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 |
Just case people watch this page is not aware LoveUxoxo has taken out a discussion at AN/I. Bloody Sunday (1972). My take of the situation is that LoveUxoxo is trying to change too many things at the same time (the talkpage really is a mess). He also seems to have a very low opinion of what has been a relatively stable and I think good article. Bjmullan ( talk) 07:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, this statement: "In addition, defenseless people who lay wounded on the ground were shot by soldiers who stood over them." I think should be removed. Obviously, if it were to stay, it would need a cite, and without one now I can only assume that it is specifically referring to Jim Wray in Glenfada Park North.
The manner of his death has been very controversial since Bloody Sunday, with some witnesses stating that he was shot at close range after being wounded and defenseless on the ground. That has been the (I've been saying "Republican", screw that, lets call the "popular narrative") For example, this is how it was depicted in Paul Greenglass' Bloody Sunday. However Saville, after witness testimony and forensic evidence, came to the conclusion that: "We reject the assertion that Jim Wray was “executed ” by a soldier shooting him at close range while he was on the ground". LoveUxoxo ( talk) 02:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Other problems I have with this section include the statement "The order to fire live rounds was given". Again, without any cite. Saville did not find that any such order was issued. Also the order in which the events are chronologically defined is inaccurate; the order "to mobilise the troops in an arrest operation" should be first in that paragraph. The sentence "reports of an IRA sniper operating in the area were allegedly given to the Army command centre" is weasely; it should either be stated as fact, by the weight given to RS, or should not be there at all. LoveUxoxo ( talk) 05:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This statement "Such confrontations between soldiers and youths were common, though observers reported that the rioting was not intense" is sourced to Pringle, however the text excerpt shown in References for that cite actually reads "... the level of rioting was no greater than usual". "no greater than usual" does not equate to "was not intense", that is inaccurate. LoveUxoxo ( talk) 22:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This statement: "Two civilians, Damien Donaghy and John Johnston were shot and wounded by soldiers on William Street who claimed the former was carrying a black cylindrical object." also is sourced to Pringle. The source's actual text, as shown in References below, is "Seconds after the corporal fired, he would say that he spotted the same man with a black cylindrical object in one hand strike what appeared to be a match against the wall". Pringle's statement (in full) is in agreement with the findings of Saville. If you are going to quote Pringle as to what the soldiers said was their justification for firing at Damien Donaghy then you should quote him in full, since the soldiers justification was predicated on Donaghy being in the immediate act of lighting and throwing a nail bomb. This was extensively discussed in Saville (who found that Donaghy was NOT in the act of throwing a nail bomb). LoveUxoxo ( talk) 22:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The dead - This section needs to be rewritten entirely, with all the new information available to us from Saville. CAIN was the best source available to us for quite some time, I read through it extensively in the past. Now however, it is not the MOST reliable source that should be given the most weight. For any of the people mentioned in this section Saville will provide extensive detail of ALL the witness and forensic evidence as to the exact circumstances of their shooting. Right now it is very much cherry-picked statements of fact, so Widgery (Widgery as a source?) get quoted when it supports the popular narrative, or "one" or "two" witnesses are mentioned when that specific witness testimony supports the popular narrative which is the basis for what is written here. In most cases there is conflicting witness testimony, just look at Saville's section on the controversy of the circumstances of Jim Wray's death. Some witness said that he was shot execution-style. Others didn't. You can't just pick the ones who said he was; the evidence needs to be taken in as a whole. LoveUxoxo ( talk) 22:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
John Johnston - The statement "Johnston was not on the march, but on his way to visit a friend in Glenfada Park" is inaccurate. In fact Johnston, who participated in the march that day, when seeing rioting ahead, decided to leave the tail end of the march. Here is the quote from Saville: "He had been taking part in the march but on his way down William Street he saw clouds of CS gas ahead and decided to cut south across the laundry waste ground in order to visit an old man in the area of Glenfada Park. At no stage was he engaged in any form of disorderly activity." Yes, I see a cite from Taylor, but unfortunately no text excerpt. Regardless, Saville's version has more weight. LoveUxoxo ( talk) 23:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I feel this section is well-cited and has a commendable NPOV. Perhaps it could be a bit more tidy/tight, but I think it is a good and much needed background. One thing: this article needs some images of the Bogside that aren't decades after the events described, so I'll look for images suitable for free use. For now I suggest just removing the one there, it's not indicative in any way to the content of the section. Also, having it on the left-margin of the opening of the main body is bleech. We should also have "Main article: The Troubles" link at the top of the section. Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 21:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Everyone, there is a slightly different version of this section I want to substitute. You can view it here. Thankfully, this should be much easier to accept than the other changes I have wanted to make. Here are the things that I felt warranted some changes:
So the first paragraph is slightly different, as to avoid disagreement with the main article. Other than the next sentence of the second, the rest is the same as what is there now, except for formatting. I have kept every cite, and added three more from CAIN. The image was taken from The Troubles article, perhaps someone can suggest a good caption. I really hope you agree, but if not, please let me know why and I can try to address your concerns. Thanks, and Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 07:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Anybody else have any comments? I can't put an image in my sandbox per WP:NFCC#9, but I suggest also using a second one, showing youths defending a barricade in the Bogside taken from the Battle of Bogside main article. I also think this section should take us right up until the morning of the march, with 1 PARA deployed in the city. Still, again, this proposed edit isn't about content as much as formatting. Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 18:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to set Miszabot to automatically archive threads older than 90 days; this will help a lot. If you want to keep threads older than that please say so. Thanks! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 20:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thirteen killed. Pamour ( talk) 19:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
While idly perusing the article, this statement jumped out at me. I'm unfamiliar with the sources on the matter, but if it is indeed attributable then it needs to be cited. It's too inflammatory a statement to leave undefended. Throwaway85 ( talk) 20:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This dispute concerns whether or not this finding of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry:
"3.70 None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm or (with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghey) a bomb of any description." [2]
is equivalent to:
"The report found that all of those shot were unarmed"
I failed in my first attempt to create this RfC, and since this went up I've changed it twice. I know its asking a lot, but please AGF for a sec: as I stated in this edit when I suggesting eliciting outside comment, I believe the heart of this dispute is my assertion that A is NOT equivalent to B. Thanks, and Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 11:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment I'm responding to the RfC. If the report said that one of them probably was carrying a firearm or a bomb, then they're not at all equivalent. If news reports are wrong, then we shouldn't be using them. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment It sounds like the term 'unarmed' is inappropriate, since it is inaccurate. If the protesters possessed bombs, visible to the shooters or not, a clear description is not simply the term 'unarmed'. If what is meant is "without firearms", then I think the article should be clear. Niluop ( talk) 02:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
There appears to be plenty of fundamental misunderstanding of the events of Bloody Sunday, and the "rules of engagement" (or Yellow Card rules, to be specific) that the British Army were bound by.
The contention of the British Army is that all those shot were armed with a gun or bomb, and that they were shot in accordance with the Yellow Card rules, which can be found in the Widgery Report.
So the presence, or not, of nail bombs in Donaghy's pockets is irrelevant to his shooting. This is even made clear by Widgery:
Unless he had a nailbomb in his hand at the time either being used against the security forces or public, or they believed he has reason to think he was going to use it for offensive purposes, he couldn't legally be shot. Soldiers do not have the right to open fire based on bulges in pockets that may be nailbombs. Widgery and Saville basically made the same finding regarding Donaghy, but neither of them placed a bomb in his hand at the time he was shot.
While Widgery did not appear to place weapons in the hands of Donaghy and others at the time they were shot, he did believe a number of them were handling weapons due to "evidence", the details of which are available if anyone wants to look at it but isn't really necessary to explain. Saville dismissed the evidence, and found that none of them (with the possible exception of Donaghy) had been in possession of weapons.
If someone wants to add a note directly after unarmed explaining this, then go right ahead. There is no reason why the remaining innocent victims of Bloody Sunday should not be fully vindicated in the text because of Donaghy, which the wording I reverted quite spectacularly failed to do. It instead read like something out of the Widgery Whitewash. All of those shot were unarmed while shot, since they were not holding a weapon. That is backed up by countless sources. If anyone wants to suggest wording that takes this into account knock yourself out, but otherwise I believe a clarification in a footnote regarding unarmed is all that's needed. 2 lines of K 303 13:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph about the play seems grossly out of place. I'm reading about people dying and getting killed and then all of a sudden, it starts talking about a play? Why not throw in U2's song while we're at? Dear god, it is in there, in the "Artistic reaction" section. Ugh. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
On a vaguely related note, I'm not sure we need the lyrics in there, or if there use is even covered by fair-use since the lyrics themselves aren't the subject of commentary in the article. Any objections to just listing the songs in the section above, assuming they aren't there already? 2 lines of K 303 12:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The narrative section and Narrative of events of Bloody Sunday (1972) say that stones were thrown at police, but later the article says that the Saville Report concluded that stones weren't thrown. Is the Saville Report wrong? If not, the earlier section could be reworded to say something like "according to X, Y and Z stones were thrown at police, although the later Saville Report concluded that this was not the case." -- Chriswaterguy talk 08:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Guys, is het possible to discuss the dispute about the Irish name here? There is a 1RR-rule hanging over it and I don't like the idea of another war on this article. The north has seen enough warring, so please discuss it here. (BTW: I have requested page protection for editwarring) Night of the Big Wind talk 13:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
As both alternative names are valid, but much less frequently used than Bloody Sunday, I have moved them to a new second paragraph. Brocach ( talk) 21:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Discussion is fine. But, editors repeatedly reverting to their version with no consensus is unacceptable. There is no consensus for the most recent edits to this article. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 21:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Just corrected Bloody Sunday text which stated that a Major Ted Loden was commander of 1 para in Derry on Bloody Sunday. I am old enough to remember it was Lt. Col. Derek Wilford, not Loden. Loden served in Aden, not N.I. Wilford, now 76 and living in Belgium, was described in Saville report as having disobeyed orders by allowing his troops to use live rounds against civilians.
Only Wilford knows the truth. 109.149.6.87 ( talk) 13:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
According to a BBC report on the Saville inquiry findings relating to the key soldiers involved with Bloody Sunday, it states that Lt. Col. Wilford was directly in charge of the soldiers who went into the Bogside to arrest rioters, protect the public, and return back to base unharmed. However, Wilford disobeyed his orders by his superior Brigadier Patrick MacLellan. In contrast Major Ted Loden, was the commander in charge of soldiers following orders issued by Lieutenant Colonel Wilford. Furthermore, following the events of Bloody Sunday, Wilford was the awarded the Order of the British Empire by the Queen. See here Bloody Sunday: Key soldiers involved, BBC News — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.72.220 ( talk) 15:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Some guy named 'The Banner' who seems to be Dutch keeps removing information to Bloody Sunday. Although 'The Banner' may not like the information or it conflicts with what you think you know, the information I had written is reliable and has valid citations. please stop. In the first instance, there would be no in-depth mention of all the key figures from the British Army in this article and therefore misinform a reader. For instance, the article argues Loden was in charge on the day when in fact it was Wilford which is covered in the paragraph I had written before The Banner removed it. See as follows:
Regarding the soldiers in charge on the day of Bloody Sunday, Saville found: Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford was commander of 1 Para and on the day was directly responsible to arrest rioters and return to base. However, Wilford 'deliberately disobeyed' his superior Brigadier [Patrick] MacLellan's orders by sending Support Company into the Bogside [and without informing MacLellan][71]. Brigadier Patrick MacLellan was operational commander of the day. The Saville Inquiry cleared MacLellan of any wrong-doing as he was under the impression that Wilford would follow orders by arresting rioters and then returning to base and could not be blamed for for Wilford's actions.Major General Robert Ford was Commander of land forces and set the British strategy to oversee the civil march in Derry. Although, Saville cleared Ford of any fault, He found Ford's selection of 1 Para and in particular Wilford to be in control of arresting rioters was disconcerning, specifically as "1 PARA was a force with a reputation for using excessive physical violence, which thus ran the risk of exacerbating the tensions between the Army and nationalists".Major Ted Loden was the commander in charge of soldiers following orders issued by Lieutenant Colonel Wilford. Saville cleared Loden of misconduct citing that Loden "neither realised nor should have realised that his soldiers were or might be firing at people who were not posing or about to pose a threat". In short, the inquiry found that Loden could not be held responsible for claims (whether malicious or not) by some of the individual soldier's of receiving fire from snipers. Captain Mike Jackson [later General Sir Mike Jackson] was second in command of 1 Para on the day of Bloody Sunday. Saville cleared Jackson of sinsiter actions following Jackson's compiling of a list of what soldiers told Major Loden on why they had fired. This list became known as "Loden List of Engagements" which played a role in the army's initial explanations. While Saville found the compiling of the list was 'far from ideal', he accepted Jackson's explanations based on the list not containing the name of soldiers and the number times they fired. Saville had concluded that Lance Corperal F was responsible for a number of the deaths and that a number of soldiers have "knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing"[76]. Intelligence officer Colonel Maurice Tugwell and Colin Wallace, (an IPU army press officer) were also both cleared of wrongdoing. Saville believed the information Tugwell and Wallace released through the meadia was not down to any deliberate attempt to deceive the public but rather due to much of the inaccurate information Tugwell had received at the time by various other figures. Major Michael Steele who with MacLellan in the operational room and who was in charge of passing on the orders on the day. Saville accepted Steele could not believe other that a separation had been achieved between rioters and marchers because both groups were in different areas.
Secondly, there is no mention of what happened to these key figures after Bloody Sunday in the article. I had written the following:
Nonetheless, six months after Bloody Sunday, Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford who was directly in charge of 1 Para, the soldiers who went into the Bogside, was awarded the Order of the British Empire by the Queen, while other soldiers were equally decorated with honors for their part on the day
I think this is valuable information because the true extent of injustice the people of Derry experienced, but 'The Banner' clearly does not think so and had removed it.
Thirdly, removed by 'The Banner' was the reaction by Wilford on Blairs intention to run the Saville Inquiry, although he mentions a comments by certain members of the British army that may give the wrong impression they wanted this. In fact, they didn't as indicated by Wilford below:
In 1998 Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford expressed his anger at Tony Blair's intention of setting up the Saville inquiry, citing he was proud of his actions on Bloody Sunday.Two years later in 2000 during an interview with the BBC, Wilford said ""There might have been things wrong in the sense that some innocent people, people who were not carrying a weapon, were wounded or even killed. But that was not done as a deliberate malicious act. It was done as an act of war."
Finally, and most importantly 'The Banner' removes the comments of Cameron in the Houses of Commons which I had written as:
Reporting the findings of the Saville Inquiry in the House of Commons, the British Prime Minister David Cameron said: “Mr Speaker, I am deeply patriotic. I never want to believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our army, who I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve. But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong."
Omitting this comment is silly beacuse this comment is iconic of when the British government accepted they were wrong on Bloody Sunday and needs to be kept in. It is what many people had sought for a long time and it is disrespectful to not include it.
All that has been written here can be backed up from here:
(they are mostly BBC reports) Bloody Sunday: Key soldiers involved, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10287463
Britain's propaganda war during the Troubles, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/8577087.stm [[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2521517.stm%7C Major gives Bloody Sunday evidence, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2521517.stm]] Bloody Sunday: PM David Cameron's full statement, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10322295 Col Wilford: Don't blame my soldiers, BBC News, Bloody Sunday Inquiry, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/northern_ireland/2000/bloody_sunday_inquiry/673039.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.72.220 ( talk) 16:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
and as I pointed out to you none of this fits beeter in th Bloody Sunday Inquiry, for instance, how does the fact that many of the British soldiers been decorated by the Queen six months after the event fit much better in the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Saville did not investigate this aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.72.220 ( talk) 22:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
To create a seperate article just to write one line of "awards given for Bloody Sunday" would be silly, lt alone misdirection. By keeping this information in this article not only reports factual information but also keeps the article neutral. It portrays the true sentiment of what was occurring at the time. I mean, how would this information not be keeping the article neutral. For instance take the following paragraph which is already in this article (and was not placed there by me)and tell me how exactly it is more neutral than six months after Bloody Sunday the Queen decorated a number of Service men (which I had added):
"Following the events of Bloody Sunday Bernadette Devlin, an Independent Socialist nationalist MP from Northern Ireland, expressed anger at what she perceived as government attempts to stifle accounts being reported about the day. Having witnessed the events firsthand, she was later infuriated that she was consistently denied the chance to speak in Parliament about the day, although parliamentary convention decreed that any MP witnessing an incident under discussion would be granted an opportunity to speak about it in the House.[50] Devlin punched Reginald Maudling, the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Conservative government, when he made a statement to Parliament on the events of Bloody Sunday stating that the British Army had fired only in self-defence"
The fact is these decorations by the Queen to British soldiers occurred as a direct result of Bloody Sunday and therefore merit mentioning as Wikipedia aspires to show factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.72.220 ( talk) 16:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? Didn't I read somewhere that only the most notable names should be kept unless it's a standalone list? SonofSetanta ( talk) 17:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
In the list of the dead, for those whom the gunshot residue tests turned up negative, it's mentioned. The positive results aren't. 92.1.37.91 ( talk) 21:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Last line of intro states:
"Bloody Sunday remains among the most significant events in the Troubles of Northern Ireland, chiefly because those who died were shot by the British army rather than paramilitaries, in full view of the public and the press."
Bloody Sunday had one of the highest death tolls of any single action. I don't think it is a "man bites dog" type of significance. 69.138.223.87 ( talk) 22:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
According to most sources, William McKinney was not shot while stooping over the body of Gerald McKinney; he was shot at the same time as Quinn, Mahon and Wray in Glenfada Park prior to Gerald McKinney. Gerald McKinney and Gerald Donaghey were both shot in the same location afterwards with some sources stating the shot which hit Donaghey in the abdomen travelled through Gerry McKinney's body. Eamonn McCann's book clearly states William McKinney was shot while fleeing through Glenfada Park and before Gerry McKinney was shot in the same location, as do several online sources. One can be found here (check the text and the imagery indicating positions of wounded and fatalities). One more here.
I was considering adding the above references, plus McCann's book, to an adjustment to the circumstances surrounding William McKinney's death, but thought it more appropriate to place this info. on the talk page 1st.-- Kieronoldham ( talk) 23:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
"The NICRA were secretly sponsored by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in the hope that there would be a campaign of civil disturbance which would unseat the unionist government in Belfast."
The source is well-respected and not in question, but this phrasing could do with some clarification. Does the source specify the degree of funding NICRA received from the IRA? Were they wholly funded by the IRA or only partly? If partly, what proportion of their funding came from IRA sources?
The current phrasing is ambiguous but implies that NICRA were wholly funded by the IRA. I'd like this clarified from the source, or other sources cited to clarify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.147.193 ( talk) 04:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Your edits to the article as in most articles you edit is unconstructive and silly. The first paragraph of the lede already states that NICRA organised the protest march and here is the key wording: "organised", which implies they organised it but that others could join it. Your edit which states "by the" implies it was NICRA and only NICRA that was at this march. If you want to be specific about who organised it in the very first sentence then you have to be even handed and state that the 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment, formed the bulk of the army there that day too. The way the opening paragraph is suffices in terms of succinctness of getting the essential information displayed. Your edit adds in needless repetition.
Secondly your removal of the reason for the march citing "NICRA had lots of aims beside the end of internment" is silly because, whilst obviously NICRA had more aims that just that, this specific march as the body of the article states, was about internment, hence the large "Background" section dedicated to the issue of internment.
Also you are well aware of WP:BRD.
Mabuska (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
From the abstract: "The second half of the paper investigates how Paul Greengrass’ films Bloody Sunday and United 93, which both deal with the topic of terrorism, transform the rhetorical dimension of a terrorist outrage, the main thesis being that the films appropriate the dimension of silence and speechlessness in order to become monuments of commemoration." Gob Lofa ( talk) 20:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the statement merits inclusion, albeit not in the lead. Is there another section where it might work?
Kafka Liz (
talk) 20:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The above quote – from the abstract of the paper, as Gob Lofa acknowledges – does not reflect what the author actually says about Bloody Sunday. He says, "This date marks the crossroads between the Civil Rights Movement and the Troubles, the violent radicalisation of the Northern Irish Conflict and the terrorist attacks committed by the Irish Republican Army", and later, "The film shows how members of the IRA immediately begin to recruit new members who will then be responsible for the terrorist attacks of the following decade". Thus, although he says that the film deals with the topic of terrorism, he doesn't describe the killings themselves as terrorism. Scolaire ( talk) 12:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Scolaire, I didn't create that category. Is your position that the killings were legal? Gob Lofa ( talk) 21:28, 3 September 2015 (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 |
Just case people watch this page is not aware LoveUxoxo has taken out a discussion at AN/I. Bloody Sunday (1972). My take of the situation is that LoveUxoxo is trying to change too many things at the same time (the talkpage really is a mess). He also seems to have a very low opinion of what has been a relatively stable and I think good article. Bjmullan ( talk) 07:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, this statement: "In addition, defenseless people who lay wounded on the ground were shot by soldiers who stood over them." I think should be removed. Obviously, if it were to stay, it would need a cite, and without one now I can only assume that it is specifically referring to Jim Wray in Glenfada Park North.
The manner of his death has been very controversial since Bloody Sunday, with some witnesses stating that he was shot at close range after being wounded and defenseless on the ground. That has been the (I've been saying "Republican", screw that, lets call the "popular narrative") For example, this is how it was depicted in Paul Greenglass' Bloody Sunday. However Saville, after witness testimony and forensic evidence, came to the conclusion that: "We reject the assertion that Jim Wray was “executed ” by a soldier shooting him at close range while he was on the ground". LoveUxoxo ( talk) 02:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Other problems I have with this section include the statement "The order to fire live rounds was given". Again, without any cite. Saville did not find that any such order was issued. Also the order in which the events are chronologically defined is inaccurate; the order "to mobilise the troops in an arrest operation" should be first in that paragraph. The sentence "reports of an IRA sniper operating in the area were allegedly given to the Army command centre" is weasely; it should either be stated as fact, by the weight given to RS, or should not be there at all. LoveUxoxo ( talk) 05:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This statement "Such confrontations between soldiers and youths were common, though observers reported that the rioting was not intense" is sourced to Pringle, however the text excerpt shown in References for that cite actually reads "... the level of rioting was no greater than usual". "no greater than usual" does not equate to "was not intense", that is inaccurate. LoveUxoxo ( talk) 22:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This statement: "Two civilians, Damien Donaghy and John Johnston were shot and wounded by soldiers on William Street who claimed the former was carrying a black cylindrical object." also is sourced to Pringle. The source's actual text, as shown in References below, is "Seconds after the corporal fired, he would say that he spotted the same man with a black cylindrical object in one hand strike what appeared to be a match against the wall". Pringle's statement (in full) is in agreement with the findings of Saville. If you are going to quote Pringle as to what the soldiers said was their justification for firing at Damien Donaghy then you should quote him in full, since the soldiers justification was predicated on Donaghy being in the immediate act of lighting and throwing a nail bomb. This was extensively discussed in Saville (who found that Donaghy was NOT in the act of throwing a nail bomb). LoveUxoxo ( talk) 22:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The dead - This section needs to be rewritten entirely, with all the new information available to us from Saville. CAIN was the best source available to us for quite some time, I read through it extensively in the past. Now however, it is not the MOST reliable source that should be given the most weight. For any of the people mentioned in this section Saville will provide extensive detail of ALL the witness and forensic evidence as to the exact circumstances of their shooting. Right now it is very much cherry-picked statements of fact, so Widgery (Widgery as a source?) get quoted when it supports the popular narrative, or "one" or "two" witnesses are mentioned when that specific witness testimony supports the popular narrative which is the basis for what is written here. In most cases there is conflicting witness testimony, just look at Saville's section on the controversy of the circumstances of Jim Wray's death. Some witness said that he was shot execution-style. Others didn't. You can't just pick the ones who said he was; the evidence needs to be taken in as a whole. LoveUxoxo ( talk) 22:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
John Johnston - The statement "Johnston was not on the march, but on his way to visit a friend in Glenfada Park" is inaccurate. In fact Johnston, who participated in the march that day, when seeing rioting ahead, decided to leave the tail end of the march. Here is the quote from Saville: "He had been taking part in the march but on his way down William Street he saw clouds of CS gas ahead and decided to cut south across the laundry waste ground in order to visit an old man in the area of Glenfada Park. At no stage was he engaged in any form of disorderly activity." Yes, I see a cite from Taylor, but unfortunately no text excerpt. Regardless, Saville's version has more weight. LoveUxoxo ( talk) 23:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I feel this section is well-cited and has a commendable NPOV. Perhaps it could be a bit more tidy/tight, but I think it is a good and much needed background. One thing: this article needs some images of the Bogside that aren't decades after the events described, so I'll look for images suitable for free use. For now I suggest just removing the one there, it's not indicative in any way to the content of the section. Also, having it on the left-margin of the opening of the main body is bleech. We should also have "Main article: The Troubles" link at the top of the section. Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 21:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Everyone, there is a slightly different version of this section I want to substitute. You can view it here. Thankfully, this should be much easier to accept than the other changes I have wanted to make. Here are the things that I felt warranted some changes:
So the first paragraph is slightly different, as to avoid disagreement with the main article. Other than the next sentence of the second, the rest is the same as what is there now, except for formatting. I have kept every cite, and added three more from CAIN. The image was taken from The Troubles article, perhaps someone can suggest a good caption. I really hope you agree, but if not, please let me know why and I can try to address your concerns. Thanks, and Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 07:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Anybody else have any comments? I can't put an image in my sandbox per WP:NFCC#9, but I suggest also using a second one, showing youths defending a barricade in the Bogside taken from the Battle of Bogside main article. I also think this section should take us right up until the morning of the march, with 1 PARA deployed in the city. Still, again, this proposed edit isn't about content as much as formatting. Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 18:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to set Miszabot to automatically archive threads older than 90 days; this will help a lot. If you want to keep threads older than that please say so. Thanks! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 20:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thirteen killed. Pamour ( talk) 19:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
While idly perusing the article, this statement jumped out at me. I'm unfamiliar with the sources on the matter, but if it is indeed attributable then it needs to be cited. It's too inflammatory a statement to leave undefended. Throwaway85 ( talk) 20:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This dispute concerns whether or not this finding of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry:
"3.70 None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm or (with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghey) a bomb of any description." [2]
is equivalent to:
"The report found that all of those shot were unarmed"
I failed in my first attempt to create this RfC, and since this went up I've changed it twice. I know its asking a lot, but please AGF for a sec: as I stated in this edit when I suggesting eliciting outside comment, I believe the heart of this dispute is my assertion that A is NOT equivalent to B. Thanks, and Cheers! LoveUxoxo ( talk) 11:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment I'm responding to the RfC. If the report said that one of them probably was carrying a firearm or a bomb, then they're not at all equivalent. If news reports are wrong, then we shouldn't be using them. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment It sounds like the term 'unarmed' is inappropriate, since it is inaccurate. If the protesters possessed bombs, visible to the shooters or not, a clear description is not simply the term 'unarmed'. If what is meant is "without firearms", then I think the article should be clear. Niluop ( talk) 02:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
There appears to be plenty of fundamental misunderstanding of the events of Bloody Sunday, and the "rules of engagement" (or Yellow Card rules, to be specific) that the British Army were bound by.
The contention of the British Army is that all those shot were armed with a gun or bomb, and that they were shot in accordance with the Yellow Card rules, which can be found in the Widgery Report.
So the presence, or not, of nail bombs in Donaghy's pockets is irrelevant to his shooting. This is even made clear by Widgery:
Unless he had a nailbomb in his hand at the time either being used against the security forces or public, or they believed he has reason to think he was going to use it for offensive purposes, he couldn't legally be shot. Soldiers do not have the right to open fire based on bulges in pockets that may be nailbombs. Widgery and Saville basically made the same finding regarding Donaghy, but neither of them placed a bomb in his hand at the time he was shot.
While Widgery did not appear to place weapons in the hands of Donaghy and others at the time they were shot, he did believe a number of them were handling weapons due to "evidence", the details of which are available if anyone wants to look at it but isn't really necessary to explain. Saville dismissed the evidence, and found that none of them (with the possible exception of Donaghy) had been in possession of weapons.
If someone wants to add a note directly after unarmed explaining this, then go right ahead. There is no reason why the remaining innocent victims of Bloody Sunday should not be fully vindicated in the text because of Donaghy, which the wording I reverted quite spectacularly failed to do. It instead read like something out of the Widgery Whitewash. All of those shot were unarmed while shot, since they were not holding a weapon. That is backed up by countless sources. If anyone wants to suggest wording that takes this into account knock yourself out, but otherwise I believe a clarification in a footnote regarding unarmed is all that's needed. 2 lines of K 303 13:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph about the play seems grossly out of place. I'm reading about people dying and getting killed and then all of a sudden, it starts talking about a play? Why not throw in U2's song while we're at? Dear god, it is in there, in the "Artistic reaction" section. Ugh. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
On a vaguely related note, I'm not sure we need the lyrics in there, or if there use is even covered by fair-use since the lyrics themselves aren't the subject of commentary in the article. Any objections to just listing the songs in the section above, assuming they aren't there already? 2 lines of K 303 12:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
The narrative section and Narrative of events of Bloody Sunday (1972) say that stones were thrown at police, but later the article says that the Saville Report concluded that stones weren't thrown. Is the Saville Report wrong? If not, the earlier section could be reworded to say something like "according to X, Y and Z stones were thrown at police, although the later Saville Report concluded that this was not the case." -- Chriswaterguy talk 08:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Guys, is het possible to discuss the dispute about the Irish name here? There is a 1RR-rule hanging over it and I don't like the idea of another war on this article. The north has seen enough warring, so please discuss it here. (BTW: I have requested page protection for editwarring) Night of the Big Wind talk 13:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
As both alternative names are valid, but much less frequently used than Bloody Sunday, I have moved them to a new second paragraph. Brocach ( talk) 21:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Discussion is fine. But, editors repeatedly reverting to their version with no consensus is unacceptable. There is no consensus for the most recent edits to this article. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 21:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Just corrected Bloody Sunday text which stated that a Major Ted Loden was commander of 1 para in Derry on Bloody Sunday. I am old enough to remember it was Lt. Col. Derek Wilford, not Loden. Loden served in Aden, not N.I. Wilford, now 76 and living in Belgium, was described in Saville report as having disobeyed orders by allowing his troops to use live rounds against civilians.
Only Wilford knows the truth. 109.149.6.87 ( talk) 13:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
According to a BBC report on the Saville inquiry findings relating to the key soldiers involved with Bloody Sunday, it states that Lt. Col. Wilford was directly in charge of the soldiers who went into the Bogside to arrest rioters, protect the public, and return back to base unharmed. However, Wilford disobeyed his orders by his superior Brigadier Patrick MacLellan. In contrast Major Ted Loden, was the commander in charge of soldiers following orders issued by Lieutenant Colonel Wilford. Furthermore, following the events of Bloody Sunday, Wilford was the awarded the Order of the British Empire by the Queen. See here Bloody Sunday: Key soldiers involved, BBC News — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.72.220 ( talk) 15:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Some guy named 'The Banner' who seems to be Dutch keeps removing information to Bloody Sunday. Although 'The Banner' may not like the information or it conflicts with what you think you know, the information I had written is reliable and has valid citations. please stop. In the first instance, there would be no in-depth mention of all the key figures from the British Army in this article and therefore misinform a reader. For instance, the article argues Loden was in charge on the day when in fact it was Wilford which is covered in the paragraph I had written before The Banner removed it. See as follows:
Regarding the soldiers in charge on the day of Bloody Sunday, Saville found: Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford was commander of 1 Para and on the day was directly responsible to arrest rioters and return to base. However, Wilford 'deliberately disobeyed' his superior Brigadier [Patrick] MacLellan's orders by sending Support Company into the Bogside [and without informing MacLellan][71]. Brigadier Patrick MacLellan was operational commander of the day. The Saville Inquiry cleared MacLellan of any wrong-doing as he was under the impression that Wilford would follow orders by arresting rioters and then returning to base and could not be blamed for for Wilford's actions.Major General Robert Ford was Commander of land forces and set the British strategy to oversee the civil march in Derry. Although, Saville cleared Ford of any fault, He found Ford's selection of 1 Para and in particular Wilford to be in control of arresting rioters was disconcerning, specifically as "1 PARA was a force with a reputation for using excessive physical violence, which thus ran the risk of exacerbating the tensions between the Army and nationalists".Major Ted Loden was the commander in charge of soldiers following orders issued by Lieutenant Colonel Wilford. Saville cleared Loden of misconduct citing that Loden "neither realised nor should have realised that his soldiers were or might be firing at people who were not posing or about to pose a threat". In short, the inquiry found that Loden could not be held responsible for claims (whether malicious or not) by some of the individual soldier's of receiving fire from snipers. Captain Mike Jackson [later General Sir Mike Jackson] was second in command of 1 Para on the day of Bloody Sunday. Saville cleared Jackson of sinsiter actions following Jackson's compiling of a list of what soldiers told Major Loden on why they had fired. This list became known as "Loden List of Engagements" which played a role in the army's initial explanations. While Saville found the compiling of the list was 'far from ideal', he accepted Jackson's explanations based on the list not containing the name of soldiers and the number times they fired. Saville had concluded that Lance Corperal F was responsible for a number of the deaths and that a number of soldiers have "knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing"[76]. Intelligence officer Colonel Maurice Tugwell and Colin Wallace, (an IPU army press officer) were also both cleared of wrongdoing. Saville believed the information Tugwell and Wallace released through the meadia was not down to any deliberate attempt to deceive the public but rather due to much of the inaccurate information Tugwell had received at the time by various other figures. Major Michael Steele who with MacLellan in the operational room and who was in charge of passing on the orders on the day. Saville accepted Steele could not believe other that a separation had been achieved between rioters and marchers because both groups were in different areas.
Secondly, there is no mention of what happened to these key figures after Bloody Sunday in the article. I had written the following:
Nonetheless, six months after Bloody Sunday, Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford who was directly in charge of 1 Para, the soldiers who went into the Bogside, was awarded the Order of the British Empire by the Queen, while other soldiers were equally decorated with honors for their part on the day
I think this is valuable information because the true extent of injustice the people of Derry experienced, but 'The Banner' clearly does not think so and had removed it.
Thirdly, removed by 'The Banner' was the reaction by Wilford on Blairs intention to run the Saville Inquiry, although he mentions a comments by certain members of the British army that may give the wrong impression they wanted this. In fact, they didn't as indicated by Wilford below:
In 1998 Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford expressed his anger at Tony Blair's intention of setting up the Saville inquiry, citing he was proud of his actions on Bloody Sunday.Two years later in 2000 during an interview with the BBC, Wilford said ""There might have been things wrong in the sense that some innocent people, people who were not carrying a weapon, were wounded or even killed. But that was not done as a deliberate malicious act. It was done as an act of war."
Finally, and most importantly 'The Banner' removes the comments of Cameron in the Houses of Commons which I had written as:
Reporting the findings of the Saville Inquiry in the House of Commons, the British Prime Minister David Cameron said: “Mr Speaker, I am deeply patriotic. I never want to believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our army, who I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve. But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong."
Omitting this comment is silly beacuse this comment is iconic of when the British government accepted they were wrong on Bloody Sunday and needs to be kept in. It is what many people had sought for a long time and it is disrespectful to not include it.
All that has been written here can be backed up from here:
(they are mostly BBC reports) Bloody Sunday: Key soldiers involved, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10287463
Britain's propaganda war during the Troubles, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/8577087.stm [[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2521517.stm%7C Major gives Bloody Sunday evidence, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2521517.stm]] Bloody Sunday: PM David Cameron's full statement, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10322295 Col Wilford: Don't blame my soldiers, BBC News, Bloody Sunday Inquiry, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/northern_ireland/2000/bloody_sunday_inquiry/673039.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.72.220 ( talk) 16:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
and as I pointed out to you none of this fits beeter in th Bloody Sunday Inquiry, for instance, how does the fact that many of the British soldiers been decorated by the Queen six months after the event fit much better in the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Saville did not investigate this aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.72.220 ( talk) 22:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
To create a seperate article just to write one line of "awards given for Bloody Sunday" would be silly, lt alone misdirection. By keeping this information in this article not only reports factual information but also keeps the article neutral. It portrays the true sentiment of what was occurring at the time. I mean, how would this information not be keeping the article neutral. For instance take the following paragraph which is already in this article (and was not placed there by me)and tell me how exactly it is more neutral than six months after Bloody Sunday the Queen decorated a number of Service men (which I had added):
"Following the events of Bloody Sunday Bernadette Devlin, an Independent Socialist nationalist MP from Northern Ireland, expressed anger at what she perceived as government attempts to stifle accounts being reported about the day. Having witnessed the events firsthand, she was later infuriated that she was consistently denied the chance to speak in Parliament about the day, although parliamentary convention decreed that any MP witnessing an incident under discussion would be granted an opportunity to speak about it in the House.[50] Devlin punched Reginald Maudling, the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Conservative government, when he made a statement to Parliament on the events of Bloody Sunday stating that the British Army had fired only in self-defence"
The fact is these decorations by the Queen to British soldiers occurred as a direct result of Bloody Sunday and therefore merit mentioning as Wikipedia aspires to show factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.72.220 ( talk) 16:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this really necessary? Didn't I read somewhere that only the most notable names should be kept unless it's a standalone list? SonofSetanta ( talk) 17:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
In the list of the dead, for those whom the gunshot residue tests turned up negative, it's mentioned. The positive results aren't. 92.1.37.91 ( talk) 21:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Last line of intro states:
"Bloody Sunday remains among the most significant events in the Troubles of Northern Ireland, chiefly because those who died were shot by the British army rather than paramilitaries, in full view of the public and the press."
Bloody Sunday had one of the highest death tolls of any single action. I don't think it is a "man bites dog" type of significance. 69.138.223.87 ( talk) 22:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
According to most sources, William McKinney was not shot while stooping over the body of Gerald McKinney; he was shot at the same time as Quinn, Mahon and Wray in Glenfada Park prior to Gerald McKinney. Gerald McKinney and Gerald Donaghey were both shot in the same location afterwards with some sources stating the shot which hit Donaghey in the abdomen travelled through Gerry McKinney's body. Eamonn McCann's book clearly states William McKinney was shot while fleeing through Glenfada Park and before Gerry McKinney was shot in the same location, as do several online sources. One can be found here (check the text and the imagery indicating positions of wounded and fatalities). One more here.
I was considering adding the above references, plus McCann's book, to an adjustment to the circumstances surrounding William McKinney's death, but thought it more appropriate to place this info. on the talk page 1st.-- Kieronoldham ( talk) 23:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
"The NICRA were secretly sponsored by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in the hope that there would be a campaign of civil disturbance which would unseat the unionist government in Belfast."
The source is well-respected and not in question, but this phrasing could do with some clarification. Does the source specify the degree of funding NICRA received from the IRA? Were they wholly funded by the IRA or only partly? If partly, what proportion of their funding came from IRA sources?
The current phrasing is ambiguous but implies that NICRA were wholly funded by the IRA. I'd like this clarified from the source, or other sources cited to clarify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.147.193 ( talk) 04:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Your edits to the article as in most articles you edit is unconstructive and silly. The first paragraph of the lede already states that NICRA organised the protest march and here is the key wording: "organised", which implies they organised it but that others could join it. Your edit which states "by the" implies it was NICRA and only NICRA that was at this march. If you want to be specific about who organised it in the very first sentence then you have to be even handed and state that the 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment, formed the bulk of the army there that day too. The way the opening paragraph is suffices in terms of succinctness of getting the essential information displayed. Your edit adds in needless repetition.
Secondly your removal of the reason for the march citing "NICRA had lots of aims beside the end of internment" is silly because, whilst obviously NICRA had more aims that just that, this specific march as the body of the article states, was about internment, hence the large "Background" section dedicated to the issue of internment.
Also you are well aware of WP:BRD.
Mabuska (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
From the abstract: "The second half of the paper investigates how Paul Greengrass’ films Bloody Sunday and United 93, which both deal with the topic of terrorism, transform the rhetorical dimension of a terrorist outrage, the main thesis being that the films appropriate the dimension of silence and speechlessness in order to become monuments of commemoration." Gob Lofa ( talk) 20:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the statement merits inclusion, albeit not in the lead. Is there another section where it might work?
Kafka Liz (
talk) 20:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The above quote – from the abstract of the paper, as Gob Lofa acknowledges – does not reflect what the author actually says about Bloody Sunday. He says, "This date marks the crossroads between the Civil Rights Movement and the Troubles, the violent radicalisation of the Northern Irish Conflict and the terrorist attacks committed by the Irish Republican Army", and later, "The film shows how members of the IRA immediately begin to recruit new members who will then be responsible for the terrorist attacks of the following decade". Thus, although he says that the film deals with the topic of terrorism, he doesn't describe the killings themselves as terrorism. Scolaire ( talk) 12:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Scolaire, I didn't create that category. Is your position that the killings were legal? Gob Lofa ( talk) 21:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)