This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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
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
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).
"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)
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.
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:
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
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)
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 ?
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.
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?
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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
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.
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))
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)
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)
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)
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 Hackney 303 06:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The entire article and I will be addressing it as as possible. Twobells ( talk) 11:28, 13 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)
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.
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)
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)
Your arrogance is sickening I have to say. Twobells ( talk) 12:26, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It seems to me the issues are:
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)
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)
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bsunday/irgovt2d.htm Twobells ( talk) 14:20, 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)
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)
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:
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)
It's easier if you split the events of the day into two phases:
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 Hackney 303 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
'pro-irish/socialist' fits it pretty well I'd say. Twobells ( talk) 15:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
From your pov which is EXACTLY my point all along. Twobells ( talk) 15:15, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
'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)
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)
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)
Vague comments? Everything laid out above is in statements from both enquiries available at the TSO. Twobells ( talk) 09:58, 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)
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)
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 travesty Twobells ( talk) 10:50, 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)
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)
Who said they couldn't provide paragraph numbers? 11:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells ( talk • contribs)
You're repeating yourself again, I already said I would didn't I? Twobells ( talk) 11:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
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 Hackney 303 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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 Hackney 303 17:42, 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)+
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 wrong Twobells ( talk) 10:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
Should surely be used with a singular noun, such as "pair". If so, this edit ought to be reverted.
Mooretwin ( talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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
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
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).
"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)
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.
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:
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
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)
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 ?
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.
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?
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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
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.
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))
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)
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)
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)
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 Hackney 303 06:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The entire article and I will be addressing it as as possible. Twobells ( talk) 11:28, 13 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)
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.
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)
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)
Your arrogance is sickening I have to say. Twobells ( talk) 12:26, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It seems to me the issues are:
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)
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)
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bsunday/irgovt2d.htm Twobells ( talk) 14:20, 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)
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)
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:
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)
It's easier if you split the events of the day into two phases:
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 Hackney 303 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
'pro-irish/socialist' fits it pretty well I'd say. Twobells ( talk) 15:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
From your pov which is EXACTLY my point all along. Twobells ( talk) 15:15, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
'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)
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)
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)
Vague comments? Everything laid out above is in statements from both enquiries available at the TSO. Twobells ( talk) 09:58, 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)
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)
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 travesty Twobells ( talk) 10:50, 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)
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)
Who said they couldn't provide paragraph numbers? 11:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells ( talk • contribs)
You're repeating yourself again, I already said I would didn't I? Twobells ( talk) 11:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
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 Hackney 303 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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 Hackney 303 17:42, 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)+
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 wrong Twobells ( talk) 10:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
Should surely be used with a singular noun, such as "pair". If so, this edit ought to be reverted.
Mooretwin ( talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)