This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
There are many statements here which seem very POV, and this article deserves the POV tag. I am in agreement that is in need of some serious editing. Jonto 20:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but can it be proven definitely as to whether they were armed or not? If not, then I think "unarmed" should be removed if there is no concrete evidence; perhaps replaced with a term such as "thought to be unarmed" or "believed to be unarmed", rather than stating it as an outright fact. Jonto 20:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
The fact that not a single shot was fired at the paratroopers seems to substantiate the word "unarmed", I think. It doesn't strike me as particularly plausible that armed IRA men were fleeing like rabbits while their bretheren were being shot down. Bullzeye 07:09, 18 July 2005 [UTC]
The text doesn't actually say that everyone was unarmed, it just says that the people killed and wounded were unarmed. Sicking 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Should the first sentence also not also mention "after rioting at a civil rights march"?" Jonto 21:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
All the dead tested negative for gunshot residue, There were IRA members,official and provisional at the march but they to were unarmed. Ivan cooper was promised that guns would stay away from the march by the IRA. The only weapons used by demonstrators were stones and bottles, and this was before the paras started shooting.-- 86.138.174.119 ( talk) 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Still very POV, pro republican, no wonder the education sector ban the use of Wikipedia :-( Twobells ( talk) 10:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nick, sorry I didn't continue the debate on the POV tag last year(had my spleen removed after I collapsed :-() the article is MUCH better but I still feel the re isn't sufficient balance in the opening paragraph. Twobells ( talk) 11:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
'Many witnesses, including bystanders and journalists, testify that all those shot were unarmed' but other witnesses state that some were armed yet the opening paragraph makes no mention of that and it still reads as a biased piece.... Twobells ( talk) 13:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The IRA have also claimed that due to the high chance of being searched by police on the march, none carried weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.47.146 ( talk) 16:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
And we should take the IRA's word for it? Come off it! What if Al Queda claimed they hadn't carried out 9/11, would you take that at face value as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessexboy ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Lord Saville's report says that they were unarmed end of discussion 17.64.119.86 ( talk) 15:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Lord Saville's report didn't do this, it found that Gerard Dougherty had nail bombs on him at the time of his shooting, so to say that the 14 were unarmed is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.111.14 ( talk) 17:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The article is STILL POV, the fact the march was banned needs to be included in the first paragraph for balance. Twobells ( talk) 11:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
'Twenty-seven civil rights protesters were shot by the British Army Parachute Regiment during a banned Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association march' would do it. Twobells ( talk) 11:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I cannot see why this fact is still after all this time not evident in the opening :-( Twobells ( talk) 11:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok then how about: 'Twenty-seven civil rights protesters were shot by the British Army Parachute Regiment during a Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association march all of which were banned at that time' Twobells ( talk) 13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Or similar, otherwise people looking down the lens of history won't get an accurate understanding of the situation. Twobells ( talk) 13:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Just read the article at link #41 here which talks about the allegation that the army could have used a modified SLR that fired a .22 round rather than the standard 7.62. This modification was requested by Major General Robert Ford who wanted to start shooting dead rioters using the modified weapon. I have read lots about these events but this is new to me and it is not mentioned in this article or the Saville Enquiry either. Bjmullan ( talk) 17:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I just made a quick edit so that the Derry/Londonderry controversy mentioned in the article, acturally appears in the article. Now I know that Derry auto-links Londonderry when linked in wikipedia, and I'm not trying to step on anyone's perceptions, I just put in a Derry}Londonderyy so the paragraph looks right. 155.91.28.232 ( talk) 16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The first picture on the right - needs to be way way more neutral. "The Day Innocence Died"? Yohan euan o4 ( talk) 18:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I know there were images of the massacre as they've become somewhat iconic images. Is there any that we could justifiably use under 'fair use' criteria. All the images, while valuable are retrospective subjects such as murals. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 18:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I've found this and this on the Imperial War Museum's collection. Could we upload one or both as "fair use" similar to A and B? ~Asarlaí 23:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
There is too much detail regarding the apology in the opening paragraphs. 'The British Government later apologised for the event' would do for the opening section. Details of the apology should be further down the article. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this article, to begin with I found it awkward that the city is called "Derry" throughout, given that all the news sources about the Saville inquiry are calling it Londonderry. But then I came upon this:
Seriously? This is obviously backwards. Londonderry is the official name. The unionists are just calling it by its official name; it is the nationalists who have their own name for it. They have every right to call it whatever they want, but the wikipedia name compromise has resulted in a nonsensical sentence which reverses the actual nature of what's going on. john k ( talk) 19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the name 'Londonderry' should be used on all articles. It is the official name and the name-conflict is a recent thing. I've decided never to go to Londonderry because whatever I call the city I'll cause offence. That said, the naming argument is one I'm not going to get into, there are pages and pages of this and it will continue ad infinitum. This page is not really the page on which to explain the naming argument. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 08:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I just undid the addition of the {{ current}} template. The template states that it is a current event. Yes, there are issues coming up about it right now, but that tag is misleading in this context. If anyone would like it added back please discuss here. Jujutacular T · C 19:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I've amended the numbers, as it seems some confusion has crept in regarding the total. Twenty-six people were shot, of whom thirteen died on the day, but one of the injured - John Johnson - died several months later. It seems in the past someone added the number of fatalities - i.e. fourteen - to the number of injured - i.e. thirteen - even though one of the latter is also one of the former. I've also changed the reference to all those who were shot being protesters, as John Johnson at least was not. Nick Cooper ( talk) 22:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Despite the assertion on my talk page and in an edit summary that an official report cannot be copyrighted, the report is copyrighted and to claim otherwise displays a shocking ignorance of copyright law. The page it was copied and pasted from has a copyright message at the bottom. O Fenian ( talk) 10:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
At present this includes various witness statements and conclusions from Widgery about them being unarmed. As it is now accepted by everyone except the people that shot them that these people were unarmed, perhaps this information can be removed? O Fenian ( talk) 10:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Having now gone through Saville's narrative, apart from the thirteen either shot dead or who died on the day, there are 16 injured, as follows:
Widgery listed 13 injured by gunfire, which included John Johnson, who was still alive at the time. One on Widgery's list (Patrick McDaid) Saville actually attributes to debris, while the other injured by it (Pius McCarron) was not on Widgery's list, and neither were Patrick Brolly & Daniel Gillespie. In summary, 26 people were shot, with 13 dying on the day, and one 4½ months later; two were injured by debris caused by gunfire; one by gunfire or debris; and two from vehicle impact. The number actually shot was either 26 or 27. Nick Cooper ( talk) 14:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
At the moment the article seems to be in a bit of mess. I suggest the following:
There are probably some other things to do as well, I think this would be a good start though. Any thoughts? O Fenian ( talk) 16:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
A mask used by rioters in Northern Ireland Hcmd hcmdhcmd ( talk contribs) 17:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The Saville Enquiry concluded that John Johnston died of a brain tumour and therefore I don't think he should be listed as one of the deaths on Bloody Sunday. His family maintain that the head injury he suffered when he fell after being shot was responsible, but that seems medically impossible. Brain tumours can happen for no known reason and can kill quickly, so I highly doubt his death in June 1972 was connected to the shooting. We should include Johnston as one of the wounded, not one of the murdered. ---Just an interested reader
(UTC)
the article says 14 and the main page says 27... -- 77.126.247.143 ( talk) 04:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Now at Talk:Narrative of events of Bloody Sunday (1972)#Saville Vs Widgery. Nick Cooper ( talk) 07:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I beleive this is actually a quote from David Cameron's apology in the house of commons not the actual report, as i saw him saying it on the TV news. Although he may himself have been quoting the final report from the inquiry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.176.71 ( talk) 03:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Urgh, I do not wish to bring this up but I would like to check - The entire section seems to be a copy/paste out of [2] I am not sure about copyrights, but I am assuming it is not a violation or something under some agreement, but just looking. And my main concern is the section looks like a memorial, which isn't really allowed, perhaps remove the Italics and add standard "*" (Wich would be a Square in wiki format) instead of those circles? -- Τασουλα (Shalom!) ( talk) 14:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Favour - Can someone change the long Casualties section I put above to auto-collapse to improve readability of this talk page? I've tried and failed... Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 15:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, the cites from that section were showing up below, which I did not want, so I moved it to my sandbox for now. I wrote the whole thing, and no one ever commented on it, so I don't think removing it from the Talk page for now is an issue. LoveUxoxo ( talk) 16:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC) -- It is parked here if you need to see it, but even I realized that was way too much detail. Oh well. LoveUxoxo ( talk) 02:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
When the notability and importance of this article is so great, it pains me to see it in such a state. There are 114 watchers of the page, yet the article has been fairly static, even after the release of Saville. While vandalism gets reverted quickly, it seems that the most involved editors are fairly happy with the state of the article currently. And when I say I am sad, I really mean that; I know you are all good people and mean well, but some things seem so obvious to me. It is not a personal attack when I say I believe the most involved editors on this page have strong pro-Republican views (would you disagree?), but the bottom line is those views have slanted the content of the article so that it is not, not even close, to being NPOV.
When "Just an interested reader" mentioned John Johnston as being injured, but not killed, as a result of his shooting that was just dismissed out of hand. And the rest of the article, infobox and everything, continues to state he died of his injuries later sustained that day. That is absolutely NOT true based on all that this project holds dear as to RS. The statement The order to fire live rounds was given..., with the implication that a command order was issued, is factually false (per Saville), yet is in there in the article (without any cite). And I am just so disappointed - do any of you think that the Paras firing indiscriminately without orders is less of an outrage than if they were ordered to do so? Yet in order to maintain the narrative that the Brits "wanted" this, it remains.
When you see a incendiary statement such as In addition, defenseless people who lay wounded on the ground were shot by soldiers who stood over them. perhaps a cite is in order? This issue was specifically examined in great detail by Saville.
Before, for decades, the events of the day were parsed into two distinct stories, without much middle ground. Now there is a source, the most extensive and detailed of any, to provide us with the most reliable version of the events of the day. So my question to all of you is: Do you accept Saville as the most accurate and neutral version, or not? That doesn't necessarily mean using that primary source exclusively, without inclusion of the traditional view of events from (all) the participants.
Beyond the POV of the content I am also deeply disappointed with the organization and prose. It sucks! Stylistically its a mishmash, with lots of repetition, and the section titles are horrible. We have two consecutive sections "2: Events of the day" and "3: Narrative of events" ...does that make any sense? None of this is anyone's "fault", all articles tend to have a 2nd Thermodynamic Law aspect to them and require extensive cleanup and rewrites on a regular basis, which hasn't seemed to have happened here in a long time.
I'm being as honest as I can be with my feelings, and would like to talk about it more, but I'm not interested in a fight. That's why I haven't done much editing previously to the article; to be frank, from what I saw from the Talk page and the edit history I thought it would be too painful to get involved and change what apparently is the status quo/consensus. And in this case I feel the consensus is wrong.
On the other hand, given the chance to vent I'm not sad anymore, so no worries...Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 22:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This whole section can be tossed. Its essentially consists of one paragraph, all of which can be adequately summarized in one sentence elsewhere with: "The number of marchers has been variously estimated at <x> to <y> {cite}{cite}" The other sentence at the end seems just like some random hanger-on; its clearly stated in the lede now, and expanded upon later in the appropriate section. Cheers and beer! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 05:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
For the purposes of further discussion, I'll put my proposed lede here:
Bloody Sunday (
Irish: Domhnach na Fola) —sometimes called the Bogside Massacre— refers to the shootings of civilians by British paratroopers on January 30, 1972, in the
Bogside area of
Derry, Northern Ireland, during a civil rights march. Thirteen people were killed by gunfire, with another fourteen injured, one of whom died later.
[1] The
British Army claimed that the paratroopers had only reacted in self-defence to sustained gunfire and nail and petrol bomb attacks from suspected
Irish republican paramilitaries.
[2] Marchers and residents denied this account, stating that the soldiers fired indiscriminately and without justification, and that many of those shot were trying to flee or tend to the wounded.
[3]
The next day the British government commissioned a inquiry, led by Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery, to investigate the killings. [4] The Widgery Tribunal's report, issued on 19 April 1972, largely exonerated the Army, [5] placing blame for the deaths on the march organizers. [6] Widgery found that, although the firing by the Army "bordered on the reckless", it had only been in response to being fired upon first. [5] While these findings were welcomed by the British government and Unionists, [5] [6] it was rejected by the marchers and their supporters, as well as Nationalist politicians, who viewed the tribunal as biased and its report as a "whitewash". [5] [6]
In 1998 Prime Minister Tony Blair established a new inquiry, chaired by Lord Saville of Newdigate. Among the findings of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, released on June 15, 2010, were that none of the persons shot "was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury" and that "many of these soldiers have knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing". [7] In summarizing the report's findings to Parliament, Prime Minister David Cameron described the shootings as "unjustified and unjustifiable", and, in offering an apology on behalf of the government and the United Kingdom, stated that he was "deeply sorry". [8]
Bloody Sunday remains among the most significant events in the
Troubles of Northern Ireland, with many artistic depictions in popular culture.
[9] Politically the killings are considered to have been a catalyst in turning public support away from non-violent protest and towards the
Provisional Irish Republican Army's armed campaign against the
partition of Ireland.
[10]
{{
cite news}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
LoveUxoxo ( talk) 16:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I did continue to think about whether the people injured by vehicles was significant enough to be included in the lede. I still think not. I'd point out the Guardian story filed by Simon Hoggart on February 1st; this story is about the reaction and outrage in the Bogside over what happened, you can see that the quotes are about the shootings, not people being hit by vehicles or clubbed by batons. The Saracens are specifically mention by one resident, but not the fact that they hit anyone. That level of detail should be reserved for the main body of the article, not the lede, as well as details such as in what part of the body they were shot. Again, Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 19:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's just take one paragraph at a time here, and I'll parse it very slowly. Above this, you see my proposed part of the lede concerning Saville. I think my version is far preferable to what is there now and would like to replace it. My reasons why the current version needs to be replaced are (again):
My reasons for thinking my version is the correct replacement:
I don't think these are complicated issues of what constitutes the more encyclopedic version, or which version is more NPOV. If you disagree than please state a cogent argument why, or, preferably, an alternate suggestion(s). In all cases where I believe the possibility of common ground possibly exists I always strive to proffer alternatives that I think would be acceptable to everyone: [3] [4]. Rather than make the overwhelming majority of your edits reverts, I'd like to see some constructive editing here. We build something together. I believe in that strongly - it really does work!
If you have nothing to say about the above, as has been the case for the last 10 months, then I don't think you should revert it if I put it up. As I said, I think you have an obligation to engage in dialogue with me here on this talk page rather just reverting, saying "I/we didn't approve". As always, Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 18:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, added a cite, which is Blair's actual statement to Parliament establishing the Inquiry which I think is quite good. Changed all the date presentations to match the rest of the article. I am trying to be aware of American/British English differences and not make typos, however if any slip through I'd appreciate a heads-up, not a bite. Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 20:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It is difficult to figure out what is going on, since there are currently about eighteen sections all started by the same editor.
I totally object to the changes to the lead, as they remove pertinent references and information, and even introduce at least one inaccuracy. The summary of "Lede rewrite - PLEASE see talk and discuss, thanks!" shows the way forward, you have been bold, you were reverted, so now you discuss. You do not continue to make drastic changes without consensus. O Fenian ( talk) 08:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
There are many statements here which seem very POV, and this article deserves the POV tag. I am in agreement that is in need of some serious editing. Jonto 20:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but can it be proven definitely as to whether they were armed or not? If not, then I think "unarmed" should be removed if there is no concrete evidence; perhaps replaced with a term such as "thought to be unarmed" or "believed to be unarmed", rather than stating it as an outright fact. Jonto 20:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
The fact that not a single shot was fired at the paratroopers seems to substantiate the word "unarmed", I think. It doesn't strike me as particularly plausible that armed IRA men were fleeing like rabbits while their bretheren were being shot down. Bullzeye 07:09, 18 July 2005 [UTC]
The text doesn't actually say that everyone was unarmed, it just says that the people killed and wounded were unarmed. Sicking 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Should the first sentence also not also mention "after rioting at a civil rights march"?" Jonto 21:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
All the dead tested negative for gunshot residue, There were IRA members,official and provisional at the march but they to were unarmed. Ivan cooper was promised that guns would stay away from the march by the IRA. The only weapons used by demonstrators were stones and bottles, and this was before the paras started shooting.-- 86.138.174.119 ( talk) 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Still very POV, pro republican, no wonder the education sector ban the use of Wikipedia :-( Twobells ( talk) 10:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nick, sorry I didn't continue the debate on the POV tag last year(had my spleen removed after I collapsed :-() the article is MUCH better but I still feel the re isn't sufficient balance in the opening paragraph. Twobells ( talk) 11:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
'Many witnesses, including bystanders and journalists, testify that all those shot were unarmed' but other witnesses state that some were armed yet the opening paragraph makes no mention of that and it still reads as a biased piece.... Twobells ( talk) 13:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The IRA have also claimed that due to the high chance of being searched by police on the march, none carried weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.47.146 ( talk) 16:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
And we should take the IRA's word for it? Come off it! What if Al Queda claimed they hadn't carried out 9/11, would you take that at face value as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessexboy ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Lord Saville's report says that they were unarmed end of discussion 17.64.119.86 ( talk) 15:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Lord Saville's report didn't do this, it found that Gerard Dougherty had nail bombs on him at the time of his shooting, so to say that the 14 were unarmed is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.111.14 ( talk) 17:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The article is STILL POV, the fact the march was banned needs to be included in the first paragraph for balance. Twobells ( talk) 11:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
'Twenty-seven civil rights protesters were shot by the British Army Parachute Regiment during a banned Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association march' would do it. Twobells ( talk) 11:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I cannot see why this fact is still after all this time not evident in the opening :-( Twobells ( talk) 11:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok then how about: 'Twenty-seven civil rights protesters were shot by the British Army Parachute Regiment during a Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association march all of which were banned at that time' Twobells ( talk) 13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Or similar, otherwise people looking down the lens of history won't get an accurate understanding of the situation. Twobells ( talk) 13:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Just read the article at link #41 here which talks about the allegation that the army could have used a modified SLR that fired a .22 round rather than the standard 7.62. This modification was requested by Major General Robert Ford who wanted to start shooting dead rioters using the modified weapon. I have read lots about these events but this is new to me and it is not mentioned in this article or the Saville Enquiry either. Bjmullan ( talk) 17:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I just made a quick edit so that the Derry/Londonderry controversy mentioned in the article, acturally appears in the article. Now I know that Derry auto-links Londonderry when linked in wikipedia, and I'm not trying to step on anyone's perceptions, I just put in a Derry}Londonderyy so the paragraph looks right. 155.91.28.232 ( talk) 16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The first picture on the right - needs to be way way more neutral. "The Day Innocence Died"? Yohan euan o4 ( talk) 18:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I know there were images of the massacre as they've become somewhat iconic images. Is there any that we could justifiably use under 'fair use' criteria. All the images, while valuable are retrospective subjects such as murals. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 18:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I've found this and this on the Imperial War Museum's collection. Could we upload one or both as "fair use" similar to A and B? ~Asarlaí 23:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
There is too much detail regarding the apology in the opening paragraphs. 'The British Government later apologised for the event' would do for the opening section. Details of the apology should be further down the article. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this article, to begin with I found it awkward that the city is called "Derry" throughout, given that all the news sources about the Saville inquiry are calling it Londonderry. But then I came upon this:
Seriously? This is obviously backwards. Londonderry is the official name. The unionists are just calling it by its official name; it is the nationalists who have their own name for it. They have every right to call it whatever they want, but the wikipedia name compromise has resulted in a nonsensical sentence which reverses the actual nature of what's going on. john k ( talk) 19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the name 'Londonderry' should be used on all articles. It is the official name and the name-conflict is a recent thing. I've decided never to go to Londonderry because whatever I call the city I'll cause offence. That said, the naming argument is one I'm not going to get into, there are pages and pages of this and it will continue ad infinitum. This page is not really the page on which to explain the naming argument. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 08:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I just undid the addition of the {{ current}} template. The template states that it is a current event. Yes, there are issues coming up about it right now, but that tag is misleading in this context. If anyone would like it added back please discuss here. Jujutacular T · C 19:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I've amended the numbers, as it seems some confusion has crept in regarding the total. Twenty-six people were shot, of whom thirteen died on the day, but one of the injured - John Johnson - died several months later. It seems in the past someone added the number of fatalities - i.e. fourteen - to the number of injured - i.e. thirteen - even though one of the latter is also one of the former. I've also changed the reference to all those who were shot being protesters, as John Johnson at least was not. Nick Cooper ( talk) 22:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Despite the assertion on my talk page and in an edit summary that an official report cannot be copyrighted, the report is copyrighted and to claim otherwise displays a shocking ignorance of copyright law. The page it was copied and pasted from has a copyright message at the bottom. O Fenian ( talk) 10:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
At present this includes various witness statements and conclusions from Widgery about them being unarmed. As it is now accepted by everyone except the people that shot them that these people were unarmed, perhaps this information can be removed? O Fenian ( talk) 10:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Having now gone through Saville's narrative, apart from the thirteen either shot dead or who died on the day, there are 16 injured, as follows:
Widgery listed 13 injured by gunfire, which included John Johnson, who was still alive at the time. One on Widgery's list (Patrick McDaid) Saville actually attributes to debris, while the other injured by it (Pius McCarron) was not on Widgery's list, and neither were Patrick Brolly & Daniel Gillespie. In summary, 26 people were shot, with 13 dying on the day, and one 4½ months later; two were injured by debris caused by gunfire; one by gunfire or debris; and two from vehicle impact. The number actually shot was either 26 or 27. Nick Cooper ( talk) 14:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
At the moment the article seems to be in a bit of mess. I suggest the following:
There are probably some other things to do as well, I think this would be a good start though. Any thoughts? O Fenian ( talk) 16:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
A mask used by rioters in Northern Ireland Hcmd hcmdhcmd ( talk contribs) 17:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The Saville Enquiry concluded that John Johnston died of a brain tumour and therefore I don't think he should be listed as one of the deaths on Bloody Sunday. His family maintain that the head injury he suffered when he fell after being shot was responsible, but that seems medically impossible. Brain tumours can happen for no known reason and can kill quickly, so I highly doubt his death in June 1972 was connected to the shooting. We should include Johnston as one of the wounded, not one of the murdered. ---Just an interested reader
(UTC)
the article says 14 and the main page says 27... -- 77.126.247.143 ( talk) 04:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Now at Talk:Narrative of events of Bloody Sunday (1972)#Saville Vs Widgery. Nick Cooper ( talk) 07:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I beleive this is actually a quote from David Cameron's apology in the house of commons not the actual report, as i saw him saying it on the TV news. Although he may himself have been quoting the final report from the inquiry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.176.71 ( talk) 03:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Urgh, I do not wish to bring this up but I would like to check - The entire section seems to be a copy/paste out of [2] I am not sure about copyrights, but I am assuming it is not a violation or something under some agreement, but just looking. And my main concern is the section looks like a memorial, which isn't really allowed, perhaps remove the Italics and add standard "*" (Wich would be a Square in wiki format) instead of those circles? -- Τασουλα (Shalom!) ( talk) 14:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Favour - Can someone change the long Casualties section I put above to auto-collapse to improve readability of this talk page? I've tried and failed... Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 15:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, the cites from that section were showing up below, which I did not want, so I moved it to my sandbox for now. I wrote the whole thing, and no one ever commented on it, so I don't think removing it from the Talk page for now is an issue. LoveUxoxo ( talk) 16:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC) -- It is parked here if you need to see it, but even I realized that was way too much detail. Oh well. LoveUxoxo ( talk) 02:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
When the notability and importance of this article is so great, it pains me to see it in such a state. There are 114 watchers of the page, yet the article has been fairly static, even after the release of Saville. While vandalism gets reverted quickly, it seems that the most involved editors are fairly happy with the state of the article currently. And when I say I am sad, I really mean that; I know you are all good people and mean well, but some things seem so obvious to me. It is not a personal attack when I say I believe the most involved editors on this page have strong pro-Republican views (would you disagree?), but the bottom line is those views have slanted the content of the article so that it is not, not even close, to being NPOV.
When "Just an interested reader" mentioned John Johnston as being injured, but not killed, as a result of his shooting that was just dismissed out of hand. And the rest of the article, infobox and everything, continues to state he died of his injuries later sustained that day. That is absolutely NOT true based on all that this project holds dear as to RS. The statement The order to fire live rounds was given..., with the implication that a command order was issued, is factually false (per Saville), yet is in there in the article (without any cite). And I am just so disappointed - do any of you think that the Paras firing indiscriminately without orders is less of an outrage than if they were ordered to do so? Yet in order to maintain the narrative that the Brits "wanted" this, it remains.
When you see a incendiary statement such as In addition, defenseless people who lay wounded on the ground were shot by soldiers who stood over them. perhaps a cite is in order? This issue was specifically examined in great detail by Saville.
Before, for decades, the events of the day were parsed into two distinct stories, without much middle ground. Now there is a source, the most extensive and detailed of any, to provide us with the most reliable version of the events of the day. So my question to all of you is: Do you accept Saville as the most accurate and neutral version, or not? That doesn't necessarily mean using that primary source exclusively, without inclusion of the traditional view of events from (all) the participants.
Beyond the POV of the content I am also deeply disappointed with the organization and prose. It sucks! Stylistically its a mishmash, with lots of repetition, and the section titles are horrible. We have two consecutive sections "2: Events of the day" and "3: Narrative of events" ...does that make any sense? None of this is anyone's "fault", all articles tend to have a 2nd Thermodynamic Law aspect to them and require extensive cleanup and rewrites on a regular basis, which hasn't seemed to have happened here in a long time.
I'm being as honest as I can be with my feelings, and would like to talk about it more, but I'm not interested in a fight. That's why I haven't done much editing previously to the article; to be frank, from what I saw from the Talk page and the edit history I thought it would be too painful to get involved and change what apparently is the status quo/consensus. And in this case I feel the consensus is wrong.
On the other hand, given the chance to vent I'm not sad anymore, so no worries...Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 22:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This whole section can be tossed. Its essentially consists of one paragraph, all of which can be adequately summarized in one sentence elsewhere with: "The number of marchers has been variously estimated at <x> to <y> {cite}{cite}" The other sentence at the end seems just like some random hanger-on; its clearly stated in the lede now, and expanded upon later in the appropriate section. Cheers and beer! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 05:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
For the purposes of further discussion, I'll put my proposed lede here:
Bloody Sunday (
Irish: Domhnach na Fola) —sometimes called the Bogside Massacre— refers to the shootings of civilians by British paratroopers on January 30, 1972, in the
Bogside area of
Derry, Northern Ireland, during a civil rights march. Thirteen people were killed by gunfire, with another fourteen injured, one of whom died later.
[1] The
British Army claimed that the paratroopers had only reacted in self-defence to sustained gunfire and nail and petrol bomb attacks from suspected
Irish republican paramilitaries.
[2] Marchers and residents denied this account, stating that the soldiers fired indiscriminately and without justification, and that many of those shot were trying to flee or tend to the wounded.
[3]
The next day the British government commissioned a inquiry, led by Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery, to investigate the killings. [4] The Widgery Tribunal's report, issued on 19 April 1972, largely exonerated the Army, [5] placing blame for the deaths on the march organizers. [6] Widgery found that, although the firing by the Army "bordered on the reckless", it had only been in response to being fired upon first. [5] While these findings were welcomed by the British government and Unionists, [5] [6] it was rejected by the marchers and their supporters, as well as Nationalist politicians, who viewed the tribunal as biased and its report as a "whitewash". [5] [6]
In 1998 Prime Minister Tony Blair established a new inquiry, chaired by Lord Saville of Newdigate. Among the findings of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, released on June 15, 2010, were that none of the persons shot "was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury" and that "many of these soldiers have knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing". [7] In summarizing the report's findings to Parliament, Prime Minister David Cameron described the shootings as "unjustified and unjustifiable", and, in offering an apology on behalf of the government and the United Kingdom, stated that he was "deeply sorry". [8]
Bloody Sunday remains among the most significant events in the
Troubles of Northern Ireland, with many artistic depictions in popular culture.
[9] Politically the killings are considered to have been a catalyst in turning public support away from non-violent protest and towards the
Provisional Irish Republican Army's armed campaign against the
partition of Ireland.
[10]
{{
cite news}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
LoveUxoxo ( talk) 16:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I did continue to think about whether the people injured by vehicles was significant enough to be included in the lede. I still think not. I'd point out the Guardian story filed by Simon Hoggart on February 1st; this story is about the reaction and outrage in the Bogside over what happened, you can see that the quotes are about the shootings, not people being hit by vehicles or clubbed by batons. The Saracens are specifically mention by one resident, but not the fact that they hit anyone. That level of detail should be reserved for the main body of the article, not the lede, as well as details such as in what part of the body they were shot. Again, Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 19:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's just take one paragraph at a time here, and I'll parse it very slowly. Above this, you see my proposed part of the lede concerning Saville. I think my version is far preferable to what is there now and would like to replace it. My reasons why the current version needs to be replaced are (again):
My reasons for thinking my version is the correct replacement:
I don't think these are complicated issues of what constitutes the more encyclopedic version, or which version is more NPOV. If you disagree than please state a cogent argument why, or, preferably, an alternate suggestion(s). In all cases where I believe the possibility of common ground possibly exists I always strive to proffer alternatives that I think would be acceptable to everyone: [3] [4]. Rather than make the overwhelming majority of your edits reverts, I'd like to see some constructive editing here. We build something together. I believe in that strongly - it really does work!
If you have nothing to say about the above, as has been the case for the last 10 months, then I don't think you should revert it if I put it up. As I said, I think you have an obligation to engage in dialogue with me here on this talk page rather just reverting, saying "I/we didn't approve". As always, Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 18:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, added a cite, which is Blair's actual statement to Parliament establishing the Inquiry which I think is quite good. Changed all the date presentations to match the rest of the article. I am trying to be aware of American/British English differences and not make typos, however if any slip through I'd appreciate a heads-up, not a bite. Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 20:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It is difficult to figure out what is going on, since there are currently about eighteen sections all started by the same editor.
I totally object to the changes to the lead, as they remove pertinent references and information, and even introduce at least one inaccuracy. The summary of "Lede rewrite - PLEASE see talk and discuss, thanks!" shows the way forward, you have been bold, you were reverted, so now you discuss. You do not continue to make drastic changes without consensus. O Fenian ( talk) 08:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)