Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972)/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Bloody Sunday (1972). 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)

In a city like Derry, of course some of those involved would have been members of the IRA. There also were members of the Nationalist Party, church leaders (Protestant and Roman Catholic), etc. Members of the IRA were as entitled as anyone else to march, once they were not breaking the law.

As to the supposed sightings, they weren't as far as the evidence that has been presented goes, among the crowd. The crowd was unarmed. It was fired on. That is the issue. It is irrelevant whether others not part of the crowd that was fired at were armed or not. FearÉIREANN(caint) 20:39, 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)

Good point. No one can say that all the marchers were unarmed, but it's an established fact that the ones who were shot were unarmed.thx1138 09:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Should the first sentence also not also mention "after rioting at a civil rights march"?"Jonto 21:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No, because there was no riot. thx1138 09:28, 2 February 2006 (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)

Not true. All the dead were subjected to the so-called "paraffin test" for lead particles, and the results were negative for five, positive for six, and inconclusive for two. Widgery thought that not all the positives were evidence that the individuals themselves had handled firearms, and even where they had, they weren't at the time they were shot. Even so, the validy of the tests is now called into question. Jim Wray, for example, worked on a production line that involved lead soldering, while others were probably cross-contaminated when their bodies were removed by the soldiers who had been firing.

There wqere undoubtedly shots fired at the soldiers (e.g. the "drainpipe shot" and "Father Daly's gunman"), but these generally seem to be unco-ordinated and individual retaliations once the Paras had opened fire. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "so-called" paraffin test, the test involves using actual paraffin to lift residue from the skin. The test also has absolutely nothing to do with lead particles, it tests for nitrogen compounds from the powder. Unless the gun were to actually explode, any lead in the projectile leaves the front of the barrel rather than leaking from the chamber. It also is pretty much worthless as demonstrated by extensive testing after the Kennedy assassination. I'm changing the reference to lead in the article to "gunshot residue" which much more accurately describes the test.Vanhorn (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To quote the Widgery report:

"66. The only other relevant forensic test applied to the deceased was the so-called paraffin test. When a firearm is discharged minute particles of lead are carried by the propellant gases. The particles carried forward through the muzzle may be deposited over a distance of 30 feet in front of the weapon. Some gases escape from the breach however, and deposit lead particles on the hands or clothing of the firer. This phenomenon is particularly marked with revolvers and automatic weapons and with bolt-action rifles if the bolt is withdrawn after firing. If swabs are taken from the firing hand of a man who has fired such a weapon they may be expected to show an even distribution of minute lead particles on the back of that hand and between the forefinger and thumb. Such a deposit, if not otherwise explained, is strong if not conclusive evidence of firing."

It may be that widgery misattributed the specific test, but all the literature consistenty talks about the tests carried out being for lead, and the attendent problems when it comes to individuals such as James Wray. I am therefore reverting your change. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Still very POV, pro republican, no wonder the education sector ban the use of Wikipedia :-( Twobells (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the article in general, or the specific issue under this heading? Nick Cooper (talk) 10:56, 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 discussion17.64.119.86 (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)

While Saville stated that Gerald Donaghy was probably carrying nail bombs, that is largely irrelevant. Merely having them in his pocket would not have allowed the Paras to open fire, even if they had been aware of them being there. To all intents and purposes, he was unarmed since the definition is "Not carrying, using, or displaying arms". The use of the word "or" means not all three are required for someone to be unarmed, and Saville states he fulfills two of the requirements. If you would like to suggest a short piece of wording for the lead that includes this and at the same time makes it clear that nobody who was shot was holding a weapon please go right ahead, you may succeed where everyone else has failed. O Fenian (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"you may succeed where everyone else has failed" Agreed, this is not easy, and we will have to work hard at this. Its the Lede, so I'd rather use unambiguous attributable statements that can be expanded upon later. I prefer:

"none of whom was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury"

as per Saville. LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, using David Cameron's words would probably be best ("...none of the casualties shot by the soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm..."). LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 'just' nail bombs [[1]] Twobells (talk)

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)

IIRC, whhen this came up previously, this issue was that all marches and parades were covered by a blanket ban at the time. Describing it simply as a "banned march" could be taken to mean that it was the subject to specific controls, e.g. the march was proposed, then banned, but went ahead anyway. This sort of ambiguity is to be avoided, and the the actual circumstances are explained quite early in the page, anyway. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:27, 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)

Any idea that Twobells is looking at this article from a neutral perspective can be dismissed right now. See this disgraceful edit (which was classed as vandalism when his edit warring to maintain it was reported) where he mocks a living person saying the death threat he received "couldn't happen to a nicer guy".

Even the Widgery Whitewash agrees that the status of the march was not relevant, unless Twobells is suggesting the punishment for taking part in a banned march is summary execution? O Fenian (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

any version published on the 'Bloddy Sunday' event, is always seen as biased. i myself agree it was a tradgety waiting to happen. i didnt live through the 'troubles' but as a child id always been taught to forgive, forget & move on. why cant ireland do the same ? the many bloody days Ireland has seen, i think its time to work towards the future. the past is the past and mothing will change. but we have the oppertunity to make the future brighter for up coming children, for they are our future. but they are being brought up to see the opposite religion an enemy, when they should be a friend. forget the past and move on. when the love of friendship is grater than the love of power, ireland will know peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.242.196 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest 'illegal march'? Makes it clear it was banned, but does not imply any specific ruling against this particular march. Modest Genius ^talk 23:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You might suggest it, but the chances anybody taking it seriously are close to zero. If the "illegality" of the march is such an issue, how come neither the Saville Report nor the reaction to the report has focussed on it? Scolaire (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In Vol. I, Chapter 2 "Outline of events before the day" of the Saville Report, Sections 2.8. 2.10, 2.11 and 2.12 reference, as background to the march, the ban on marching. A sentence or two in the background of events of the day in the article is essential to explain why did the match not go to the Guildhall as planned, why did many witnesses lie to Widgery about their involvement in the march, etc. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The ban on marches is in the background section. What some people think is that the march being illegal should be in the lead for some reason. Most other editors cannot fathom what possible reason there is to mention it, since the penalty for taking part in an illegal march while unarmed is not summary execution. O Fenian (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think mentioning that the march was unlawful is some kind of justification for what happened? Strange reasoning. Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 5 July 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)

That's not quite how it was. Ford's original memo ran:

"I am coming to the conclusion that the minimum force necessary to achieve a restoration of law and order is to shoot selected ringleaders amongst the DYH, after clear warnings have been issued. I believe we would be justified in using 7.62-millimetre but, in view of the devastating effects of this weapon and the danger of rounds killing more than the person aimed at, I believe we must consider issuing rifles adapted to fire high velocity .22 ammunition to sufficient members of the unit dealing with this problem, to enable ringleaders to be engaged with this less lethal ammunition."

It is clear that Ford was requesting the .22 rifles because they were less likely to be lethal. This was reiterated at Saville, as reported here:

Clarke put it to the general: "The conclusion you were coming towards was that, after a warning, selected ringleaders of the DYH should be shot; is that right?" General Ford replied: "This was a suggestion I was putting to General Tuzo. The use of the .22 rifle instead of the 7.62 -- well, the .22 is said by the Ministry of Defence to be only `marginally lethal' -- those very words -- and also to be, elsewhere, `marginally lethal at 200 metres', I think.

"So, I was suggesting, apparently -- I have no recollection of this at all, of course -- I was suggesting that this weapon, which had apparently been developed by the Ministry of Defence in the UK for possible use in Northern Ireland at the request of the previous GOC Northern Ireland, General Freeland, that we should look at the possibility of using it, well knowing that of course this would require major stages of preparation, retraining of tactics, and so on.

"Of course, eventually it would have to go to the government who, no doubt, would seek legal advice."

Ford is, however, mistaken in his recollection about why the SLR conversion was available, which was actually for training purposes, particularly at recruit level. The first experimental non-reversible conversions were carried out in 1959 - long before the Troubles - but not brought into service. A reversible conversion kit suitable for British imperial measure rifles was manufactured by Heckler & Koch (based on their kit for the metric SLR used by the Germany army) in the 1970s - details here and here. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:45, 15 June 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)

Can I suggest the original image of Fr Edward Daly waving a white handkerchief (ie the photo that the mural further down in the page is based on)? It is a widely recognised image of the incident. --Kwekubo (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to be WP:BOLD, so I've uploaded this image and added it to the infobox citing fair use. --Kwekubo (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is highly unlikely that this is a fair use case. It should be tagged for review, and then removed if it is a copyvio. --cbdorsett (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why it should not be fair use. An image of the incident can be used under fair use criteria if it helps illutstrate the article and there is no free alternative. There can surely be no doubt it has met the first criteria. The second, I suppose could be argued otherwise (that the mural would do the same), although I would not accept this argument myself as the mural is a fairly poor interpretation, would be unsuitable as a lead image as its a Republican mural and therefore in breach of NPOV if used as the lead image and it has much less impact. Looking through other conflicts and such, images have been used in the same way.Mtaylor848 (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the mural is not free either. I don't remember where it's set out, but photographs of two-dimensional works of are are not free in the way that photographs of three-dimensional works of art are. Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The mural is free, it is a permanent fixture therefore is subject to freedom of panorama. Of course, what is permamnent is debatable, and when the two-dimensional image becomes the feature of the picture rather than featured in the picture. If this were true there could be no images of murals, shop signs, road signs, street signs, public notices or any such thing on commons.Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:52, 16 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)

Neither of those would meet the non-free content criteria on this article, and personally I'd dispute the rationales on the existing images if I could be bothered. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:55, 23 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:

Derry (whose very name was in contention, being referred to as Londonderry by unionists),

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)

Removed per WP:TOPIC. Thanks. --John (talk) 19:22, 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)

WP:IMOS covers this in WP:DERRY/WP:LDERRY: Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles.Autarch (talk) 16:37, 17 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)

I'm a passerby and unfamiliar with the development of the article. I wonder, though, if some of the copyright confusion arises from the difference between the U.S., where the government holds no copyright at all to material it produces, and the U.K., where the government has crown copyright? From my work life, I have the impression this is not widely known in the U.S. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:29, 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)

Would it not be useful to keep these details, as in a number of cases they refer to the number of witness and/or photographs that even at Widgery showed they were unarmed? There seems a perception in some quarters that all of the dead have only just been exonerated now, when in fact many of them were even in 1972. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. Perhaps a separate section for the Widgery report is needed, it does seem to be lacking at present? O Fenian (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That might be the way forward. I'm currently compiling a table of the differences between the attribution of shots between Widgery and Saville as per the narrative page, which I'll post on the Talk page there. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of balance I think a separate section is a good idea, also in the interest of balance would a separate article on the Widgery Tribunal also be a good idea? --Wintonian (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a separate article on Widgery is not really needed at present, one can always be created later if the amount of material on it in this article becomes too large. O Fenian (talk) 09:50, 17 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:

1 = Shot, died later (John Johnson)

12 = Shot

1 = Possibly shot - slight injury (Daniel Gillespie)

2 = Hit by debris caused by rifle fire

2 = Hit by vehicle (Alana Burke & Thomas Harkin)

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:

1. The current text in "Events of the day" is integrated into the appropriate place in the "Narrative of events" section, which would then be titled "Events of the day".
2. The information on Widgery from "Perspectives and analyses on the day" is moved out of there and into a new "Widgery report" (title as yet undecided, see point 5 below), which would also be expanded slightly.
3. Various information from "The dead" is moved into the Widgery section
4. Possibly move the inquest part from "Perspectives and analyses on the day" into the Widgery section and re-title it accordingly? It seems the best place for it, since there is not really enough for a section of its own.
5. Various other information from "Perspectives and analyses on the day" (British embassy being burned down, Devlin and so on) is moved to a "Reactions" section which comes before Widgery. Anything left in that section that does not seem to fit anywhere at present can be temporarily removed.
6. Add a section about the 20+ year campaign for a new inquiry, which would go before the Saville section obviously.

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)

A piece of cloth used to wipe one's nose, even today. I have many. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Also worn around the arm as identification by the stewards of the march LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:19, 29 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)

His family were informed by a specialist that the tumour had developed rapidly and that it could have been caused by a heavy fall. Coincidentally, he hit his head on the pavement after being shot. O Fenian (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In his statements to the RUC, the Sunday Times and written submission and oral testimony to the Widgery Inquiry at no point does John Johnston say that he fell. His medical records when admitted to Altnagevin Hospital show no record of head injury. The evidence as a whole shows is that John Johnston stumbled, but did not fall, after being shot. Even if he did fall, the fact that a specialist stated that the tumor "could" have been caused by a fall does not make it correct to state, as fact, in the article that the cause of death was the wounds he suffered on Bloody Sunday. Obviously, for many, John Johnston is considered the 14th victim of that day (see the mural in the article currently), so we should reference that in the article. However it is not by the due weight of verifiable and reliable sources true, and should not be stated as such in the article. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

the article says 14 and the main page says 27... --77.126.247.143 (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Twenty-seven people were shot; fourteen died. Scolaire (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

As per my post above, 13 dead on the day, 16 injured, one of whom died later. Not all injuries are to gunfire. Either 26 or 27 were directly shot. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it depends on who you consider "injured". Currently the article considers only those hit by gunfire or vehicles, not those hit by baton rounds, or clubbed. Many of those people required (or should have received) medical attention as well for their injuries. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:55, 4 July 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)

I believe you are correct and the lede should be corrected. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:52, 4 July 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)

That website has copied from here. For example see this page which is copied from Free Derry, as is this page. O Fenian (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

SO no copyvio. What about the other thing? Any suggestions? --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:03, 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)

OK, As an example of what I want, I put up a rewrite of the Lede. I need to find 4 more cites for it, but that will be easy. As for what was there before, the crystal-bally "...and contained findings of fault that could re-open the controversy, and potentially lead to criminal investigations for some soldiers involved in the killings" was so clunky, junked that. High-level is key; details like the age/gender of victims are not necessary, got rid of that. The last line "Bloody Sunday remains among the most significant events in the Troubles of Northern Ireland, chiefly because it was carried out by the British army and not paramilitaries, in full view of the public and the press" was, ugh, awful. If that was the case, the actions of 1 Para at the march to Magilligan Strand 2 weeks before would be considered as significant as Bloody Sunday - which obviously it as not. Bloody Sunday is most significant events of The Troubles because 13 people were shot and killed. Again, keeping it high-level, the mention of other injuries, including those hit by the Saracens, should be in the body of the article. The Saville Report did not find that "all of those shot were unarmed"; that statement would be correct if it was "none of those shot were armed with a firearm", but instead I put "none of the people shot were posing a threat of causing death or serious injury" -- which is what Saville actually said - verbatim. Seems like an obvious improvement to me. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In the process you have managed to lose some detail (e.g. that two civilians were injured by Army vehicles, and introduced inappropriate American-English spellings, as well as poor and unacceptable sentence structures (e.g. starting one with "11" as a numeral, rather than the word). Although you have included some useful additional citations, there is too much to unpick individually, so I am reverting it all. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least we are talking. I'd hardly call your criticisms (of which I agree with most) as being "too much to unpick individually" from my edits though. Changing to appropriate spellings and 11 > "Eleven" would take, what, less than one minute (literally) and count as a minor edit? Also, I wouldn't have marked your revert edit as "minor". In the lede however, mention of two people hit by Saracens (yes, I know they weren't really Saracens) is too much detail. Bloody Sunday is the shooting of civilians by the army. There were 8 citations there, both contemporary and current news coverage, they all clearly state that Bloody Sunday was/is the shooting of civilians. In quickly scanning all of them I don't see any mention of the people hit by vehicles. That level of detail belongs in the article body.

This though is what I mean by making me "sadderz". In order to maintain the pro-Republican narrative you'd rather keep the previous version, which fails in every way. It provides too much unnecessary detail for a lede, implies that John Johnston died of the injuries he suffered that day, has a speculative statement (about possible prosecution) that no longer applies, and has the statement that Saville found "that all of those shot were unarmed". Saville found Gerald Donaghy was "armed" with nail bombs when he was shot. I know you disagree, strongly, with that finding. In fact, so do I. But its deeply disturbing to read some of the statements on this talk page above that this finding "was irrelevant", as well as a OR definition of what constitutes "armed". And again, the last sentence with the "reason" that Bloody Sunday was significant was the presence of the press and Paras is a horrible choice for context. Sadderz/Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 14:26, 16 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)

This shouldn't be a problem, right? Delete this non-section a put the following phrase "The number of marchers was variously estimated from a low of 3,000 {cite from Widgery} to a high of 30,000 {cite from Insight}" in the section below. There is no need for that level of detail when there are many other things that need to be expanded upon. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC) ...although thinking about it, if you think a third, middle, "most reliable" estimate should be included I think I agree. LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:04, 18 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]

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)

OK, after a few changes I think its better, and I am going to put it back up. PLEASE, do not revert it because one word has a misspelling or one numeral is not in word form. If you have a content dispute I'd appreciate if you first discuss it in talk rather than just revert it because you don't like it. For about a year now I have repeatedly voiced my concerns on this talk page with specific examples of what I feel are serious problems regarding NPOV and undue weight; not once has anybody responded, nor has the article changed to address these issues. However not until yesterday did I make a single edit to the article, so I think it's just common decency for you to discuss it here with me first. Much appreciated, Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:47, 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):

• The current version states that Saville found the marchers were unarmed, when that is not what Saville said.
• The current version has a speculative statement about possible future prosecutions that is no longer valid and should be removed.
• The current version mis-attributes the statement [the killings were] "unjustified and unjustifiable" to the report itself, when in fact that was a quote from David Cameron speaking to Parliament. I WANT the statement in there. I just want it correctly attributed.
• The current version does NOT provide any source for its (mis)quote of Saville, or any source for Saville whatsoever.

My reasons for thinking my version is the correct replacement:

• The quotations from Saville are accurate (and except for necessary ellipses, verbatim)
• Every single statement of fact is supported by the two cites I gave (The Guardian "Key extracts from the Bloody Sunday inquiry: Soldiers gave no warning" and The Telegraph, "Bloody Sunday Inquiry: David Cameron's statement in full)
• I didn't cherry pick which findings of Saville should be considered key, the secondary (tertiary?) source, a mainstream reliable media source, did.

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)

Regarding the second paragraph of the lede, concerning Widgery... above this, you see my proposed part of the lede concerning Widgery. I think my version is preferable to what is there now and would like to replace it. My reasons why the current version needs to be replaced are:

• The findings of Widgery are not adequately summarized. This is extremely important in providing context and comparison to the findings of Saville that are then directly below. We need the factual statements that (a) the report placed blame for the deaths on the marchers and that (b) the report found the firing by the Army had been in response to being fired upon first.
• The current version feels the need for four citations to support its assertion that Widgery was considered to be a "whitewash". However two of them are opinion/editorial pieces (one of which is from a source that is "Campaigning for a united and independent Ireland"), and the fourth is apparently Martin McGuinness' opinions about Widgery(?) - I can't be sure because the link doesn't work. All that's needed here is one or two good reliable sources - news, not opinion - that supports the contention that Widgery was roundly rejected by the marchers and their supporters. There is no reason to explicitly name the opinion of one person, "Jonathan Powell, chief of staff to former prime minister Tony Blair" Uh, who? Why does his opinion warrant inclusion?
• There is no need for the first sentence
• There should be a more specific date

My reason for thinking my version is the correct replacement:

• I addressed all the issues noted above, and supported the rewrite with 3 cites, each from mainstream news sources, each of which directly supports the statement(s) of fact proceeding it. I like the fact that one of them is a newspaper from St. Petersburg (Florida) - it shows the global notability of the event. The Phoenix newspaper article is perfect for that cite - containing the opinions/quotes/reactions about Widgery from Cooper and Devlin (explicitly the iconic term "whitewash"). The BBC News article, which was used as a cite in the previous version, I used as well. I ended up at it independently from Google searching; its very good for the purposes of the lede. Easy! Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a few changes, and think its good to go. EVERY word there was chosen very carefully to match as closely as possible to the source(s) provided. The mention of "Unionists" specifically refers to the quotation in the newspaper article from Frazer Agnew of the Young Unionist Association. The mention of "Nationalist politicians" specifically refers to the quote in the BBC article from John Hume. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:27, 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)

I totally agree. While LoveUxoxo does not consider it a personal attack when they say that they believe "the most involved editors on this page have strong pro-Republican views" and that "the bottom line is those views have slanted the content of the article so that it is not, not even close, to being NPOV" I'd have to say that is a crock. Unsupported claims against an editor is very much a personal attack. LoveUxoxo should be reminded also that in the absence of supporting diff's for their claims, that they should assume good faith. Having gone over board with the bleeding hart section title, and talk page post, they then do a major re-write, and say that they "... need to find 4 more cites for it, but that will be easy." If it was easy, why did they not do it in the first place. LoveUxoxo, stop making drastic changes without consensus, stop making sweeping accusations about the motives of editors, stop with the emotive section titles, and stop jumping from one section to the other. Simple. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, consensus is not just hitting the 'revert' button in turn, it requires discussion about specific issues. And consensus isn't just avoiding any meaningful discussion to prevent a quorum. I explained specifically what I feel needed changes and then put forward a version in which every statement of fact was cited, all by mainstream news RS, and I quoted them correctly, in most cases almost verbatim. When Nick reverted yesterday he described a morass of "inappropriate American-English spellings, as well as poor and unacceptable sentence structures" in my version as a reason to revert. In actuality it was one instance of an 's' instead of a 'c', and one instance of "11" instead of "Eleven". I've discussed at length why the lede should be high-level and avoid detail such as the people hit by vehicles, both before and after his revert, but Nick never responded. So his revert and the associated edit comments seemed a bit snarky to me.

But Nick provided examples (and he was correct of course about the spelling and numeral), so he HELPED me (thank you Nick). O Fenian, if you are going to revert please specify what you consider an inaccuracy or missing pertinent information. Since the day the Bloody Sunday Inquiry's report came out 10 months ago this article has fundamentally misquoted its key findings. That fact has been noted, repeatedly, by myself and others, on this talk page with specific examples and suggestions as to how to make the quotes accurate [5] [6], but none of the involved editors every felt the need to make any corrections. O Fenian, you have been very vocal about whether the article should/can state all the people shot were unarmed. This included making up your own definition of what constitutes "armed", as well as describing Saville's findings that Gerald Donaghy was carrying nail bombs was "largely irrelevant".

Saville's findings on this matter are not irrelevant, but in fact the source that must be given the most weight. Regardless, any quotes in the article should be accurate. My version of Saville's findings is sourced from a Guardian article that (a) quotes Saville accurately, (b) conveniently is titled "Key extracts from the Bloody Sunday inquiry", thus providing support to my assertion that the summary quotes in that paragraph should be considered Saville's key findings. The version you insist on reverting to doesn't provide a source for the Saville Report mis-quote (only Cameron's speech), and mis-attributes a statement of Cameron's as being a statement by Saville -- something that was pointed out on this talk page by myself and another editor 10 months ago.

Consensus is really coming to agreement rather than just taking a vote. If you have disagreements about content you need to start to engage me here in talk rather than just say "I don't like it" and hit the revert button. In cases such as Death of John Johnston what am I to think should be considered consensus? O Fenian's response to an anon editor was hardly convincing, giving undue weight to speculation from a doctor. My response quoted Saville at length with all the reasons why his death was not related to the wounds he suffered that day. That "conversation" was last July. I've mentioned the issue several times since then, and no other editor has advanced any argument or provided any sources why we should reject the findings of Saville. So yeah, in my mind, that's as much as apparently I can get in terms of input from other editors for consensus on this issue.

I do have many different specific issues with various statements of fact in the article. You should not be upset with me for bringing them up here in talk. Other than replying here I am only discussing the first four sections, and have divided my specific comments about each section appropriately. It's not that confusing and there is no need for hyperbole; your estimation of "eighteen" was off by 13. For now let's parse this out and just talk about the lede, one paragraph at a time, consider one change at a time, in this case changing the part of the lede concerning the release of Saville, OK? Please see my comments in the Proposed new lede section. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there was more than just, "an 's' instead of a 'c'". Nick Cooper (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Such as? This is what I am talking about, you need to be specific. If you have neither the time or the inclination to elucidate on the reasons for your revert it would be better to hold off reverting until you do. The article isn't going anywhere. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Domer - I changed my name a year back with the intention of being "100% civil" for the rest of my Wikipedia career. In looking over what I wrote above, I don't think I violated my pledge. And I thought that it only made sense to be direct and honest about my perceptions of the POV of the article and why I think other editors held that POV. It is NOT a personal attack. All of us, always, when editing any article engage (or at least should) in a process of self-examination of our own biases and the biases of others. I'm entitled to state my feelings as long as I do it respectfully, which I think I did. Nonetheless considering how emotive all these issues related to the conflict in Northern Ireland are, I wonder if biting my tongue would have been better. My interest is only in improving the article. If you (or anybody else) wants, we can collapse those comments of mine, or strike them if you wish. You can consider it a retraction and/or an apology. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Fail. I will address any outstanding points tomorrow, now I have some free time. Oh, and "The Bloody Sunday Inquiry report found that all those killed were unarmed", and there are plenty more just like it. That you personally do not understand why something is "irrelevant" does not mean I am wrong, it just means you do not understand. The finding about the nail bombs probably being in Donaghy's possession changes absolutely nothing. For years the Paras line was that everyone they shot was a gunman or someone throwing a nail bomb or similar, whereas the witnesses said they were unarmed. The presence of nail bombs in someone's pockets does not change either of those, since the Paras do not have the right to open fire because of an unidentified bulge in someone's jacket. So Saville's other finding about Donaghy is the key one, that he did not have a nail bomb in his hand at the time he was shot. Reliable secondary sources describe all the victims as unarmed, because unless he had a bomb in his hand then legally he was unarmed at the time and the Paras had no right to open fire. O Fenian (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Saville's findings are clearly stated in the Guardian article I would use as a cite here: Key extracts from the Bloody Sunday inquiry: Soldiers gave no warning. "None of the casualties shot by soldiers ... was armed with a firearm or (with the probable exception of one victim) a bomb of any description." As has been repeatedly mentioned by myself and others here, its very problematic to simply change that to "unarmed". Instead, we have variously stated alternatives, the best of which are using an actual quote of course. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

How about Widgery paragraph 86, "A special feature of Gerald Donaghy’s case has some relevance to his activities in the course of the afternoon although it does not directly bear on the circumstances in which he was shot"? He even basically came to the same conclusions as Saville regarding Donaghy, and dismissed the nail bombs as a tangential red herring. Your proposed wording is unnecessarily verbose and means the exact same thing anyway. O Fenian (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not use Widgery as a source for what Saville said. If its a simple case of you think "None of the casualties shot by soldiers ... was armed with a firearm or (with the probable exception of one victim) a bomb of any description." is the exact same thing as "None of the people shot were armed" then we have a simple content dispute that I think can easily be resolved by eliciting 3rd party opinions. Agree? LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey, since we are at an impasse I made a RfC about this specific issue (how to describe, both high and low-level, Saville's findings as to "unarmed"). When you get a chance, please add to the "Unarmed?" section any additional comments you might have. Thanks, Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I finally got that RfC right, thansk for your patience. It's below and hopefully we can get some input from outside editors on this issue. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)