Talk:Martin McGuinness

IRA or PIRA

There is some dispute over the use of the name IRA or PIRA. The Provisional IRA are no more the PIRA and the Official IRA are the OIRA. You either refer to them as the Provisional IRA or the IRA. This has been confirmed to me by a member of Sinn Féin. I note that PIRA is used in some cases to distinguish the group but in this case it is clear that the Provisional IRA is the group refered to and there is no need for the incorrect - PIRA. Some might feel this is a pedanticism of the organisation itself and is not relevant - fair enough! Also, the use of the word "volunteers" was removed. Elsewhere on Wikipedia the term is used. There are inconsistencies. Again, people might feel it is a pedanticism of the group and is POV but calling IRA members "volunteers" is not incorrent. That is what they call themselves & that is what they are. Why shouldn't the term be used? I also do not agree with the piece abve ("Nice example of why..."). What do government papers say about McGuinness? Probably not much we don't already know about it. There is plenty of stuff on McGuinness out there. He's lived much of his life through politics and consequently has been in the public eye. Also, there are 1 or 2 very good histories of the IRA available. McGuinness's role in the organisation is well documented. 02:39, 2 October 2005

Synthesis and false narrative

Recently several existing sentences were changed;

• In response, McGuinness said the statements were "fantasy", while Gearóid Ó hEára (formerly Gerry O'Hara), a Derry Sinn Féin councillor, stated that he and not Ward was the Fianna leader at the time

This was changed to;

• The terrorist act, injured at least 26 people and cast real doubt on Gearóid Ó hEára (formerly Gerry O'Hara), a Derry Sinn Féin councillor, statement that it was he and not Ward who was the Fianna leader at the time, the "incendary footage" of McGuinness proves that the Inquiry was misled

The second sentence originially read;

• The inquiry concluded that, although McGuinness was "engaged in paramilitary activity" at the time of Bloody Sunday and had probably been armed with a Thompson submachine gun, there was insufficient evidence to make any finding other than they were "sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire"

This was changed to;

• The inquiry, based on the evidence available at the time, concluded that although McGuinness was "engaged in paramilitary activity" at the time of Bloody Sunday and had probably been armed with a Thompson submachine gun, there was insufficient evidence to make any finding other than they were "sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire"

There isn't any dispute McGuinness was in the IRA at the time. But you can't use the existence of a film made several weeks after Bloody Sunday (1972) to try and cast doubt on the findings of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, especially one that involves ignoring the existing narrative. Martin McGuinness's own testimony to the Bloody Sunday inquiry has him admitting IRA involvement and the IRA's bombing campaign against businesses in Derry, so this "new" video from 1972, filmed after Bloody Sunday, doesn't change anything. Kathleen's bike (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You've missed the point. The army were saying he was in possession of a bomb and that is why they opened fire on Bloody Sunday. McGuinness fooled the Inquiry, denying that bomb making was his role. In March 1972, he was filmed loading a live bomb that injured 26 people in Derry. In 1973, he was jailed for carrying explosives in the Republic.

He was doing exactly what the army accused him of doing and all the evidence proved it. An inquiry 30 years after the event can't reach the truth when the main protagonist is willing to lie and cheat and had blood on his hands. The damning evidence on celluloid only came to light, years after the Inquiry had ended.

Editors are not here to protect reputations, when the evidence fairly points to criminality. Jaymailsays (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Total nonsense. The British Army's justification for shooting people on Bloody Sunday is that they were gunmen or nail bombers. But since Martin McGuinness wasn't one of those shot, your own claims are totally and utterly irrelevant. Kathleen's bike (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Not my claims, they mostly came from the BBC's in depth investigation. The Inquiry said McGuinness was likely holding a gun, when the protesters were shot. We as editors are supposed to edit in a neutral way. Man holding a gun, facing a trained army! Expect to be shot at and risk your comrades dying in front of you, which is exactly what happened. Jaymailsays (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No, your claims. The BBC investigation (which wasn't anything to do with Bloody Sunday, but the history of the unconnected film made shortly after it) can be seen at this link. It makes no mention of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, it makes no mention of Martin McGuinness in connection with Bloody Sunday. The claims are yours, and therefore are not going to be added to this or any other article. Kathleen's bike (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The video shot by an American news crew has everything to do with the historical era that McGuinness was involved in, before, during and post Bloody Sunday. You may be uncomfortable with the BBC's broadcast, but that is not a reason to attempt to remove evidence that McGuinness was a convicted explosives courier.

The non-living bio profile is about McGuinness and not specifically "The Troubles". Jaymailsays (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

His 1973 conviction in relating to explosives was in the article before you edited it, and it remains in the article now. The rest of your post is irrelevant, you can either provide sources that actually support the text you wish to add to the article or your proposed text will not be added. Kathleen's bike (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Claims of 14 protesters killed during Bloody Sunday not supported in official report.

https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/hmso/widgery.htm#appendixa

13 recorded as dead and not 14. Jaymailsays (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It's glaringly obvious to anyone with even a basic knowledge of Bloody Sunday that John Johnston wouldn't be classed as being killed in the Widgery report. Kathleen's bike (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources such as the BBC and Guardian give the death toll as 13, this seems to be a widely accepted figure. The discrepancy occurs because John Johnston died four months later. Also, Johnston was not a civil rights protester attending the march as the article says, he was shot accidentally.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

12 3

The widely accepted figure is 14 and has been for quite a while, as @Kathleen's bike said it's rather clear why he wouldn't be listed in the Widgery report or BBC.

"Also, Johnston was not a civil rights protester attending the march as the article says, he was shot accidentally." -> I suggest reading the Saville Report, most of the people involved in the protest and shot by the soldiers were locals attending the protest or living in the area since they were the protestors, also any claims of being "shot accidentally" aren't relevant given the context. Galdrack (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)