. While the exact phrasing will not please everyone, we have the information where Traditional Unionist and others wanted it, so, if one wanted to use the term, they have "won" under this proposal. A compromise on their part on the exact words only seems fair to me, keeping in mind the compromise is on the phrasing, not on the facts (one cannot compromise on facts here). If someone believes there is a factual inaccuracy with the phrase "in defiance of a government ban on such assemblies," let it be known, and I'm sure something can be worked out. Barring that, I think that covers it pretty fairly, accurately, and concisely, right up front. Now, when Hackney introduces his background section, I have no doubt there will be more issues there; it is the nature of such topics as this. It would be nice if we could put this matter to rest before we have to get into that. However, it wouldn't hurt to get a few more eyes on this in the next day or so. -R. fiend (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A better phrase would be "in defiance of a blanket government ban on all parades and marches." Simply saying "such assemblies" is ambiguous, since it is in the context of a civil rights march, some readers may take it to mean specifically civil rights marches. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My 2p is that the mention of an illegal ban is not an issue - the context is however. Internment would need to be alongside that as well as the issues around the "'prayer meeting' in Guildhall Square" organised to coincide with the civil rights march. The surrounding political and sectarian context cannot be ignored if one is to get any understanding of the events. For example, see Feature article: Bloody Sunday - time for the truth (Eamonn McCann). Regards. SeanMack (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick, I think that sounds good, though maybe remove "blanket" as unnecessary in an effort to keep it a bit more concise. Sean, I have no doubt that what you suggest will be covered in the background section, when it is completed. I, at least, fail to see how it belongs in the lead, significant though it is. Since the article deals directly with the march, some of its details should go in the lead. -R. fiend (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify - I personally don't think highlighting the legality of the march needs to be in the lead, but some people are pushing that. What I am saying is that if you do put it in the lead, you still need to contextualise it. If it then becomes unwieldy, then that is another issue... The blanket ban is relevant due to the fact that orange order marches were also banned and significant political pressure was building up because of this. The reasons for Bloody Sunday have been portrayed variously as:

• Soldiers ran amok. (Doesn't really explain why paras were used on a police matter, or why they ran amok) Allegedly soldiers were "hyped up" to "get kills"
• A calculated decision was taken to kill innocents to get informers into the IRA after the inevitable rush to sign up.
• A hard line was being taken to appease Unionists.

I'm not suggesting anything here - but it would be good to strive for an article that provides enough "facts", history and context to let an educated reader come to their own conclusions - albeit, this will probably make more sense once the tribunal has returned. I'll be interested to see the background section as that is quite a difficult section to write concisely. At some point perhaps it could be given it's own article. SeanMack (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Background section

I've added what I've got done so far. I still need to add detail about the formation of NICRA, some stuff from January 1972 and the Ford-Tuzo memorandum plus assorted other bits and pieces, but I think it currently gives a good view of the deteroriating situation in Derry. Rest should hopefully be finished later, but I've posted what I've got done in case I get sidetracked. Any comments/suggestions? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. It's a great start. What we need now is to have another paragraph (or two) that goes from the general background to the specific background of the march, then, the events of the day section is perfectly placed to carry on the narrative. Nice work. SeanMack (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was planning to do that. Just I've got about eighteeen things to do today, and as I'm promised a background section of some sort within 24 hours I figured I'd better at least add what I've got done. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a great start, Hack. Let's see what the others think. I'm specifically interested in hearing what TU thinks of it in terms of balance - Alison ^❤ 19:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work on the background ONiH. BigDunc (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My memory of the two guys that were killed is a little more detailed than that - I think I'm right in saying that at least one of them only died because he was taken to Co Donegall and not Altnagelvin (could be wrong). Apapt from that it seems pretty good. I am still concerned that the illegality of the march, far from being given undue weight, is mentioned in a manner that is somewhat the opposite. I'm quite busy this week, so I'll come back to it fresh later on in the week or next week.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think that Hume withdrew from Stromont regardless of the fact that Stormont weren't responsible for the soldiers or their actions, and therefore couldn't have instigated the review he demanded. Will need to check that.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the men was taken across the border for treatment, but I've not seen a source that says that was the direct cause of his death. He died first and foremost because he'd been shot. But it's not that relevant whether he died across the border or not, it was the disputed circumstances of his shooting that caused the problems, so it doesn't really matter where he died. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think I saw somewhere that he had a much stronger chance of living had he been taken to hospital in altnagelvin, but wasn't foo rpurely political reasons. But I can't stand over that at this stage. Traditional unionist (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What point are you trying to make TU dont really know what you are getting at could you clarify please.BigDunc (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that I'm discussing an amendment to the article.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for one man dying across the border being mentioned if you want, but I'd prefer to leave out any speculation about whether it contributed to his death, unless it's from some source with direct access to his medical records which seems unlikely. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I say, I can't stand over any of this until I get a look at the books. Which won't be immediate.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And with regard to your comment about the illegality of the march not being particularly prominent at present, I'd have thought it was quite obvious why. What I've finished so far covers some of the background, I haven't actually got up to the march being announced and related events yet, hence me saying I still had to add "some stuff from January 1972". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the background section is a good start, but should be expanded in both directions, further into the background, and up to the march. While I wouldn't want to cover it in much detail, I think a bit could be said about partition and the religious/cultural/political/etc divides, to cater to those readers who come to this article knowing nothing at all about the subject (which is really any encyclopedia's target audience). Just a few sentences should do it. I think the end of the background section should then cover the prelude to the infamous march: its purpose, who organized it, etc. Right now that information is vague or tucked away. Additionally, I still think the opening could use some work along the lines I suggested before. It's a bit of a jumble. -R. fiend (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be very hard to cover partition and the religious/cultural/political/etc divides in just a few sentences without one side or the other claiming POV.BigDunc (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not if kept very basic, explaining what the partition of the country was, for example, without going into the whys and wherefores. Maybe I can come up with something to post here on the talk page. -R. fiend (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is wrong!

Bloody Sunday did not happen in 1972..it took place during 1905. I took the date 1972 from here, did my whole report revolving around that it took place in 1972, and when i found out it happened in 1905, i had to redo my whole project! rrggg!! this made me very mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.136.108 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, if you wrote a paper on the 1905 Bloody Sunday based on this event, you got more than the date wrong. And didn't your teacher ever tell you not to use Wikipedia for research papers? -R. fiend (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Did it not make sense re: Ireland when 1905 was in Russia?! Fitz41 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.226.6 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This was not a failure by wikipedia it is a fool not reading what project they were given have a look here maybe you can find what your looking for, assuming you even know what countries history you are studying.BigDunc (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious! It was a failure of western civilisation, and just to make sure it wasn't my part of that civilisation I did the "whois" on that IP, and it's from...Texas. Legend! There really is another village in Texas. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

well i understand maybe you didnt get a country or date for your project but thats something you should have asked your teacher about.

Further issues

While I think some of the problems with this article have been addressed, it seems to me there are still some significant issues. The background section is good, but I think for a completely uninformed reader (an encyclopedia's target audience) it assumes too much knowledge of the origins of the Troubles. I also think a bit more could be added about the march's purpose, which the article states briefly in the most general of terms.

I think the larger issues are the overall organization of the article. As it is now, it shows the signs of being written by committee (which is how wikis work, I know, but ideally it should not show through in the writing). We have the Events of the Day section, the Deceased section, and then the Perspectives and Analysis of the Day section, which is largely a continuation of the Events section, with some material repeated. The deceased, I guess, is supposed to be part of the narrative of events, but it really does not work as such. Calling a bullet list of sentence fragments describing exactly how 14 people were killed a "narrative" is almost laughable, in fact. Certainly parts of that section could be incorporated into a decent narrative, but that's not what this is. It has the appearances of a memorial, and such lists are routinely removed from other articles. I think it would be best to get rid of the bulleted list (wow, I just realized that sounds like a really bad pun; I assure you it's not intended to be), merging together much if the information it contains with the Events and part of the Perspectives sections to make one cohesive, straightforward narrative of events. Lists in the middle of articles are generally poor form, and this is no exception. I'd like to hear what others think. -R. fiend (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)+

Given the circumstances of the death of virtually every person is disputed, the circumstances of their death need to be included. Did those events happen on the day? Absolutely, so moving it to be a sub-section of "Impact on Northern Ireland divisions" (for what reason exactly?! Why on earth would it go there?!) is not only breathtakingly absurd but it makes it more of a memorial (which it isn't in the first place, see the lengthy discussion above) than before. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃

Read what I wrote. I'm not proposing moving it into another section, but incorporating it into an actual narrative (which it isn't right now, regardless of whether one calls it that) along with the events section and the part of the analysis section that is also a narrative of events. Then we can have the basic information in standard article form, instead of a list right in the middle of the article. It wouldn't be easy, but I think it would be preferable to this hodge podge of sections we currently have, displaying no real order. -R. fiend (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to chase Nick Cooper up on that, he was writing a proper narrative last time I checked. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well. Are you in general agreement with the overall idea? -R. fiend (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! Been a bit tied up lately - the rough version is at User:Nick_Cooper/Sandbox. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Still Not Resolved

Sorry for the lack of updates recently returned from Skpje, anyway, I still see editors trying to dismiss the reality of the day and how the fact that the march was illegal impacted on all involved, blanket bans aside, I am sure that this march was specifically banned, however I will firm that up asap with a hard copy referral available via url.Twobells (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There already was a blanket ban on all marches and parades, so why would this one have to be "specifically banned"?! Even Widgery refers only to the former in his report (paragraph 15). Nick Cooper (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick

I am referring to memory now so bear with me, but I do believe that a second notice was issued, but as I said I will test that memory asap. Twobells (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition removed

There is an element of synthesis going on here, where two facts are being presented and an unsourced implicit conclusion is being drawn based on those, when there is no secondary source drawing that conclusion. There is also the fact that the Guardian article does not correctly report the findings of Widgery. I invite further discussion here. Domer48 (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems obvious that the lead needs to be balanced, my addition was cited correctly, using a reliable source. The lead as it stands in hugely biased, infact this article might as well be titled Bloody Sunday (English people are bastards) considering how biased it is.

The lead should either have both sets of comments removed, of both sets kept - there are sources stating that the little terrorist was armed, the military photos, the offical report, the IRA book, the article in the Scotsman.. The claims that everyone was unnarmed were dubious, yet they were still included. It seems that bias is running rampant on this article Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Scotsman doesn't say he was armed when he was shot, please do not misrepresent what sources say. You have failed to address that the Guardian misreport Widgery, and Widgery does not state as fact Donaghy had nailbombs in his pockets, and in fact says whether he was or not is a "relatively unimportant detail of the events of the afternoon". The Paras claimed they fired at gunmen and/or bombers, therefore the presence of those in someone's pockets in disputed circumstances well after the fact is here nor there. It is hardly credible to believe that someone was shot while carrying a nailbomb, and then put it in his pocket for safekeeping. As Widgery says it's an unimportant detail, it's undue weight even putting it in the lead. At the moment the lead is lacking the Para's excuse for their actions, so perhaps someone would like to suggest some proposed wording for discussion? Domer48 (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair that this shouldn't be in the lead, other than to say the circumstances are disputed, but there should be some coverage in the body.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that puts it much better than I did, at the moment it is disputed - there are claims that they were all unarmed, there are claims that they were armed - the current version seems to imply that they were unarmed - and despite personal feelings that has not been proven. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"Personal feelings" don't come into it. The clear balance of evidence is that the nailbombs were planted on Donaghy; the forensic evidence that labeled others killed (which not all were) as having handled weapons has been shown to be worthless; and there are no witnesses that put weapons in the hands of anyone shot with the except of the soldiers, bur in far too many cases their accounts are not corroborated by the injuries known to have been inflicted or other forensic evidence. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Clear balance of evidence? Sorry to be rude, but that sounds rather like original research to me. There are photos of the nailbombs, the alleged armed/unarmed victim is listed in an IRA book, there are citable claims regarding who gave him the nailbombs - I have no idea about your own political feelings, but its hard to have good faith regarding the edits of other editors who are clearly pro IRA/anti UK. As it stands there are claims for both sides of the story, why the article is displaying such bias in favour of one argument is beyond me. If as one previous editor claimed the fact that he did or did not have nailbombs in his pockets, then the fact that every single person there was armed or unarmed is also an unimportant detail. Either give both disputed viewpoints, or give neither. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Then it "sounds" wrong. Of the numerous books, documentaries, newspaper articles, etc. on the subject, few take the idea that Donaghy had the nail bombs in his pockets all along seriously. None of the numerous people who treated, examined, searched, or moved him - civilian and British army alike - prior to the "find" claim to have seen them, and most say they could not possibly have missed them had they been there. The only dispute in this matter is who planted the nailbombs on him, and that will probably never be known. In any case, it was stated at the outset of the BSI that it was accepted by the Crown that none of those shot had been armed. For you, therefore, to push the line you are is extremely tenuous, to say the least. I would note that the Scotsman is inherently flawed in that it says Ward claims he gave Donaghay two nailbombs, and only his were unaccounted for at the end of the day. How come, then, that four nailbombs were "found" on him? This is quite apart from the fact that witnesses at Saville have stated that the nailbombs in the photographs do not match the designs favoured by the IRA at the time. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have made an attempt to balance the article, in a manner which I am sure is not ideal for everyone - however that is the nature of compromise. I think that as nothing has been proven, that should be stated - nothing has been proven either way, nailbombs or no nailbombs. Also if we are going to have unproven claims in the lead, that there should be a balance supporting both theories. Personally I am in two minds regarding if all claims should be in the lead, or if no claims should be there - but the most important thing initially is balance. What do other editors think? Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the overwhelming documentary evidence is that the nailbombs were planted, and that - therefore - none of those shot were armed. I am therefore reverting this back to where it had stood for months beforehand. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So yet again, you are relying on your own opinion to edit this article, if it has been proven that the nailbombs were planted, feel free to cite that fact - otherwise you are making edits based on original research - as far as I am aware it is disputed, and as such it cannot be given as a fact, even the lead as it currently stands states that it is a claim. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What were found in his pockets later is not relevant. What matters is if any weapons were in his hands when he was shot, which witnesses testify was not the case. The Army are not allowed to open fire on people if they suspect they have a weapon in their pocket, so it's not relevant as even Widgery said. Several editors have said this doesn't belong in the lead. BigDunc^Talk 13:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, what I have said is a reflection of the conclusion that the majority of books, documentaries, etc. on the subject have previously reached. You, on the other hand, are behaving like a bully, spuriously hiding behind erroneous accusations of "original research" in the face of something that you don't like. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be an arse, but I would have thought if the army knew that someone had a bomb in their pocket, they would be entitled to shoot them, but I am not in the military, so feel free to give me a link proving the above to be wrong. Anyway more importantly, if he had a weapon in his pocket, he would be considered to be armed - to call him unarmed in that situation would not be correct, also just because a witness or 2 stated that he was unarmed, does not really prove much, I can testify to having seen Elvis, but it would not make it true, neither would it be anything more than just a mere claim. It is under dispute, I see no reason as to why this should not be stated in the lead. Right now this article and in particular the lead seems very biased in the favour of one political viewpoint. This article needs a big dose of NPOV.Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"What has it got in its pocketses?," though Gollum. I don't think the British Army were issued with x-ray spectacles in the 70s. Agree with BigDunc (which, if you'll check, you'll see is rare for me) - if even the biased coverup that was Widgery said it isn't relevant, then it isn't relevant. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A soldier may fire if he perceives himself, a colleague or civilian, to be in imminent danger. He must identify a weapon, such as a firearm or a car running a roadblock if it is driving at a civilian or soldier or has terrorists on board. see here. BigDunc^Talk 13:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And bearing in mind Donaghy was searched twice and they didn't find the nail bombs until the third search, you have to wonder how, even if they were there (which they weren't) the Paras identified a weapon from whatever distance they were away. BigDunc^Talk 13:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I share the doubt regarding X-ray specs, however I do think that they had intelligence information, and the dead guy was a member of the junior IRA or some similar organisation. I don't doubt that the Widgery report was a total coverup, however I also have about the same amount of faith in the testimony of people involved in bloody sunday, they are hardly going to say the kid was armed. I don't think it is hugely relevent, however there are enough citations to put doubt on the fact that everyone shot was unarmed. I really don't think claims belong in the lead, they should be later on, allowing people to come to their own conclusions. How about moving those claims to later on in the article, and leaving the lead with pure facts?

it isn't up to us to draw conclusions on if he was armed or not, either there is proof, or it is disputed. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You have failed to address the points raised. The presence of nail bombs in his pockets later on in disputed circumstances, is not relevant as even Widgery says. Every other editor disagrees with you, including ones that generally disagree with me. So it's time to move on I think. BigDunc^Talk 14:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps you should read the above again, if you think I have not addressed any points. The fact that all of the dead were unarmed is disputed, the claim that they were unarmed is included as an unproven claim in the lead, it is a leading statement - if you think they were unarmed or not, does not matter - the fact that there are claims of at least one of them being armed makes it disputed. Either put both claims in the lead or remove both claims. You have zero proof that the nailbombs were added at a later time, therefore yet again, it is disputed. There are claims with have been correctly cited, stating that he was given the nailbombs prior to being shot. I will continue to have good faith in your edits, and assume that you are not trying to remove my edits in order to pursue a particular POV - however this article is highly biased, it paints the soldiers in such a bad light, and makes light of the fact that one of the dead was possibly a less than savoury character who was killed, with full justification due to his possession of lethal devices. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh and despite your claims that every single editor disagrees with me, I can see two other sections on this talk page, stating concern with the term unarmed, if you wish to scroll up, you can read them. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussions were largely around claims of the issue of the crowd as a whole being unarmed, which a very small number of exceptions dispute. You will note that I highlighted one of them at 11:26, 5 January 2007 and subsequently disputed suggestions that it was not accurate. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? "Intelligence information"?! The Paras who opened fire on the day had never been in London/Derry before; there have never been any reports of them being briefed about specific individuals, and even if they had, Donaghy would have been so down the list of likely suspects to be non-existent. It's ironic that you've cried an "original research" foul, when you've come up with a far more blatent example yourself. The bottom line is that Donaghy was repeatedly examined, treated, and moved by people who would have either reported the presence of nailbombs, or removed them had they found them. The only person to have claimed first-hand knowledge that he had such bombs only accounts for two, which conflicts with the four in the photographs, all of the same design. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, more original research - how can you possibly know what information was given beforehand, especially if it was intelligence information, which by its nature is usually not available to the public? But it's nice of you to agree that he was is possession of some nailbombs, we can agree on the number later, but this makes coming to a compromise a little easier. Thanks nicky. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, this spurious throwing around of "original research" is getting more than a bit boring now. There have been numerous books, documentaries, etc. about this event, and none of them have suggested what you have. That makes your claims original reserach, not mine, or any of the other editors who have pointed it the poor basis for your edits. It is not "original reasearch" to reflect what published sources have already covered, and in fact I'm stunned that you seem to think that it is, because reflecting published sources is the very basis of Wikipedia. While I can't claim to have read or seen all of them relating to this particular subject, in what I have I've never seen any suggestion that tallies with yours that the Paras have "intelligence" that allowed them to target specific individuals, whether Donaghy or anyone else. What you will find, however, if a general agreement that the circumstances of the finding of the nailbombs on him was exceptionally suspiscious, to say the least. Even the evidence at Widgery - if not his actual conclusion (not in isolation) - is against them having been in his pockets when he was shot, e.g. Leo Young's statement (in Mullan's Eye WItnes Bloody Sunday):

"I tried to find his identification from anything in the two top pockets of his denim jacket and found nothing."

The Secret History edition on the subject similarly covers the supposed finding of the nailbombs on Donaghy and highlights the number of people - including at least two doctors, one civilian, one army ("Soldier 138")- who searched or examined him, yet did not notice four bulky objects (similar in size and shape to 330ml drink cans) in the pockets of his jacket, even though those supposedly found in the top pockets could not be placed entirely within them and the flaps buttoned closed. This particular aspect of the event is already covered in the body of the article, given the weight it merits; to include it in the introduction - or even to allude to it - in tlhe manner you suggest gives it far, far too much prominence.

Incidentally, please don't address me with patronising diminutives, as you don't even remotely fit any of the categories of people I would accept that particular one from. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nicky, would you mind refraining from making this issue into something personal, I took offence to you using the phrase "patronising bollocks" in the edit summary of your talk page, while you might not agree with my comments, you should show a little respect for other editors while dealing with content disputes. I welcome all comments regarding my edits, even when they disagree with my own opinions - but I would like to be treated with the same respect that every other editor deserves. I have noticed that many of your content disputes have resulted in the other editor involved taking offence with your tone - perhaps you should think a little more about civility when making edits. Either way, I hope we can contribute together in a more constructive and civil manner in the future. I have not made an official complaint regarding your conduct, as I am a very patient person, however Nicky, don't push it. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

While you continue to use patronising dimunutives of my name as you have, despite requests not to do so, and continue making your pathetic threats to go "running to teacher," you do not deserve - and will not receive - any respect from me. "Many... content disputes"? I suspect you'll have to trawl through a lot of edits to be able to substantiate that, but if you've got that little to do with your life that you have the time, then be my guest. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nicky, I am merely trying to be friendly and address you in a friendly manner, if that offends you - then it's your problem, not mine. I have not threatened to go running to anyone, if I feel the need to make a report regarding your lack of civility, I will make a threat, I will make a report. All I have done so far, is asked on many occasions for you to act in a civil manner (I have made it very clear that I have not made any reports about your conduct, I don't know what part of " I have not made an official complaint regarding your conduct " you consider to be a threat, to me it sounds like exactly the opposite. Nicky, stop taking things personally, start being civil - and we will have no further problems. Sennen goroshi (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been asked by Nick Cooper to stop refering to him in the manner that you are currently doing but yet you still continue, would you not be a DICK and respect his wishes.BigDunc^Talk 11:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If I was calling him "cunty" or something else that could be considered to be offensive, then I would see his point, however I don't consider Nicky to be offensive, so I don't consider myself to be the person who is acting like a dick. Besides I have read Nicky calling me a bully, calling my edits bullshit,pathetic etc - so I don't think he is in any position to complain about a friendly little name such as Nicky. Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly trying to provoke a certain reaction. Forget it - I ain't interested. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's good to know, when I read comments directed towards me, from you such as "Are you threatening me? Oh, I'm so fucking scared." - I imagined you were a little too interested in this, it's nice to know that I was mistaken. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I just realised what you're trying to do. I note the irony of you being "allowed" to swear on your own Talk page, though. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Try reading that again, Nicky - that notice is nothing to do with be allowed to swear on my talk page. BTW this is getting boring, if you have any more personal comments relating to me or my conduct, could you please put them on my talk page, not here (I would suggest your talk page, but you know, what you did last time comments were there !) Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I rarely delete anything from my Talk page, but in your case BigDunc called it right. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Was this entire article written by Michael Collins' ghost? No objectivity whatsoever here. What a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.146.103 (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is obviously biased and is only in it's current state do to the weight of numbers of IRA sympathetic editors. I think calling this article a joke is pretty close, however calling it pro-IRA terrorist bullshit, might be a touch more accurate. Basically there was a pro-terrorism march, in which someone started firing a handgun, and in response the military fired a few shots. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that pretty much demonstrates a) where your own bias lies, and b)how little you know about this event, being wrong on all three of your claims about the it. Either way, there seems little constructive use for you here. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point for me. You are quick to recognise and comment on the obvious bias of my statement on this talk page, however you expect me to accept the crap that is put on this article, which is so obviously biased. I shall not lose any sleep over it, NI is still part of the UK, that is not going to change, even if a wikipedia article cries about how nasty the English were a few decades ago. Sennen goroshi (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would urge you to actually read something on this event - your understanding of the background to it and the actual events are not matched by the reality. There are many offline and online places where you can verifiy the accuracy of what is in this article. I would start by reading about civil rights and internment in Northern Ireland before the march. The irony is that the IRA didn't become much of a force until after Bloody Sunday. I am from the city and it is well documented that there were scores of young men who signed up for the IRA after this event. I don't intend to get into a troll conversation - this is just my best advice in as polite a way as I can put it. Kind regards SeanMack (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would advise editors to not feed the trolls. BigDunc^Talk 12:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[18:40:52] Dave says: This may be useful, as even the British government accepts that the people killed were unarmed. "In December 1992 the Prime Minister John Major wrote to SDLP leader John Hume saying: "The government made clear in 1974 that those who were killed on 'Bloody Sunday' should be regarded as innocent of any allegation that they were shot whilst handling firearms or explosives. I hope that the families of those who died will accept that assurance". Any more objections? Domer48_'fenian' 17:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Expanded background

I've always felt the background section didn't quite cover enough of the history for the casual unfamiliar reader. I wrote a short paragraph to cover the root of the strife, ever so briefly, which I'd like to add. If anyone objects or thinks changes are necessary, let me know, but I really don't want to go into detail, just sum it up briefly:

Factional violence had become commonplace in Northern Ireland in an era that would be known as The Troubles. The root of the strife was the controversial Partition of Ireland in 1923, after which the primarily Protestant area of Northern Ireland remained a part of the United Kingdom while the rest of the island eventually became an independent republic. By the late 1960s, elements of the primarily Roman Catholic nationalist population of Northern Ireland and the primarily Protestant unionists were openly fighting one another, the chief agents being the Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Ulster Volunteer Force. Derry (whose very name was in contention, being referred to as Londonderry by unionists), situated near the border and having a Catholic majority, saw some of the greatest violence of this period.

This is obviously very basic stuff for anyone who takes part in these talk page discussions, but the target audience is the neophyte. If I oversimplified to the point of error, please correct me. -R. fiend (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Was the root of the strife in the late 1960s not civil rights? The Partition of Ireland in 1923 created the conditions for strife I agree, but 1972 the demand was one man one vote not a republic. Was it not also the case that there were members of the Protestant community in the cicil rights movement? The terms Nationalist and Unionist is also a better term to use as not all catholics were Nationalist. This is just my opinion. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The march in question was about civil rights, but I think the Troubles in general goes beyond that. My main pint is that one cannot understand the root of the strife if one does not know that Ireland was controversially partitioned, largely along religious lines, and the article doesn't really make that clear. We can probably assume people are aware of this fact without mentioning it directly, but we really shouldn't make assumptions; this isn't an upper level textbook. I do think that this article should go more into the question of civil rights, and explain just what the march was about, who organized it, what the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association was, and other such information, but that should go at the end of the background section, right before it goes into the narrative of events (which also needs work). If you think a sentence on the rights of the Catholic minority in the north is necessary for the paragraph above, that's fine with me, as long as its brief and NPOV. -R. fiend (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Since there are no real objections, I'm going to add this paragraph. If anyone thinks civil rights needs to be mentioned, feel free to add it, though I think it should probably go in the next paragraph, which brings up more specific grievances, particularly in relation to the march. -R. fiend (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"The root of the strife was the controversial Partition of Ireland in 1923" is a legitimate interpretation of the causes of the troubles, and one widely held in Nationalist and Republican circles, but I'm not sure it should be presented as it is in this article as an incontestable fact. There are plenty of people, mainly of a Unionist persuasion, who would argue that far from being a cause of conflict partition was a good thing that kept Ireland at relative peace for decades. JimmyGuano (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there really any doubt that partition lay at the heart of this violence throughout this period? If someone argues that partition prevented greater violence of a different nature, I guess that's their prerogative, but that seems to be a separate issue, more or less, as well as a counter-factual that would be quite difficult to prove. -R. fiend (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the conflict was about the post-partition status of Northern Ireland, but that is different to saying that "partition was the cause of the conflict", which is a matter for debate and seems to be what the current wording is at least suggesting (perhaps inadvertently). There was conflict in Northern Ireland before partition, and partition is still in place after (most) violence has ceased. JimmyGuano (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really following. You say that the conflict was the about partition, but partition didn't cause it? If there's a difference, it seems pretty minimal to me, and not worth making too much of a fuss over, but if you want to alter the phrasing suggest something. Keep in mind that saying the conflict was a result of partition does not imply that there would not have been conflict otherwise, nor that only the end of partition could end the conflict. -R. fiend (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a minimal difference though. One of the key republican and nationalist arguments (used, for example, by Gerry Adams in Free Ireland: towards a lasting peace) is that the conflict was caused by partition, therefore the only solution can be getting rid of partition. This is obviously rejected by people who support partition (which at the moment includes the majority of people in Northern Ireland) who argue that the problem is the refusal of some nationalists to accept that most people in Northern Ireland want to remain a part of the UK. All I'm saying is that the phrase "The root of the strife was the controversial Partition of Ireland in 1923" does seem to imply support for the former argument when it is obviously important for the article to remain neutral to it. Could it not just be cut down to something like "The Partition of Ireland in 1923 had separated Northern Ireland, whose population had a Protestant and Unionist majority and which remained a part of the United Kingdom, from the rest of the island whose population was primarily Catholic and Nationalist and which eventually became an independent republic." thus removing the suggestion that partition was the problem (while not asserting that is wasn't, either).

There does need to be some mention of civil rights here too I think. There is a unionist argument that the civil rights movement wasn't actually about civil rights at all but was just a pretext for republican agitation, and it's important that the article doesn't implicitly suggest this through not mentioning the subject that the marchers were supposed to be marching about. I think most observers would agree that the behaviour of the Northern Irish state was at least as important as the existance of the Northern Irish state in the birth of the Troubles.

JimmyGuano (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's POV to say that the root of the strife was partition (one could equally argue that partition was the result of the strife). It's also not sourced. And, finally, partition was in 1921, not 1923. Mooretwin (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the date (well spotted). As for the root of the strife, well, the argument that if partition led to the violence then only the end of partition can end it is a non sequitur, and an argument made nowhere in the article. I don't see how one can say the phrasing endorses that view. To be honest, I was unaware that the idea that partition of Ireland was the catalyst for The Troubles was in any way a controversial statement. If someone wants to argue that violence between Unionists and nationalists caused partition, rather than vice versa, they would have to be able to point to substantial violence between those two groups prior to 1921. Was there any? The phrasing Jimmy suggested would be okay except that rather than "cutting it down" it makes it about 4 times as long, and it says nothing about partition in relation to the violence, which is fine I guess if you believe the two weren't related, but I'm not convinced that's not a fringe view. Furthermore, if Partition was not at the root of the factional violence, then what was? The behavior of the Northern Irish state is a direct result of its existence, so Partition lies at the root of that as well. The article currently doesn't seem to imply that partition necessitated violence, nor that there weren't other factors. I'm certainly open to other phrasing, but I think partition still needs to be mentioned in order to understand the situation. I'd also like the keep the paragraph rather succinct, as it's meant to be a brief background for those who don't know anything about the period. Finally, I fully agree that there should be more said about civil rights, as well as the alleged purpose of the march. That's a separate issue, however, dealing more with the march and the period immediately preceding it, rather than a summation of the history of the North. -R. fiend (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The claim about partition is unsourced and so I have added a citation tag. The claim will have to go eventually if no-one can find a reliable source to support it. (As to the point that partition cannot have been a result of strife because there was no violence between unionists and nationalists before partition ... first, the absence of violence doesn't mean there was no (political) strife; and second, maybe you ought to familiarise yourself with the history of Ireland and of Ulster prior to 1921: unionist and nationalist militias were formed in 1912 and 1913; there were regularly sectarian riots in Belfast during the 19th and early 20th centuries; ever heard of the 1641 massacre?; Defenders and Peep o'Day Boys ...) Mooretwin (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about violence, not political strife (I should have specified). Sure, militias were formed several years prior, but they never fought one another, and that wasn't their aim. And going back 300 years to cite violence as a cause for partition seems a bit of a stretch. Sectarian riots in Belfast is relevant, I'll admit, but I don't think you can argue that that in itself was a significant reason for partition of the island. If partition did not lie at the heart of the Troubles, then what did? The Troubles article says (without a source) "The principal issues at stake in the Troubles were the constitutional status of Northern Ireland [a direct result of partition, hence supporting the notion that partition was a catalyst] and the relationship between the mainly-Protestant Unionist and mainly-Catholic Nationalist communities in Northern Ireland." I'm just looking for a brief overview of the history in order to help the uninformed reader fully understand Bloody Sunday, which I think is not possible without somehow mentioning partition. If the current phrasing is an oversimplification, then I'm more than happy to look at alternatives, but I don't think simply snipping out a sentence or two is the way to go. Suggestions? -R. fiend (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Number of protesters shot

The opening section of the article currently has a sentence about the number of protesters shot by Army forces.

Per the cited source http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bsunday/deadinj.htm, the number of fatalities/injuries due to military gunfire seems to be 26 (discounting those injured by means other than gunfire), not 27. However, this figure varies greatly between sources – this BBC article states that 13 died and 17 were wounded by gunfire, which would place the figure to 30 (assuming that all of those deaths were as a result of gunfire), and this other BBC article states that 14 were killed (including Johnston) and 14 suffered gunshot injuries, placing the figure at 28.

Essentially, different sources dispute which fatalities and casualties were as a result of gunfire and which were due to other reasons. It seems to me that unless there is an authoritative on the number of casualties due to gunfire, then the sentence should probably be reworded to remove the figure (...in which 27 civil rights activists were shot... → ...in which a number of civil rights activists were shot...) to avoid an unverifiable assertion. Thoughts? haz (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For all its faults, I do not think anyone disputes Widgery's report as regards those named as the 13 killed on the day and the 13 injured. The latter, of course, includes John Johnson, and I think this is where the confusion often lies. Essentially, as many people were killed as injured on the same day, but knowing that the final attributed death toll was 14, some might assume that the total shot was 28 (i.e. 14 + 14), not 26 (i.e. 13 + 13). There may also be confusion if a "total injured" includes those run down by army vehicles, which may exlain the error in the BBC piece. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, indeed! I'll reflink the cited figure to the existing Widgery reference. Thanks. haz (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Domer48

Domer48, as an experienced editor, you should know as well as anyone else that the way to request citations is to add {{fact}} tags, not to delete the material and simply object in the edit summary, no doubt passing many other editors by. From memory, most of these "disputed" details have been clearly established in previous publications, although I do not have mine to hand at the moment, and so cannot get the cites myself. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To me the additions look dubious especially the conclusion being drawn about "Donaghey" (sic). O Fenian (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Take William Noel Nash, the addition says he was shot twice in the chest. CAIN says he was killed by a single shot to the chest. I applaud the removal of this Jackanory information. O Fenian (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As an experienced editor I don't add unsourced text to articles. I insure that I have the information referenced before I add it. The policies I stick to would include WP:V and WP:RS. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.

I hope that explains my edits, and thanks O Fenian for your comments --Domer48_'fenian' 13:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - much of the material was so familiar that I mistakenly assumed that it had been on the page for some time; looking back through the edit summary, I now see it has been added only recently. However, I think at least some of it should be reinstated in one form or another, e.g. currently we have no mention of William Nash's father (Alexander Nash) being wounded near him. There is the draft narrative that I wrote earlier in the year (User:Nick_Cooper/Sandbox), which I think should be incorporated, but I didn't want to make such a large addition unilaterally, and last time I flagged it up there was no comment on its suitability. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

facts still being withheld

I cannot believe after all this time editors have not rectified the missing facts of this article, one of which is the fact the march was illegal, it is not good enough to stick a mention that marches were banned deep into the piece but should be at the start, I have rectified that, if it is removed anyone reading this article will know it for a prime example as to why educators have banned Wikipedia as a research tool.Twobells (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Udate: re-reading the previous discussions I feel I have to expand on the reason why the fact that the march was banned has to be in the first paragraph, no-one is suggesting that the punishment for rioting is execution (such comments are both facetious and malicious) but the entirety of the day action's led from this fact.Twobells (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The First Shot

Why is there no mention of Martin McGuiness sub machinegun shots? Evidence that was admitted to the Saville Enquiry by Dutch Intelligence. Check here That evidence alone puts the day into a very different light and should be entered. Just because Mr McGuiness and an ex-MI5 officer with a grudge doesn't like it doesn't make it wrongTwobells (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no "evidence" other than that a paid informer claimed that McGuinness told him that this took place. McGuinness himself denies it, and no eyewitnesses who claim to have actually seen this alleged event themselves have come forward. The major problem with this allegation is that it puts McGuinness in the Rossville Flats, firing at the Paras as they came in, but even if it were true, they would not actually have been the "first" shot/s on the day. As per the narrative, just before 16:00 and in response to youths throwing stones and bottles, the Paras in the buildings overlooking William Street opened fire, hitting Damien Donaghy and John Johnston. They (the Paras) then reported at least one incoming high velocity round, apparently aimed at their positions. It was only at around 16:09 that the Paras went through the barriers, but it was only after "Lieutenent N" fired warning shots over a "hostile crowd" in Chamberlain Street that more shots are claimed to have been fired at the Paras. By definition, the high velocity shot reported in William Street could not have been a (low velocity) Thompson, quite apart from the fact that at the range, nobody in the Rossville flats could have expected to hit anything in William Street. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Irrespective of the above, McGuinness and his henchmen were there on the day and prepared to fire on British troops. This just shows the mentality of these people who would put the lives of innocent civilians in jeopardy simply to make a name for themselves. McGuiness always stated later that he regretted what had occurred on that day, a regret he will carry to the grave. --87.115.167.228 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the fact that the IRA - both the Offcials and the Provisional - had officially withdrawn from the immediate area on the day at the request of the march organisers. What sporadic and ineffectual shots that were fired at the military were the unauthorised actions of individuals after and in reaction to the army opening fire. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Narrative of events

I have amended the text slightly and added a link to Narrative of events of Bloody Sunday (1972), which is now a live page. As mentioned previously above, I wrote this some time ago and welcomed comments, but few if any were forthcoming. The priciple aim was the put the events reported in Widgerey into proper chronological order, with the addition of a few details that were not included in his Report. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The singular form of the verb "to be" in the past tense

Should surely be used with a singular noun, such as "pair". If so, this edit ought to be reverted.

Dictionary.com:

pair  /pɛər/

–noun

1. two identical, similar, or corresponding things that are matched for use together: a pair of gloves; a pair of earrings.

2. something consisting of or regarded as having two parts or pieces joined together: a pair of scissors; a pair of slacks.

3. two individuals who are similar or in some way associated: a pair of liars; a pair of seal pups.

4. a married, engaged, or dating couple.

5. two mated animals.

6. a span or team: a pair of horses.

7. Government. a. two members on opposite sides in a deliberative body who for convenience, as to permit absence, arrange together to forgo voting on a given occasion. b. the arrangement thus made.

8. Cards. a. two playing cards of the same denomination without regard to suit or color. b. pairs, two card players who are matched together against different contestants.

9. pairs. pair skating.

10. Also called kinematic pair. Mechanics. two parts or pieces so connected that they mutually constrain relative motion.

11. Philately. two postage stamps joined together either vertically or horizontally.

12. a set or combination of more than two objects forming a collective whole: a pair of beads.

Mooretwin (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is "pair were" in English, or "pair was" in American English. It was unwittingly changed to American English by an American editor, I changed it back to the correct English. O Fenian (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"It is "pair were" in English, or "pair was" in American English": says who? Mooretwin (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Common usage. O Fenian (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Source to Saville inquiry

Hello, where can i find a source for when the saville inquiry is bound to be finished?84.217.11.72 (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Seamus Heaney

The Poem Casualty is not about Bloody Sunday, as such it has been removed. The person who died in that poem was killed by loyalist paramilitaries by a bomb (hence the phrase 'blown to bits') in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday (in the poem it is assumed that he was killed by the IRA, however). Said person was called Louis O'Neill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.17.145 (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I changed the inforbox to include the time the shooting began but it just appears in the date line. Can someone please fix this then tell me how you did it on my talk page so I know for future reference, thanks. EarthCom1000 (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not so important but my external link just appears as a 2 in square brackets. Any ideas? EarthCom1000 (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)