Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Censorship of external reliable source links

I don't know how I missed it, but on 17th January, [this link] [a link] to Hansard (the official record of debates in the British Parliament) and to a list of other publications that mention Soldier F's name was removed from this page. This includes the official record of Dáil Éireann, the Irish parliament, and, at the very least, to a Village Magazine article that names Soldier F and others. I am sorry, that is a huge over-reach of oversight powers, including WP:OSPOL. Sure, Identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public may be redacted from Wikipedia; but redaction of links to external WP:RS? No way, no how. WP:NOTCENSORED. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Bastun As you're aware we've already extensively gone through this, both in the RfC above and at BLPN. I would direct you to Barkeep's comment from 03:15, 18 January 2023 as well as the earlier ones in that thread on the applicability of OSPOL in this instance.
Because the BLP policy operates on a principle of least harm, that Soldier F's name has been intentionally concealed is a large factor in the applicability of WP:BLPNAME. As the RfC above found that there was no consensus that BLPNAME does not apply, and BLP operates under a principle of least harm, it is generally accepted that it does apply. And because BLPNAME applies, OSPOL#1 applies.
In the future, I strongly urge you to contact the oversight team or ArbCom directly, instead of making another talk page discussion about this, as this is clearly not an appropriate topic to discuss on the article talk page, in this manner. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
And I urge you to respect talk page guidelines. Do not edit my comments! I did not disclose Soldier F's name, I linked to the record of a parliamentary debate! This one! It beggars belief that you, or anyone, would try to censor a link to that, or any, trusted and respected reliable source! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I redacted the link as a BLPNAME violation per what was the standard procedure around the time of the RfC. Once again, BLPNAME applies to Soldier F, and my understanding is that includes links to sources that mention his name. As multiple admins stated in the BLPN discussion, BLP is a much stronger policy in this instance than NOTCENSORED and so takes precedence over it. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I might also suggest searching twitter for 'Soldier F' - there are a lot of results from the past 24 hours (which is what prompted me to look again at this article!) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Twitter is not a reliable source. I'll remind you of a comment I made at 00:25, 10 October 2022 in the RfC above, Soldier F's name is an open secret within Northern Ireland. That he was named in Hansard, or that people are currently posting it on Twitter, doesn't actually make the name a revelation to me.
What matters to me is being compliant with our BLP policy, specifically WP:BLPNAME. The RfC from October 2022-January 2023 found that there was no consensus that BLPNAME does not apply to Soldier F, and in the absence of consensus that it does not apply because the BLP policy operates under a principle of least harm, BLPNAME continues to apply.
Within the realm of reliable sources, and not Twitter drama, has there been any changes with regards to Soldier F's name no longer being subject to reporting restrictions? From what I can tell, aside from the hearings resuming about a week ago, there hasn't been any significant changes. The trial is ongoing, so Soldier F has yet to be either convicted or acquitted. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The RfC was about whether Soldier F's name should be given on the page, it wasn't a decision to also censor the references to Hansard and Village Voice where Dave's full name is given. Mztourist ( talk) 03:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Exactly! To be absolutely clear, while obviously I disagree with the outcome of the RfC, I have and will continue to respect the outcome. This includes not re-adding Dave/Soldier F's full name to this article, or to its talk page, or to the Village Magazine article, where it had been available for several months. But WP:BLPNAME does not in any way extend to censoring links to completely external sites - especially to ones of such standing as official records of parliamentary debates. Again, these are not scandal or gossip sheets, they are sources of the highest repute. I mean - where would one draw the line? Yes, reductio ad absurdem, but do we block links to Google?! And of course, the fact that Soldier F was named in both the British and Irish parliaments was also widely reported in the press. I have been using this site for over 15 years, and have never come across such a situation before. Frankly, I'm appalled that anyone would think it acceptable to censor Wikipedia in this way. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Respectfully, it seems as though your main problem here is the interpretation of OSPOL#1 and how it interacts with BLPNAME outside of the article space. That isn't something that can be resolved at the article level. As that's something that effects multiple articles, including this one, it's something that's likely best discussed at either Wikipedia talk:Oversight or WP:ARCA. Or maybe WP:BLPN. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, the issue is that this doesn't seem to affect multiple articles. This seems to apply only to this article and Soldier F specifically. Cortador ( talk) 20:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply
"reporting restrictions", is that not a euphemism for censorship? Cashew.wheel ( talk) 21:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
It's standard terminology in UK court proceedings. And it's also part of the WP:BLPNAME policy point; When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context (emphasis mine). Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes. "Often preferable" - not "Always mandatory that" - and nowhere in that quoted policy does it also say "it is often preferable to omit it, and to also remove links to external reliable sources where it is mentioned."
"Reporting restrictions" is indeed standard terminology and the practice of same is - as outlined in the linked document - par for the course in British (and Irish) courts. But that's for trials involving minors, and/or victims/complainants/witnesses in trials involving sex crimes, FGM, etc. Reporting restrictions by injunction or super-injunction for other reasons are exceedingly rare. And again, even if such injunctions applied to Wikipedia (they don't), that still wouldn't prevent Wikipedia linking to external sites such as Hansard, the record of the Oireachtas, or Village Magazine.
I take your point that this is possibly better discussed at an alternate venue, but this is where I first noticed this censorship, and so I raised it here. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Didn't Barkeep49, an arb and oversighter, redact links such as these in the above RfC thread? I'm struggling to see the difference. DeCausa ( talk) 07:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah! Just realised that's what you're complaining about in your OP. Maybe Barkeep49 should comment anyway. DeCausa ( talk) 07:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Oversight policy says that a reason for oversight is Identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. It has been the historical practice of the oversight team that Soldier F met this criteria. At the moment the oversight team is discussing whether this criteria still applies, and if so how. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Which would explain why Soldier F's name might be removed from article or talk space, in the absence of consensus on whether BLPNAME applies. I honestly cannot see how that would extend to redacting links to external sites, especially when those sites are themselves WP:RS including official government sites and mainstream media publications. Is the discussion private, or can anyone see what's being said? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree with Bastun, the RFC was whether or not Dave/Soldier F's full name should be included, not whether or not links to Hansard and Village Voice should be suppressed. User:Barkeep49 you have overreached in the application of oversight policy. Mztourist ( talk) 03:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Barkeep49 is not the sole oversighter responsible for the various actions taken relating to this situation. As mentioned the Oversight Team is (internally) discussing the matter. Primefac ( talk) 06:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks Barkeep49 and Primefac, just so as you are aware (and for when you complete your discussions) there is an unredacted/unoversighted link in this thread to an external source naming the individual. DeCausa ( talk) 06:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, and hope you're well! About when does the oversight team expect to reach a decision? Are you all going to post it here? Can this decision be overturned or appealed (so to speak)? If so, at which venue and how should that happen (i.e. RfC)? Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 16:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Given that a) it is the weekend, and b) our internal discussions take place over email, I would not expect this to be resolved super-fast. Please be patient. There is no rush or need to resolve this quickly (though of course does not imply we are going to simply ignore the issue). Primefac ( talk) 16:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Not to rush you but to put everyone on the same page, which would
hopefully give the team a break. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 18:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

OS Team update

After discussion, the Oversight team agrees that the name does not need to be oversighted any longer under policy. However, use of the name without consensus to do so can (and will) still be treated like a BLP violation. As with other BLP issues this is true in all namespaces (e.g. articles and talk). Further, as a BLP violation certain uses may also be appropriate for revision deletion under that policy and editors who commit the violation can be sanctioned. To answer the inevitable question, there are no plans at this time to unsuppress previous uses of the name. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that. Can we take it, then, that there is now also no question of suppressing appropriate external links to where the name is mentioned, e.g., Hansard, the record of Oireachtas debates, and Village Magazine? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Without comment as to whether use of any of those sources would constitute a BLP violation if used, that's correct there is no plan at this time to suppress the links. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Given the above, I have added Hansard and the Village story as refs to the page. Mztourist ( talk) 08:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply
FYI I was in the UK last week and Googled Soldier F and the Village story and various pages with Dave's full name came out in the search, so it seems that Google may not be censoring search results (if indeed they were previously). Mztourist ( talk) 09:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Frankly, this entire situation has been incredibly ridiculous. I really have no idea why this of all things has caused such a tizzy with the OS team over the years. Significant coverage in reliable sources as well as the undeniable fact that everyone in Derry knows the dude’s name, not to mention what you’ve brought up of it being easily googleable in the UK all seems to point to the fact that there is no serious “harm” caused by linking to such sources or even (frankly) just saying his name. He’ll probably die of old age within a few years anyway! Paragon Deku ( talk) 08:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply

missing names

(Redacted). Why isn't it in the article? 2A00:1028:8390:C7F2:E0A8:443D:80B9:C02D ( talk) 18:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Read the multiple sections above. TL;dr version: there isn't consensus to include his name in the article. If Dave is convicted, it can certainly be included then, I would imagine. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Introduction of the term 'Soldier F'

I don't mean to start any new discussions about whether 'Soldier F' should be named; there seems to be no new consensus on that front. But the article does not actually introduce or define the term 'Soldier F' despite using it numerous times in important contexts. This is confusing. If we are going to use this term, in quotes no less, then it should be prominently explained (in whatever manner existing consensus allows).

I would add something myself, but given the previous lengthy debate I thought it best to raise the issue with editors more familiar with the issue. Rwbogl ( talk) 17:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I clarified the "Soldier F" definition in the bulletpoints under the Report subheading. Mztourist ( talk) 09:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Mztourist What was your edit? It seems to have been removed since, and "Soldier F" doesn't appear in the article body any more. Cortador ( talk) 07:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Cortador this change: [1], its still there. regards Mztourist ( talk) 07:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
My search messed up, my bad. Cheers! Cortador ( talk) 08:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

"Bogside Massacre" and number of fatalities

@ Ianmacm Can you assist?

@ Kathleen's bike insists on reversing edits. I explained why bogside massacre is superfluous to the lede, which should be both concise and not duplicated.

Bloody Sunday (1972) is universally known and not the alternative they have submitted.

"‎Both bogside and massacre in bold are superfluous in the lede when two links to both words are already present. 13 died on Bloody Sunday, not 14. This ties in with the Martin McGuinness page which has been updated to reflect accurately the deaths that occurred as a result of British soldiers opening fire. A further death four months later, from injuries is also recorded". Jaymailsays ( talk) 23:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

See guidance at WP:OTHERNAMES. The presence of two words, unconnected, in the sentence does not have the same effect. Kathleen's bike ( talk) 00:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
My two cents is that "Bogside massacre" is nowhere near being the WP:COMMONNAME for this incident. It probably doesn't need to be in the opening sentence. As for the death toll, it is not disputed that thirteen people died on the day of the incident; this is still regarded as the official death toll and is quoted by many sources. John Johnston died four months later and is widely regarded as the fourteenth victim. [2] The wording should make clear that thirteen people died on the day and Johnston died later.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Concur with Ianmacm - it's universally known as "Bloody Sunday", and "Bogside Massacre" is much rarer and isn't used again in the whole article. (>330,000 hits for "Bloody Sunday" +1972, versus 22,000 hits for "Bogside Massacre). Should not be in the lede sentence, might merit mention as an alternative name in the body. "The wording should make clear that thirteen people died on the day and Johnston died later" - yes, this. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES the question is whether it's a "significant" alternative name, not per se how it compares to "Bloody Sunday" in use. COMMONNAME is a different and inapplicable test and being "much rarer" than Bloody Sunday doesn't exclude it as an ALTNAME. I don't think there's any doubt that it's normally called Bloody Sunday. Having looked at Google Books, there were more references to "Bogside Massacre" than I was expecting. It's a marginal call, but I think it does just make it as a "significant alternative name". It's a redirect, so it's also helpful that anyone who gets to the article through that means immediately sees why. It's not as though there are a long list of alternatives cluttering the first sentence so I don't really see a pressing need to exclude it. DeCausa ( talk) 10:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
You may not personally see a pressing need to remove "bogside massacre" in bold, from the opening description but it is, at least in this discussion a minority view. The use of massacre is immotive and a term often used to further propaganda and it is rarely seen as neutral.
It is not disputed that armed individuals attended the protest and the military perceived they were under threat from, weapons, car bombs and nail bombs.
Had the leadership of both sides, simply withdrawn and dispersed from the area, probably there would have been no loss of life that awful day. Jaymailsays ( talk) 15:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
"Immotive"? [3] Do you mean emotive? That's neither here nor there. (And "Bloody Sunday" isn't emotive????) The only question is whether it's significantly used or not. I didn't realise you just didn't like it. That's absolutely no reason to remove it - and you'll notice no one else has argued that. You're in a minority of one (so far) on that. DeCausa ( talk) 15:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
And, Jailmailsays, the heading that you chose for this thread (Reporting Edit warring!) could be seen as a WP:PA so I've changed it to something that's more appropriate. I don't see any edit-warring. You WP:BOLDly edited, were reverted once and then you took it to Talk. That's exactly as it should be. No edit-warring. DeCausa ( talk) 10:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
If there are reliable sources for the name "Bogside massacre", we should probably include it somewhere. If it's not widely recognised enough to be used in the opening sentence, maybe put it later in the lead. I'm less concerned about the nuance around the number of casualties; it needs to be conveyed somewhere but if it makes the opening sentences too wordy the important bit is that 14 people were killed and we can make it clear as the lead goes on that #14 was a few months later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The BBC and the Guardian use shootings rather than massacre. The use of massacre is over used in the opening paragraph and throughout the Article. Where used it should be stated who used the term and in what context, in my view. Jaymailsays ( talk) 15:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia reporting that someone else has called something a massacre, especially if it become the common name, cf. Milltown massacre (redirect, bolded in the opening) or Hungerford massacre (article title) off the top of my head. We shouldn't call it such in Wikipedia's voice of course. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Bogside Massacre is widely used in news media and books, thus per guidance at WP:OTHERNAMES ("significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph"), it very much belongs where it is. Kathleen's bike ( talk) 15:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

About the names and victims: RTE Archives - Witness To Bogside Deaths 1972, RTE Archives - Remembering The Victims 1974. Both Irish sources. About the names: Het Parool 31-1-1972 (called "bloedbad", i.e. massacre in English) (Dutch source). I hope this helps. The Banner  talk 16:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Or the highly regarded A Treatise on Northern Ireland Volume 1 (Colonialism) by Brendan O'Leary, page 40 - Bloody Sunday is the only one of the events just described with significant numbers of civilian deaths to be commemorated as a massacre—it is sometimes called “the Bogside massacre.”. O'Leary is clearly a subject matter expert. Kathleen's bike ( talk) 17:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Bloody_Sunday_(1972)&oldid=1216908892"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Censorship of external reliable source links

I don't know how I missed it, but on 17th January, [this link] [a link] to Hansard (the official record of debates in the British Parliament) and to a list of other publications that mention Soldier F's name was removed from this page. This includes the official record of Dáil Éireann, the Irish parliament, and, at the very least, to a Village Magazine article that names Soldier F and others. I am sorry, that is a huge over-reach of oversight powers, including WP:OSPOL. Sure, Identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public may be redacted from Wikipedia; but redaction of links to external WP:RS? No way, no how. WP:NOTCENSORED. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Bastun As you're aware we've already extensively gone through this, both in the RfC above and at BLPN. I would direct you to Barkeep's comment from 03:15, 18 January 2023 as well as the earlier ones in that thread on the applicability of OSPOL in this instance.
Because the BLP policy operates on a principle of least harm, that Soldier F's name has been intentionally concealed is a large factor in the applicability of WP:BLPNAME. As the RfC above found that there was no consensus that BLPNAME does not apply, and BLP operates under a principle of least harm, it is generally accepted that it does apply. And because BLPNAME applies, OSPOL#1 applies.
In the future, I strongly urge you to contact the oversight team or ArbCom directly, instead of making another talk page discussion about this, as this is clearly not an appropriate topic to discuss on the article talk page, in this manner. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
And I urge you to respect talk page guidelines. Do not edit my comments! I did not disclose Soldier F's name, I linked to the record of a parliamentary debate! This one! It beggars belief that you, or anyone, would try to censor a link to that, or any, trusted and respected reliable source! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I redacted the link as a BLPNAME violation per what was the standard procedure around the time of the RfC. Once again, BLPNAME applies to Soldier F, and my understanding is that includes links to sources that mention his name. As multiple admins stated in the BLPN discussion, BLP is a much stronger policy in this instance than NOTCENSORED and so takes precedence over it. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I might also suggest searching twitter for 'Soldier F' - there are a lot of results from the past 24 hours (which is what prompted me to look again at this article!) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Twitter is not a reliable source. I'll remind you of a comment I made at 00:25, 10 October 2022 in the RfC above, Soldier F's name is an open secret within Northern Ireland. That he was named in Hansard, or that people are currently posting it on Twitter, doesn't actually make the name a revelation to me.
What matters to me is being compliant with our BLP policy, specifically WP:BLPNAME. The RfC from October 2022-January 2023 found that there was no consensus that BLPNAME does not apply to Soldier F, and in the absence of consensus that it does not apply because the BLP policy operates under a principle of least harm, BLPNAME continues to apply.
Within the realm of reliable sources, and not Twitter drama, has there been any changes with regards to Soldier F's name no longer being subject to reporting restrictions? From what I can tell, aside from the hearings resuming about a week ago, there hasn't been any significant changes. The trial is ongoing, so Soldier F has yet to be either convicted or acquitted. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The RfC was about whether Soldier F's name should be given on the page, it wasn't a decision to also censor the references to Hansard and Village Voice where Dave's full name is given. Mztourist ( talk) 03:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Exactly! To be absolutely clear, while obviously I disagree with the outcome of the RfC, I have and will continue to respect the outcome. This includes not re-adding Dave/Soldier F's full name to this article, or to its talk page, or to the Village Magazine article, where it had been available for several months. But WP:BLPNAME does not in any way extend to censoring links to completely external sites - especially to ones of such standing as official records of parliamentary debates. Again, these are not scandal or gossip sheets, they are sources of the highest repute. I mean - where would one draw the line? Yes, reductio ad absurdem, but do we block links to Google?! And of course, the fact that Soldier F was named in both the British and Irish parliaments was also widely reported in the press. I have been using this site for over 15 years, and have never come across such a situation before. Frankly, I'm appalled that anyone would think it acceptable to censor Wikipedia in this way. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Respectfully, it seems as though your main problem here is the interpretation of OSPOL#1 and how it interacts with BLPNAME outside of the article space. That isn't something that can be resolved at the article level. As that's something that effects multiple articles, including this one, it's something that's likely best discussed at either Wikipedia talk:Oversight or WP:ARCA. Or maybe WP:BLPN. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, the issue is that this doesn't seem to affect multiple articles. This seems to apply only to this article and Soldier F specifically. Cortador ( talk) 20:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply
"reporting restrictions", is that not a euphemism for censorship? Cashew.wheel ( talk) 21:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
It's standard terminology in UK court proceedings. And it's also part of the WP:BLPNAME policy point; When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context (emphasis mine). Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes. "Often preferable" - not "Always mandatory that" - and nowhere in that quoted policy does it also say "it is often preferable to omit it, and to also remove links to external reliable sources where it is mentioned."
"Reporting restrictions" is indeed standard terminology and the practice of same is - as outlined in the linked document - par for the course in British (and Irish) courts. But that's for trials involving minors, and/or victims/complainants/witnesses in trials involving sex crimes, FGM, etc. Reporting restrictions by injunction or super-injunction for other reasons are exceedingly rare. And again, even if such injunctions applied to Wikipedia (they don't), that still wouldn't prevent Wikipedia linking to external sites such as Hansard, the record of the Oireachtas, or Village Magazine.
I take your point that this is possibly better discussed at an alternate venue, but this is where I first noticed this censorship, and so I raised it here. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Didn't Barkeep49, an arb and oversighter, redact links such as these in the above RfC thread? I'm struggling to see the difference. DeCausa ( talk) 07:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Ah! Just realised that's what you're complaining about in your OP. Maybe Barkeep49 should comment anyway. DeCausa ( talk) 07:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Oversight policy says that a reason for oversight is Identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. It has been the historical practice of the oversight team that Soldier F met this criteria. At the moment the oversight team is discussing whether this criteria still applies, and if so how. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Which would explain why Soldier F's name might be removed from article or talk space, in the absence of consensus on whether BLPNAME applies. I honestly cannot see how that would extend to redacting links to external sites, especially when those sites are themselves WP:RS including official government sites and mainstream media publications. Is the discussion private, or can anyone see what's being said? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree with Bastun, the RFC was whether or not Dave/Soldier F's full name should be included, not whether or not links to Hansard and Village Voice should be suppressed. User:Barkeep49 you have overreached in the application of oversight policy. Mztourist ( talk) 03:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Barkeep49 is not the sole oversighter responsible for the various actions taken relating to this situation. As mentioned the Oversight Team is (internally) discussing the matter. Primefac ( talk) 06:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks Barkeep49 and Primefac, just so as you are aware (and for when you complete your discussions) there is an unredacted/unoversighted link in this thread to an external source naming the individual. DeCausa ( talk) 06:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, and hope you're well! About when does the oversight team expect to reach a decision? Are you all going to post it here? Can this decision be overturned or appealed (so to speak)? If so, at which venue and how should that happen (i.e. RfC)? Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 16:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Given that a) it is the weekend, and b) our internal discussions take place over email, I would not expect this to be resolved super-fast. Please be patient. There is no rush or need to resolve this quickly (though of course does not imply we are going to simply ignore the issue). Primefac ( talk) 16:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Not to rush you but to put everyone on the same page, which would
hopefully give the team a break. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 18:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

OS Team update

After discussion, the Oversight team agrees that the name does not need to be oversighted any longer under policy. However, use of the name without consensus to do so can (and will) still be treated like a BLP violation. As with other BLP issues this is true in all namespaces (e.g. articles and talk). Further, as a BLP violation certain uses may also be appropriate for revision deletion under that policy and editors who commit the violation can be sanctioned. To answer the inevitable question, there are no plans at this time to unsuppress previous uses of the name. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that. Can we take it, then, that there is now also no question of suppressing appropriate external links to where the name is mentioned, e.g., Hansard, the record of Oireachtas debates, and Village Magazine? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Without comment as to whether use of any of those sources would constitute a BLP violation if used, that's correct there is no plan at this time to suppress the links. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Given the above, I have added Hansard and the Village story as refs to the page. Mztourist ( talk) 08:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply
FYI I was in the UK last week and Googled Soldier F and the Village story and various pages with Dave's full name came out in the search, so it seems that Google may not be censoring search results (if indeed they were previously). Mztourist ( talk) 09:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Frankly, this entire situation has been incredibly ridiculous. I really have no idea why this of all things has caused such a tizzy with the OS team over the years. Significant coverage in reliable sources as well as the undeniable fact that everyone in Derry knows the dude’s name, not to mention what you’ve brought up of it being easily googleable in the UK all seems to point to the fact that there is no serious “harm” caused by linking to such sources or even (frankly) just saying his name. He’ll probably die of old age within a few years anyway! Paragon Deku ( talk) 08:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC) reply

missing names

(Redacted). Why isn't it in the article? 2A00:1028:8390:C7F2:E0A8:443D:80B9:C02D ( talk) 18:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Read the multiple sections above. TL;dr version: there isn't consensus to include his name in the article. If Dave is convicted, it can certainly be included then, I would imagine. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Introduction of the term 'Soldier F'

I don't mean to start any new discussions about whether 'Soldier F' should be named; there seems to be no new consensus on that front. But the article does not actually introduce or define the term 'Soldier F' despite using it numerous times in important contexts. This is confusing. If we are going to use this term, in quotes no less, then it should be prominently explained (in whatever manner existing consensus allows).

I would add something myself, but given the previous lengthy debate I thought it best to raise the issue with editors more familiar with the issue. Rwbogl ( talk) 17:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I clarified the "Soldier F" definition in the bulletpoints under the Report subheading. Mztourist ( talk) 09:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Mztourist What was your edit? It seems to have been removed since, and "Soldier F" doesn't appear in the article body any more. Cortador ( talk) 07:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Cortador this change: [1], its still there. regards Mztourist ( talk) 07:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
My search messed up, my bad. Cheers! Cortador ( talk) 08:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

"Bogside Massacre" and number of fatalities

@ Ianmacm Can you assist?

@ Kathleen's bike insists on reversing edits. I explained why bogside massacre is superfluous to the lede, which should be both concise and not duplicated.

Bloody Sunday (1972) is universally known and not the alternative they have submitted.

"‎Both bogside and massacre in bold are superfluous in the lede when two links to both words are already present. 13 died on Bloody Sunday, not 14. This ties in with the Martin McGuinness page which has been updated to reflect accurately the deaths that occurred as a result of British soldiers opening fire. A further death four months later, from injuries is also recorded". Jaymailsays ( talk) 23:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

See guidance at WP:OTHERNAMES. The presence of two words, unconnected, in the sentence does not have the same effect. Kathleen's bike ( talk) 00:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
My two cents is that "Bogside massacre" is nowhere near being the WP:COMMONNAME for this incident. It probably doesn't need to be in the opening sentence. As for the death toll, it is not disputed that thirteen people died on the day of the incident; this is still regarded as the official death toll and is quoted by many sources. John Johnston died four months later and is widely regarded as the fourteenth victim. [2] The wording should make clear that thirteen people died on the day and Johnston died later.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Concur with Ianmacm - it's universally known as "Bloody Sunday", and "Bogside Massacre" is much rarer and isn't used again in the whole article. (>330,000 hits for "Bloody Sunday" +1972, versus 22,000 hits for "Bogside Massacre). Should not be in the lede sentence, might merit mention as an alternative name in the body. "The wording should make clear that thirteen people died on the day and Johnston died later" - yes, this. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES the question is whether it's a "significant" alternative name, not per se how it compares to "Bloody Sunday" in use. COMMONNAME is a different and inapplicable test and being "much rarer" than Bloody Sunday doesn't exclude it as an ALTNAME. I don't think there's any doubt that it's normally called Bloody Sunday. Having looked at Google Books, there were more references to "Bogside Massacre" than I was expecting. It's a marginal call, but I think it does just make it as a "significant alternative name". It's a redirect, so it's also helpful that anyone who gets to the article through that means immediately sees why. It's not as though there are a long list of alternatives cluttering the first sentence so I don't really see a pressing need to exclude it. DeCausa ( talk) 10:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
You may not personally see a pressing need to remove "bogside massacre" in bold, from the opening description but it is, at least in this discussion a minority view. The use of massacre is immotive and a term often used to further propaganda and it is rarely seen as neutral.
It is not disputed that armed individuals attended the protest and the military perceived they were under threat from, weapons, car bombs and nail bombs.
Had the leadership of both sides, simply withdrawn and dispersed from the area, probably there would have been no loss of life that awful day. Jaymailsays ( talk) 15:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
"Immotive"? [3] Do you mean emotive? That's neither here nor there. (And "Bloody Sunday" isn't emotive????) The only question is whether it's significantly used or not. I didn't realise you just didn't like it. That's absolutely no reason to remove it - and you'll notice no one else has argued that. You're in a minority of one (so far) on that. DeCausa ( talk) 15:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
And, Jailmailsays, the heading that you chose for this thread (Reporting Edit warring!) could be seen as a WP:PA so I've changed it to something that's more appropriate. I don't see any edit-warring. You WP:BOLDly edited, were reverted once and then you took it to Talk. That's exactly as it should be. No edit-warring. DeCausa ( talk) 10:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
If there are reliable sources for the name "Bogside massacre", we should probably include it somewhere. If it's not widely recognised enough to be used in the opening sentence, maybe put it later in the lead. I'm less concerned about the nuance around the number of casualties; it needs to be conveyed somewhere but if it makes the opening sentences too wordy the important bit is that 14 people were killed and we can make it clear as the lead goes on that #14 was a few months later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The BBC and the Guardian use shootings rather than massacre. The use of massacre is over used in the opening paragraph and throughout the Article. Where used it should be stated who used the term and in what context, in my view. Jaymailsays ( talk) 15:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia reporting that someone else has called something a massacre, especially if it become the common name, cf. Milltown massacre (redirect, bolded in the opening) or Hungerford massacre (article title) off the top of my head. We shouldn't call it such in Wikipedia's voice of course. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Bogside Massacre is widely used in news media and books, thus per guidance at WP:OTHERNAMES ("significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph"), it very much belongs where it is. Kathleen's bike ( talk) 15:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

About the names and victims: RTE Archives - Witness To Bogside Deaths 1972, RTE Archives - Remembering The Victims 1974. Both Irish sources. About the names: Het Parool 31-1-1972 (called "bloedbad", i.e. massacre in English) (Dutch source). I hope this helps. The Banner  talk 16:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Or the highly regarded A Treatise on Northern Ireland Volume 1 (Colonialism) by Brendan O'Leary, page 40 - Bloody Sunday is the only one of the events just described with significant numbers of civilian deaths to be commemorated as a massacre—it is sometimes called “the Bogside massacre.”. O'Leary is clearly a subject matter expert. Kathleen's bike ( talk) 17:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Bloody_Sunday_(1972)&oldid=1216908892"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE