This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

British crime (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Irish republicanism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Northern Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

Yes, I think it does, thanks for providing the reference. Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It appears an RfC might be in order. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Where will you be doing that, and can other editors comment? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OS team have an email list where we discuss private matters such as this. Primefac (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bear in mind that Soldier F's first name is mentioned here, and of course his full name is given in Hansard, here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Hansard, it's most definitely primary. FDW777 (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'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)[reply]

• Bloody Sunday (1972) → Bloody Sunday
• Bloody Sunday → Bloody Sunday (disambiguation)Bloody Sunday (disambiguation)

– 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Oppose WP:RECENTISM. Even on the island of Ireland, this is not the most deadly Bloody Sunday on record. The Banner talk 10:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A plain Google search on "bloody sunday" from the local Irish Google search gives on the first page mentions of the Bloody Sunday in 1972 AND 1920. The Banner talk 18:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I agree with the previous opposers. ww2censor (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• Regardless of the outcome here, I certainly think that DAB page shuffle (or one like it) would be super helpful for reader navigation and a good improvement.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, DJG's ideas above are a good place to start. -R. fiend (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]