![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The Sutton Index of Deaths on CAIN (widely regarded as a reliable source) states that John McKerr was shot by unknown attackers (not the Brits) as he stood outside the Catholic church. It also states that a gunfight took place on August 9th. Why, User:Vintagekits, am I being prevented from correcting this? ~Asarlaí 17:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Every time discussions about victims lists have come up, the general consensus has always been that they add no encyclopedic information. They don't help the reader to understand the event, they serve no purpose. But rather than removing the victims list here, I would first like to ask if anyone can provide a justification for retaining it?-- Oneill1921 ( talk) 12:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Oneill1921
The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru ( talk) 13:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Ballymurphy Massacre →
Ballymurphy massacre – Sentence case as recommended by
WP:NCCAPS. Article title was originally ‘Ballymurphy massacre' but was renamed, apparently without explanation, soon after creation. Cannot be moved without intervention due to history (redirect categorisation) in the original page, but the name may be controversial anyway. Most sources that use the name appear to use lower-case ‘massacre’, eg
Belfast Telegraph,
Guardian/
Observer,
UTV. Some sources treat it as a proper name and use upper-case ‘Massacre’, eg
Morning Star. The BBC uses both forms (
lower case example,
upper case example) but mostly doesn't use the word ‘massacre’. The campaigning website
ballymurphymassacre.com uses upper-case ‘Massacre’, even in phrases like ‘The Massacre’. Lower case appears to be consistent with most similarly-named Wikipedia articles, eg
Loughinisland massacre,
Greysteel massacre,
Kingsmill massacre.
Andy Smith (
talk)
17:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
since this is making the rounds in the media is it relevant to bring up the skull ashtray — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.23.250 ( talk) 18:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Guliolopez, i couldn't remember where I had seen "unknown sniper", I remembered it as being a journalistic source and remembered it as ALSO being clear that the term simply was being used to mean "gunman at a distance" and thus excluding neither army nor paramilitary - that was the sense in which I used it, although I understand it might inadvertently imply either paramilitary or soldier deliberately placed to kill people.
In fact CAIN uses "unknown sniper", though I am not wedded to the term if another way of describing WHY it is and was a problem to identify who was responsible - the distance largely. I don't object either to your new wording, there is a balance here between recording the 'widely-held views', while giving precedence to the latest inquest verdict, ie not trying to re-try or cast doubt on the inquest evidence or verdict. Pincrete ( talk) 11:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Pincrete, re: this edit, I added that detail in yesterday – it's essentially a rewritten lift of the contextual introduction that the Guardian's article provides (3rd para). I felt it added useful information for readers coming to this article directly (rather than from other articles on the Troubles) as it helps set out the context of republican grievances about unfair treatment in the operation, which I think is relevant and important context to the event. I disagree with the removal, but I don't feel strongly enough to revert if you see things differently, I just thought I'd explain my rationale for its inclusion and see what your take is. As an aside, I was conflicted about adding a mention of the destruction of homes and "thousands" of refugees produced by the operation – which the Guardian also mentions – as I felt that it conveyed the disorderly, violent nature of the operation, but I ultimately opted to exclude it as I thought it was more to do with the aftermath of the broader operation than the narrower scope of this article. Jr8825 • Talk 13:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The Sutton Index of Deaths on CAIN (widely regarded as a reliable source) states that John McKerr was shot by unknown attackers (not the Brits) as he stood outside the Catholic church. It also states that a gunfight took place on August 9th. Why, User:Vintagekits, am I being prevented from correcting this? ~Asarlaí 17:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Every time discussions about victims lists have come up, the general consensus has always been that they add no encyclopedic information. They don't help the reader to understand the event, they serve no purpose. But rather than removing the victims list here, I would first like to ask if anyone can provide a justification for retaining it?-- Oneill1921 ( talk) 12:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Oneill1921
The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru ( talk) 13:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Ballymurphy Massacre →
Ballymurphy massacre – Sentence case as recommended by
WP:NCCAPS. Article title was originally ‘Ballymurphy massacre' but was renamed, apparently without explanation, soon after creation. Cannot be moved without intervention due to history (redirect categorisation) in the original page, but the name may be controversial anyway. Most sources that use the name appear to use lower-case ‘massacre’, eg
Belfast Telegraph,
Guardian/
Observer,
UTV. Some sources treat it as a proper name and use upper-case ‘Massacre’, eg
Morning Star. The BBC uses both forms (
lower case example,
upper case example) but mostly doesn't use the word ‘massacre’. The campaigning website
ballymurphymassacre.com uses upper-case ‘Massacre’, even in phrases like ‘The Massacre’. Lower case appears to be consistent with most similarly-named Wikipedia articles, eg
Loughinisland massacre,
Greysteel massacre,
Kingsmill massacre.
Andy Smith (
talk)
17:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
since this is making the rounds in the media is it relevant to bring up the skull ashtray — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.23.250 ( talk) 18:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Guliolopez, i couldn't remember where I had seen "unknown sniper", I remembered it as being a journalistic source and remembered it as ALSO being clear that the term simply was being used to mean "gunman at a distance" and thus excluding neither army nor paramilitary - that was the sense in which I used it, although I understand it might inadvertently imply either paramilitary or soldier deliberately placed to kill people.
In fact CAIN uses "unknown sniper", though I am not wedded to the term if another way of describing WHY it is and was a problem to identify who was responsible - the distance largely. I don't object either to your new wording, there is a balance here between recording the 'widely-held views', while giving precedence to the latest inquest verdict, ie not trying to re-try or cast doubt on the inquest evidence or verdict. Pincrete ( talk) 11:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Pincrete, re: this edit, I added that detail in yesterday – it's essentially a rewritten lift of the contextual introduction that the Guardian's article provides (3rd para). I felt it added useful information for readers coming to this article directly (rather than from other articles on the Troubles) as it helps set out the context of republican grievances about unfair treatment in the operation, which I think is relevant and important context to the event. I disagree with the removal, but I don't feel strongly enough to revert if you see things differently, I just thought I'd explain my rationale for its inclusion and see what your take is. As an aside, I was conflicted about adding a mention of the destruction of homes and "thousands" of refugees produced by the operation – which the Guardian also mentions – as I felt that it conveyed the disorderly, violent nature of the operation, but I ultimately opted to exclude it as I thought it was more to do with the aftermath of the broader operation than the narrower scope of this article. Jr8825 • Talk 13:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)