Jump to content

Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Obituary of General Sir Robert Ford

This Daily Telegraph article contains the sentence.
In a confidential memorandum, written three weeks before Bloody Sunday, and sent to his superior officer, Lieutenant-General Sir Harry Tuzo, Ford stated that he was coming to the conclusion that the minimum force necessary to restore law and order was to shoot selected ringleaders among the “Derry Young Hooligans”.
Feel free to use it. JRPG (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

New Evidence With Considerable Impact Released

New evidence released, relating to the event, which challenges the neutrality of the article and places the recent Saville enquiry into some doubt.[1] If I have time I will edit the article for inclusion, anyone else in the meantime is welcome to include details, regards.Twobells (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You mean "The British Army's first confidential report... Written hours after 13 civilians were shot dead in Derry in 1972"? That's not "new" by any stretch of the imagination. It is an old self-serving fabrication subsequently proved to be almost totally false. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Still, pushing your agenda instead of neutral, balanced fact I see. Do you ever actually read the source material or just put on your rose-coloured glasses and proceed to pontificate on Wikipedia? No wonder people mock the encyclopedia. No-one has ever seen this report before and the source requires inclusion to ensure balance and neutrality. Twobells (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I suspect I have read more on the event than you ever have (I was certainly editing this page long before you turned up). Effectively all that has happened is that someone has turned up the Army's first draft of the line they managed to get past Widgery, but which has been totally discredited since. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Beattie, Jilly (1 March 2016). "Bloody Sunday exposed: First confidential British Army report "fully justified" deaths and injuries". Belfast Live. Retrieved 1 March 2016.

More political bias.

Surprise surprise, my criticism of the political and historical bias in this article has been removed and I was "logged out" of Wikipedia. Clearly this article is being controlled by a biased moderator with a political skew or agenda.

If you cannot even debate in Talk an article, and discuss its overall historically accuracy and key facts, then Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously as an historical or academic reference source (as indeed it's not by most leading academic universities, certainly not by mine anyway, we're discouraged from referencing to it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.26.204 (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles and for nothing else. You presented a number of critisisms and 'facts' but you failed to provide a reliable source for any of it. The current article, on the other hand, is well referenced, though it can always be improved. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
What the IP address beginning with 86 said, IP address beginning with 89. Furthermore, nobody logged you out, you weren't logged in when you made your contribution of unverified "facts" and opinion, and still weren't logged in when you commented above. If there are any inaccuracies in the article, feel free to challenge or improve the sources. I do recommend creating an account and reading the five pillars, though. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"The dead"

This section title sounds weird to me. How about "Deaths" or "Casualties"?

Otherwise it sounds like the Walking Dead... 100.12.87.210 (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Nuro Dragonfly Do you wish to comment here? 100.12.87.210 (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support change to "Casualties" for consistency across the wiki. Scr★pIronIV 15:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - To be honest I feel it is..well not weird so much, but has a tone that's morbid. We are trying to have that Neutral stance, and considering the topic....
Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Impact on Northern Ireland divisions section title

Would anyone object to this being renamed? Traditionally, the word "divide" in relation to Northern Ireland would refer to the division between Catholics and Protestants. While it is true Bloody Sunday would have had some impact on that relationship it was primarily the relationship between the Catholic population and the British Army, and to a lesser extent the British establishment as a whole. Perhaps a change to "Impact on the Troubles" or "Impact on Northern Ireland" would be more appropriate?DanceHallCrasher (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late interjection but I oppose your recent edit. Its affect continues to the present day so isn't confined to the Troubles so that is a poor title. Its impact is more in regards to the divide not the country as a whole as not everyone is seperated by the divide. Mabuska (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
"Northern Ireland divisions" is an equally, if not more, poor title.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
As stated I disagree. Mabuska (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bloody Sunday (1972). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Bloody Sunday (1972). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bloody Sunday (1972). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Mike Jackson

Jackson was not second-in-command of 1 Para, as the article claims. He was the adjutant, which is not the same thing. And the sentence which comes after that false claim is not supported by the source cited. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me. Feel free to amend the entries to better match what is actually said. Quite a lot of subtle and overt POV in these kinds of articles. Mabuska (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

So I corrected that and, also under 'Aftermath', deleted the claim that, in addition to Wilford's OBE, 'other soldiers were also decorated with honours for their actions on the day.' The claim is sourced to a BBC article which says no such thing. The only honour it mentions is Wilford's OBE. (It's also slightly misleading to claim that Wilford was awarded the OBE by the Queen. Although she nominally awards all honours as head of state, very few of them are in her personal gift and the OBE is not one of those. Wilford's OBE will have been recommended by his army superiors and approved by an honours committee in Whitehall).Khamba Tendal (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bloody Sunday (1972). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

"Short description"

The "short description" - seen on some devices - is overly bland, bordering on misleading (it sounds like one person was shot, possibly by accident). I see the article cannot be edited, due to being linked the The Troubles. Fair enough, I guess, but then can I suggest something like:

  • Shooting of civilians during a protest in Northern Ireland in 1972
  • Shooting of unarmed civilians protesting in Derry, Northern Ireland, 1972

Something like this would give a reasonable advance indication of the article content.

I think I may see a similar pattern of over-cautious, or meaninglessly-brief, summaries on other "sensitive" articles. There is a difference between sensitivity and conciseness, and lack of content, so it may be worth reviewing other such summaries.

Thanks, as always, for the fine encyclopedia.212.34.42.186 (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

John Johnston's death

An IP recently edited the lead (diff) to change how it presents the details of John Johnston's death. I have reverted this, because it doesn't match the content of the body of the article, but I'm not sure that the cited sources actually support the content that's currently there. The article says his death has been attributed to the injuries he received on the day; the source it's supported by (CAIN) says His family is convinced that he died prematurely and that his death was due to the injuries received and trauma he underwent on 'Bloody Sunday'.

It seems to me that, if it is only his family that attributes the death to the injuries, rather than medical experts or a court ruling, we should be clearer about this in the article, with wording along the lines of 'His family believes that his injuries on the day led to his early death.'

I don't want to make a potentially controversial change like this myself without discussing it here first, but I do think we need either better sourcing to show widespread attribution of his death to his injuries, or we need to change our wording to show it was his family who made the attribution.

(Note to anyone looking for the refs - there seems to be some disagreement about the spelling of his name - the CAIN source refers to him as Johnson, rather than Johnston) GirthSummit (blether) 08:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

A quick Google shows that the quote introduced in the lead is adapted from this statement in the Saville Report: "We are satisfied that John Johnston's death was not the result of any of the wounds he sustained on Bloody Sunday." Although Johnston's death has long been attributed to the Bloody Sunday, it seems that this particular finding by Saville has been overlooked, which is surprising. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Why no U2 in the "Artistic Reaction" section

From Wikipedia- "One of U2's most overtly political songs, its lyrics describe the horror felt by an observer of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, mainly focusing on the 1972 Bloody Sunday incident in Derry where British troops shot and killed unarmed civil rights protesters."

I suggest that whoever is mainating this article add a reference to U2's Sunday, Bloody Sunday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle kursk (talk • contribs) 22:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It is in the article. FDW777 (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

U2 artistic, really? They're about as artistic as Black Sabbath.... oops, they're in the 'Artistic Reaction' section as well... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.209.12 (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Soldier F

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive330#Bloody Sunday (1972). FDW777 (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It's (Redacted), by the way. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@Paragon Deku: Do you feel that including his name here is helpful in making a content-related decision? If not, we should remove it per WP:BLPTALK and WP:BLPNAME. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLPTALK refers to unsourced and poorly sourced content. I don't believe a mention in Hansard is poorly sourced at all. WP:BLPNAME would apply if he wasn't a (Redacted) heavily discussed in the article for his actions on Bloody Sunday. I will strike part of my statement for not being entirely related to content, but I will not be removing the rest of my statement. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
BLP violation redacted, in addition to the oversight. FDW777 (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Mike Jackson

After yesterdays edits, the article is not consistent about general (then captain) Mike Jackson as the sources conflict. Formerly he was mentioned as "second in command" based on this source: https://www.bbc.com/news/10287463. However, the book Soldier mentions him as adjutant while at the same time suggesting on page 60 and 84 that Jackson was, as adjutant, acting as second in command. More clarification is needed. The Banner talk 07:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Serial Killer Task Force" wikiproject here

Apparently, "This article is part of the Serial Killer Task Force, a work group of WikiProject Crime. It is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on serial killers, mass murders, spree killers and related topics on Wikipedia." The so-called "task force" appears to have arbitrarily decided that any killing of two or more people can warrant inclusion in their "task force" (why single killings aren't worthy of a "task force" dedicated to them is unclear). I am strongly of the opinion that the "Serial Killer" "task force" should stick to dealing with serial killers, and that inclusion of Troubles-related articles, including this one and, e.g., Omagh bombing, is problematic, to say the least. I therefore propose removal, unless consensus decides otherwise. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed per discussion here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

"another man later dying of his wounds"

This statement is clearly contradicted by the preceding section. In addition the BBC reference cited as a source has been corrected to reflect the Saville enquiry conclusion that John Johnson's subsequent death, from a brain tumour, was "not the result of any of the wounds he sustained on Bloody Sunday." JF42 (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

What is contradictory in the preceding section? By all means, update the article to reflect the updated BBC article; just be sure to include, per the CAIN and BBC references, that his family maintain that his death was the result of head injuries received on the day. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
'Contradicted' not contradictory. The previous section is cautious in stating John Johnson's later death was 'attributed' to his wound. The next section states this as unequivocal fact, which is then contradicted by the cited source. JF42 (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Soldier F Name Mentioned in Village Magazine

It appears that Village Magazine has reported Soldier F’s real name. Whether or not this changes the direction of the archived BLP discussion, I feel like it is worth mentioning. 50.24.63.63 (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think it does, thanks for providing the reference. Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
The lack of a reference was only one part of the discussion at BLPN, there's also WP:BLPNAME. FDW777 (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
FDW777 absolutely it was agreed at [[1]] that reference could be made to Colum Eastwood revealing Soldier F's name in Parliament but without actually stating the name. If you hadn't deleted and suppressed everything you could see what I actually wrote. So please reinstate that sentence now. In that same discussion you asked "Where are the secondary references reporting on this story that actually include the name?" in satisfaction of WP:BLPNAME, well there it is, the Village is a reliable source so please reinstate that sentence as well. Mztourist (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME says Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. A single reference doesn't satisfy that, far from it. The detail you asked me to restore that doesn't actually mention the name has previously been removed, by someone else, as unnecessary detail. FDW777 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I have reinstated everything but Soldier F's name as that still seems to be the contentious issue here. The Village is a reliable source and as that article notes Soldier F's name is widely disseminated, so in my view WP:BLPNAME is satisfied, but you say that one source is not enough. So tell us how many sources are enough? Mztourist (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC) If you look at this Spectator story: [2] you will see that it states: "Unusually, F’s first name is in the public domain. It is ‘Dave’. It is public because a number of witnesses heard it shouted. One wounded civilian lying on the ground heard the brick of four soldiers calling to each other. ‘I’ve got another one’ shouted one. And then, ‘We’re pulling out, Dave.’". His name is widely known in Northern Ireland as shown by this story: [3] Mztourist (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
The Spectator and Irish News sources are both avoiding publishing the name. "How many sources are enough?" I think policy requires the number to be high, as the "widely disseminated" needs to be wide enough to counter the "intentionally concealed". I have personal reasons to want us to publish the name, so I'd be satisfied with 2 high profile sources/newspapers of record, but I know my personal satisfaction is not a controlling part of policy. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
The Spectator is a UK publication so presumably bound by the UK court order, however as noted in their story above, Soldier F's first name of Dave is in the public domain. Irish News is a Belfast newspaper so also bound by the UK court order, the point of that story is that it confirms that Soldier F's name is widely disseminated in Northern Ireland. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Even if it is widely disseminated (which it isn't), there's still the "intentionally concealed" part of BLPNAME that hasn't been overcome. FDW777 (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
"often preferable". The ongoing concealment of Soldier F's name has been a newsworthy issue in Ireland for a considerable time now. Mztourist (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Everyone in Derry knows his name is Dave/David. This is a well documented fact. As far as his full name being well documented in reliable sources, it seems the Village source is the only source we currently have. I at least feel this means that we shouldn’t be as purge happy over it on talk pages, holes are being made in the discussions because of it. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I maintain that the removal in the first place was going against prior instances where parliamentary privilege was used to nullify court orders, where the utterance of suppressed information in Parliament was good enough for inclusion (and, as I should point out again, reporting extracts from Parliament is immune from any and all criminal or civil action). As far as "how many [secondary] sources do we need?" goes: we only needed just the one source for Ryan Giggs, and we only need the one in this case. Sceptre (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Since the name has been neither widely disseminated nor intentionally concealed, it still remains a WP:BLPNAME violation. FDW777 (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Also your legal interpretation is incorrect. Your publication would be under the "extracts" part, so the burden would shift to you to show your publication was correct (since you appear to be subject to the court's jurisdiction). FDW777 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME is meant to head off another Christopher Jefferies-style affair happening on Wikipedia, and I should point out in that case Jefferies' name was included once RSes stated he was arrested for her murder. It should not be used to suppress the name of a former soldier (i.e. not a private individual) accused of a serious crime that was reported in reliable sources where the suppression of the name in itself is a matter of public interest.
In any case, Eastwood was cleared of breaking Parliament's sub judice rules, so at this point it's just a normal anonymity order. I see no reason to deviate from precedent that Hansard in itself was all that was needed, and the secondary source only bolsters my view. Sceptre (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
It appears an RfC might be in order. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Christopher Jefferies is doubly irrelevant. His name was widely disseminated, and it was not intentionally concealed as Soldier F's has been for almost 50 years. FDW777 (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, if TheresNoTime@ is not willing to remove their oversight edit(s), we should proceed to an RfC, per discussion in this section and the 'Recent oversight use' section below. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent oversight use

Hi - in wishing to be transparent as possible, I have recently oversighted two revisions from this talk page per OSPOL#2. This is in reference to VRTS ticket # 2021100910000219. Many thanks ~TNT (she/her • talk) 17:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, the above was in regards to a redirect. As it stands, mentions of Soldier F's name will be oversighted per WP:BLPNAME, likely until such a time that the individual's name is included "in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized expert" - so far, I count one news outlet. I would strongly recommend omitting the name until multiple reliable sources are reporting it, and at that point open a request for comment ~TNT (she/her • talk) 18:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@TheresNoTime: I'm rather interested as to how OSPOL2 applies in this case, given that Soldier F admitted to the killings in a public inquiry nearly twenty years ago. Sure, there's a privacy injunction (limited to the UK) that grants him anonymity, but various parts of his identity were already part of the public record even before Eastwood named him in Parliament, and OSPOL2 isn't about privacy, and I don't think it's clear there is "no editorial reason" for its inclusion at all. The alternative is, of course, that this was done under advice of WMF's counsel, but the use of oversight to enforce extraterritorial injunctions would be a stark departure from over a decade of precedent (for example, the article for Trafigura has never not mentioned the waste dumping scandal, despite the infamous superinjunction, and as recent as December 2018, we included information about George Pell's conviction in the "cathedral trial" whilst it was still suppressed in Australia), and the community should've been at least informed of this change.
In any case, that Soldier F's representatives have been incredibly zealous in ensuring the injunction's enforcement isn't beyond doubt – Lumen shows Google removed a lot of links the week Eastwood named him, and I know of several people who have been given Twitter lock-outs for tweeting the video of Eastwood naming him in Parliament – but I'm very concerned about this article making such a change with how we deal with reliably sourced material subject to non-US injunctions... Sceptre (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@Sceptre: Many thanks for the ping - this was not done on the advice of WMF counsel. This was requested in VRTS ticket # 2021100910000219, and on reviewing the history of this page I found another similar use of oversight by Primefac. This, paired with the very public injunction and the provisions of WP:BLPNAME leads me to believe that the use of oversight is appropriate and required. For the record, I have no opinion in if this should be included or not - if it turns out that it should, I will be more than happy to revert my use of oversight. As I normally do when my use of oversight has been queried, I will raise this for review with the team ~TNT (she/her • talk) 22:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Where will you be doing that, and can other editors comment? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
The OS team have an email list where we discuss private matters such as this. Primefac (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, bear in mind that Soldier F's first name is mentioned here, and of course his full name is given in Hansard, here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, Soldier F's identity is firmly in "open knowledge but the UK press are abiding by the injunction" territory. For a similar case, the article on Gylfi Sigurðsson mentions his arrest for child sex offences, despite that information being suppressed in the UK. During the superinjunctions affair, we were pretty firm that as soon as one reliable source not subject to a court injunction mentioned suppressed information — like the Sunday Herald was in the case of Ryan Giggs — then inclusion on Wikipedia was permissible. The Pell and Sigurðsson cases indicates that this precedent still applies.
There still is an argument about the applicability of BLPNAME, mind you, and for what it's worth, as he was a member of the Armed Forces who committed the killings in the course of his duties (by his own admission), I really don't think that he can be considered to be a "private individual". That the suppression of the name in this case is a matter of public interest, to me, also tips the scale in favour of inclusion. Wikipedia is not censored, after all, and if the BLP policy was construed to direct the removal of reliably sourced but unflattering material, then many articles would be worse for wear. Sceptre (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea why Soldier F is being given such special treatment in this regard, but I don’t think said special treatment can be denied given the mountain of precedent. Paragon Deku (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
What precedent is being claimed? What other person who doesn't have a Wikipedia article whose name hasn't been widely disseminated and has been intentionally concealed has created a precendent? It also takes some serious brass neck to claim Soldier F isn't a private individual, considering his identity has been suppressed for almost 50 years and practically zero information is available about him. He's a poster boy for "private individual". FDW777 (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
"poster boy for "private individual""? Please. His identity has been concealed by the British government, but is well-known in Ireland. Mztourist (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, as Soldier F was — as I repeat myself — a member of the Armed Forces who committed the killings in the course of his duties, there's a strong argument that he's a poster boy for who can not be considered a private individual. As a point of comparison, consider the case of former Nazi concentration/extermination camp staff: in Germany, these people have the legal right to resozialisierung, which generally includes the (partial) suppression of their identities. The German Wikipedia's policies generally gives latitude to this principle, but even so, dewiki still doesn't suppress the surnames in the case of, say, Bruno Dey (convicted) or Johann Rehbogen (case dropped due to inability to stand trial). Interestingly, our article about the right to be forgotten even names a convicted murderer who won a case before the German constitutional court that he still retains that legal right (but is still identified in reliable sources). Sceptre (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Somehow the British government gridlocking any relevant outlet from reporting on him for decades still hasn’t kept him from being a household name to thousands of people while being mentioned by name in parliament and Irish outlets. Paragon Deku (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

His name was published in Hansard, which reports on the British Parliament. If Hansard is not a reliable source, I don't know what is. This was published after the charges against him were abandoned. Whilst the charges were still pending, I could understand not naming him. Now that they've been dropped, I see no reason for Wikipedia to keep the anonymity. It seems a violation of the Wikipedia is not censored policy. Epa101 (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Except, as pointed out in an earlier discussion, WP:NOTCENSORED actually says Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons so it's not a way round WP:BLPNAME. FDW777 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Except, WP:BLPNAME doesn't apply - Dave was central to events, and there are multiple secondary references. I think we're into RfC territory, here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Except it does if you read it. In particular the part about its publication in secondary sources other than news media, since there is one news reference and nothing else except Hansard which isn't secondary. FDW777 (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Hansard a primary source? I'm so sure on that. It's not a personal opinion. It's a third party taking down what others say. It seems akin to a newspaper to me, albeit a particularly accurate one. I also don't see how it violates BLP now that charges have been dropped. If we take other cases of media black-outs on a name (e.g. Ryan Giggs and his super-injunction over his affair), has BLP been applied in the same way there? Epa101 (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so sure on that*. Sorry, when you're on a phone, it's hard to correct your mistakes like that. Epa101 (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Hansard, it's most definitely primary. FDW777 (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Also per yesterday's news the decision to drop charges has been quashed by the High Court, not that a discontinued case affects policy application in the first place. FDW777 (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I am at a proper computer now and can give a more detailed contribution.
First, the Hansard link says that there is no consensus on it. There is no ban on using it. The guidance is that statements should be attributed to whoever made them. We already have a sentence in the article, referenced by this BBC link, to say that Colum Eastwood has named Soldier F in Parliament. It seems natural then to state who he named. It can be stated as part of his speech, but that's fine. Indeed, if it were so important to protect Soldier F's identity, then the sentence about Colum Eastwood shouldn't be on there at all.
As for BLP, the guidance explicitly mentions court cases. That seems to be the relevant thing in this case. If it's not for that, I don't see how it would differ from when Ryan Giggs took out a super-injuction to stop mention of his affair in the press in England and Wales, and I don't think that Wikipedia respected that. Looking at the article for 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy, Ryan Giggs was named on there before the use of Parliamentary privilege to reveal his identity on 23rd May 2011.
Colum Eastwood broke his silence on his name because it looked as if the charges would be dropped, but, as you say, they have not been dropped after all - so what I say above might be void now.
Reading the "Privacy of names" section on BLP, a lot of it seems designed to protect unknown people who might be dragged into the spotlight because of a tenuous connection to an article. I personally do not see how Soldier F fits into this category. He seems very central to one of the biggest events in Northern Irish history. Epa101 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that there's no primary topic. There does seem to be quite a bit of support for rewriting the disambiguation page along the lines of Dirk's proposal; feel free to give that a try. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

– The 1972 massacre appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for 'Bloody Sunday' by quite a margin:

  • It gets 3~4 times as many page views as the second most read article (the 1905 event) with recurring spikes to much more than that.[4]
  • Substantially more readers landing on the dab page open the article about the 1972 event than any other disambiguated article.[5]
  • Google Books seems to return only results about the 1972 massacre in the first few pages.[6]
  • Ngram Viewer shows a spike in 1972 for 'Bloody Sunday' to more than double the average for the previous decades.[7]
  • Google Scholar gives more mixed results, but still the 1972 event occurs twice as many times or more as the others in the first few pages.[8]
  • A plain Google search returns only four results other than the 1972 event (one of which is the film about the event).[9]
    Deeday-UK (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are far too many "Bloody Sundays". This one may be the most notable to modern Anglo-region readers, but it does not sufficiently outweigh all the others put together. That three other "Bloody Sundays" appear on the very first page of my Google search results (Selma, Russia, Croke Park) indicates that enough to me. There may be a regional bias, but I don't see it overwhelming. Walrasiad (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." The first criterion is perhaps met, but the second criterion is not; the 1972 event makes up only 1/3 of outgoing clickstream. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. However, since there seems to be general acknowledgment that 1972 is the most prominent Bloody Sunday (though perhaps not by an overwhelming margin) I wouldn't mind seeing it made more prominent on the dab page. As of now it is bundled in with many other, often quite obscure, uses of the term, and near the bottom, no less, making it even less prominent. This might be out of the scope of this vote, but I think it's relevant nevertheless. Users wondering "what's this Bloody Sunday I keep hearing about?" shouldn't have to go through articles on Alsace and Turkey to find the article they are most likely looking for. -R. fiend (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    do you think something like this could work? if someone's looking for a specific Bloody Sunday they probably have a vague idea of what country it happened in so that could help. Beyond collecting the ones which happened on the island of Ireland first as that was where my mind was focused I just collected them together by country, the order of countries mentioned could be easily switched around. I also put "Poland during World War 2" as a heading because the events involved the occupation of Poland. Another idea could be having the 1972 event at the top of the page and then having "Bloody Sunday could also refer to:" followed by a list of other instances like on some other disambig pages. Just some ideas, might help make the disambig page easier to navigate but it's not my area of expertise so any comments or suggestions would be greatly apprecaited. Have a good one! – DirkJandeGeer щи 16:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Committal hearing

Primefac, you removed my addition of the Breakingnews.ie report on the new committal trial of Soldier F. Can you restore it, please? It's sourced and relevant to the article. If you want to leave out Soldier F's name, fine, rather than me adding it earlier in the coverage of Soldier F, I'll open a separate RfC on the censorship of his name. Thanks in advance. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bastun: it looks like Primefact didn't remove that part. Could you check again? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers, you're correct! Primefac, my bad, apologies. Don't know how I missed it when I went looking, but I did. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

IRA involvement

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

One of the victims was revealed to be an IRA member: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/may/19/bloodysunday.northernireland Jgins (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That isn't quite what the source says. Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
To claim they were 14 unarmed civilians is misleading given that one was an active IRA supporter. (Jgins (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC))
The Guardian states that the RUC and Army alleged one individual was found with nail bombs beside him and that the first inquiry agreed with them. Leaving aside if a nail bomb constitutes armed there's no independent source asserting that they were his Lyndaship (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)To unpack that, are you querying "unarmed" or "civilians"? If it's "unarmed" there's a disputed claim that a nail bomb was found beside him. That predates and is separate from the IRA membership claim. But also I don't think it's genrally accepted. Or is it "civilian" that you're raising? I guess in the eyes of the IRA a 17 year old member of Fianna Éireann isn't a civilian. Is that what you're saying? DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
He was a member of the IRA, an illegal terrorist organisation. He was not a civilian. Since nail bombs were found it is misleading to claim the dead were unarmed. (Jgins (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC))
The nail bomb allegation isn't generally accepted AFAIK. Do you have sources that say otherwise? The "civilian" point is an interesting one. Generally, being a memeber of an illegal (criminal) drganisation doesn't mean an individual ceases to be a civilian. Normally, a civilian is defined as someone not in the armed forces of a country. Of course, the IRA perspective was that they were combattants in an armed conflict with British forces. Therefore, they would not consider their volunteers as civilians. Do you share their perspective? DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The IRA was clearly fighting a guerilla war, like Franco in 1936-39. (Jgins (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC))
Errr … Franco led a regular army, + renegade army units, which were aided and equipped by Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy (particularly air and naval support). Comparing him to the IRA is frankly absurd. Whatever one thinks of them, the IRA didn't have two airforces at their disposal! Pincrete (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Franco used guerrillas, hence his famous "Fifth Column". The IRA was aided by the RAF and the Royal Navy. Why do you think armed Collins' National Army? (Jgins (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC))

Gerard Donaghy

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The lede should mention that Gerard Donaghy was a member of the junior IRA. Jgins (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Apart from any other consideration, WP protocol is that any info must be in the body of the article (which the lead is a summary of). So even if substantiated, the claim would not belong where it is being placed, or probably anywhere in the lead. Nothing in the Gdn source suggests that Donaghy was other than a civilian. Even if you think the worst of him, he was a junior supporter of a banned organisation, but as DeCausa implies, you have to swallow IRA rhetoric to call it an 'army' or him other than a civilian. Almost all sources will endose that viewpoint I believe. The nail bomb presence or not is now unsolvable, but perhaps the claim could briefly be added to Donaghy's entry on the page. David Cameron, when announcing the Saville Inquiry in the UK HoC described the killed as 'unarmed', but the accusation that he was carrying bombs is probably worth stating briefly. Pincrete (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Cameron is not a reliable source. World War II ended the distinction between civilians and the armed forces. (Jgins (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC))
Well I agree about Cameron of course, he's an authority on nothing except his Govt's positions. But there are no civilians anymore, despite lots of people using the word and we must add a claim to the lead that no inquiry, book or other account of Bloody Sunday thinks is remotely important (that Donaghy may have had links to a junior wing of the IRA), because Jgins thinks it has to be there. Good luck with idea!.Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Donaghy was an IRA terrorist. A book by the IRA in 2002 mentioned this. (Jgins (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC))
There's a section on each of the dead in the body of the article which, in the case of Donaghy, already covers in detail the nail bomb allegation. I don't see a problem with adding in there the IRA connection sourced to the Guardian article. But please, can we refer to Fianna Éireann? Even though the Guardian calls it the "junior IRA" the phrase is, IMO, cringeingly unencyclopedic. I don't see any need to change the lead though. DeCausa (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
The lede is misleading. (2A00:23C5:C410:5601:F87C:E9C6:D36F:50E2 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC))
It isn't, the preponderance of sources treat all the killed as both unarmed and civilian. Relatively minor 'quibbles' about either can be - and are - dealt with later. It would be WP:SYNTH to say otherwise. Pincrete (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC) DeCausa, I endorse your suggested addition, as long as it is phrased approx. as "The Gdn reported that an IRA book had claimed Donaghy had been a member of Fianna Éireann". We have no way of knowing how accurate either the Gdn or the (IRA?) book itself was. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

He was a member of the Fianna Éireann. Not that he was shot because of this, or his actions on the day. Despite conclusions latterly, Eamonn McCann's book Bloody Sunday in Derry: What Really Happened states he was examined by two doctors, an officer of the British Army on duty, and several civilians (one of them a reporter), and none of them saw any nail bombs in his tight-fitting jeans.--Kieronoldham (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

He may have dropped them on the ground. He was there that day because he was a member of a banned terrorist organisation. (2A00:23C5:C410:5601:DC4C:D8E3:ACBD:1E06 (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC))
Do you have sources for either of those two statements? (Although the first one is just speculation which wouldn't be relevant anyway) DeCausa (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The IRA organised the event. It's why McGuinness was carrying a submachine gun that day. IRA members were ordered to drop their bombs on the ground before being captured. (2A00:23C5:C410:5601:931:B24D:8DBE:C3A8 (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC))
Source? DeCausa (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/07/bloodysunday.northernireland (2A00:23C5:C410:5601:931:B24D:8DBE:C3A8 (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC))
That's not what you said. DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bloody_Sunday_(1972)/Archive_4&oldid=1175572996"