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

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. Disaster management 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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. This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For the purposes of further discussion, I'll put my proposed lede here:

Bloody Sunday (Template:Lang-ga) —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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [1][2]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I feel this section is well-cited and has a commendable NPOV. Perhaps it could be a bit more tidy/tight, but I think it is a good and much needed background. One thing: this article needs some images of the Bogside that aren't decades after the events described, so I'll look for images suitable for free use. For now I suggest just removing the one there, it's not indicative in any way to the content of the section. Also, having it on the left-margin of the opening of the main body is bleech. We should also have "Main article: The Troubles" link at the top of the section. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through this section line-by-line and I think its so well-written and NPOV. I would like to attempt to "tidy", but first I want to know who my hero is. ...and the winner is: User:One Night In Hackney - I love you man! LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick example of what I think is a "tidy" version: [3] LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, there is a slightly different version of this section I want to substitute. You can view it here. Thankfully, this should be much easier to accept than the other changes I have wanted to make. Here are the things that I felt warranted some changes:

• Needs a link to the main article The Troubles
• Image is not related to content, need a contemporary image from The Troubles
• Current opening of section directly contradicts the main article, specifically when to define when The Troubles started
• Current content can be formatted as 5 as opposed to 7 paragraphs, which helps readability

So the first paragraph is slightly different, as to avoid disagreement with the main article. Other than the next sentence of the second, the rest is the same as what is there now, except for formatting. I have kept every cite, and added three more from CAIN. The image was taken from The Troubles article, perhaps someone can suggest a good caption. I really hope you agree, but if not, please let me know why and I can try to address your concerns. Thanks, and Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The changes to the first paragraph are biased and inaccurate. O Fenian (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be specific? Since I am not very familiar with The Troubles I basically used what I saw in the current version, as well as the main Troubles article. If there are biases or inaccuracies I'd certainly like to fix that. Much appreciated LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we will deal with one item at a time. Where in the Troubles article, that you apparently claim you got the information from, does it claim that discrimination against the Catholic minority in electoral boundaries, voting rights and allocation of public housing "was perceived as widespread"? O Fenian (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, truly the reason I used that word was to describe the motivations of the civil-rights movement, NOT to imply that those perceptions were false in any way. Removed that word, hope that helps. LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Since you apparently do not know much about the Troubles, let me enlighten you about the gerrymandering in Derry, where ward boundaries were specifically redrawn to ensure Unionist control of the council. In the 1960s the South Ward returned 8 nationalist councillors, from 10,047 Catholic votes and 1,138 Protestant votes. The North Ward returned 8 unionist councillors, from 2,530 Catholic votes and 3,946 Protestant votes. The Waterwide ward returned 4 unionist councillors, from 1,852 Catholic votes and 3,697 Protestant votes. So despite Catholic voters outnumbering Protestant voters by 1.6:1, the Unionist councillors ountnumber Catholic councillors by 1.5:1. That the electoral boundaries were deliberately redrawn to achieve this is not disputed either. You might want to remove the word "widespread" too though, if you did not already.

The Battle of the Bogside did not really culminate from attacks on civil rights marchers. While there was certainly a gathering storm from incidents such as that, the Battle of the Bogside happened due to the annual march by the Apprentice Boys of Derry. O Fenian (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, isn't this great? Thanks for your input, One Night In Hackney had that in, I should have kept it. Put it back in. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else have any comments? I can't put an image in my sandbox per WP:NFCC#9, but I suggest also using a second one, showing youths defending a barricade in the Bogside taken from the Battle of Bogside main article. I also think this section should take us right up until the morning of the march, with 1 PARA deployed in the city. Still, again, this proposed edit isn't about content as much as formatting. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am going to put it up, please judge it on its merits (or lack thereof). As always, more than willing to discuss here in talk. Just want to make the article better and addressing the 4 problems I have above seemed like a good start. Also, I'd prefer cites in the article to as much as possible be accessible to the reader. Thanks! LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As I mentioned before, this statement: "In addition, defenseless people who lay wounded on the ground were shot by soldiers who stood over them." I think should be removed. Obviously, if it were to stay, it would need a cite, and without one now I can only assume that it is specifically referring to Jim Wray in Glenfada Park North.

The manner of his death has been very controversial since Bloody Sunday, with some witnesses stating that he was shot at close range after being wounded and defenseless on the ground. That has been the (I've been saying "Republican", screw that, lets call the "popular narrative") For example, this is how it was depicted in Paul Greenglass' Bloody Sunday. However Saville, after witness testimony and forensic evidence, came to the conclusion that: "We reject the assertion that Jim Wray was “executed ” by a soldier shooting him at close range while he was on the ground". LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - though obviously saying he was shot, wounded, and shot again when lying the ground is correct and an important finding of Saville. I just want to remove "at close range" (and add a cite of course) LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other problems I have with this section include the statement "The order to fire live rounds was given". Again, without any cite. Saville did not find that any such order was issued. Also the order in which the events are chronologically defined is inaccurate; the order "to mobilise the troops in an arrest operation" should be first in that paragraph. The sentence "reports of an IRA sniper operating in the area were allegedly given to the Army command centre" is weasely; it should either be stated as fact, by the weight given to RS, or should not be there at all. LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This statement "Such confrontations between soldiers and youths were common, though observers reported that the rioting was not intense" is sourced to Pringle, however the text excerpt shown in References for that cite actually reads "... the level of rioting was no greater than usual". "no greater than usual" does not equate to "was not intense", that is inaccurate. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This statement: "Two civilians, Damien Donaghy and John Johnston were shot and wounded by soldiers on William Street who claimed the former was carrying a black cylindrical object." also is sourced to Pringle. The source's actual text, as shown in References below, is "Seconds after the corporal fired, he would say that he spotted the same man with a black cylindrical object in one hand strike what appeared to be a match against the wall". Pringle's statement (in full) is in agreement with the findings of Saville. If you are going to quote Pringle as to what the soldiers said was their justification for firing at Damien Donaghy then you should quote him in full, since the soldiers justification was predicated on Donaghy being in the immediate act of lighting and throwing a nail bomb. This was extensively discussed in Saville (who found that Donaghy was NOT in the act of throwing a nail bomb). LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, if Pringle states that the soldier's testimony is that AFTER he fired THEN he saw Donaghy about to light a nail bomb than it does not match the Saville testimony of the soldiers (plural, because there were TWO that fired) who stated that they fired with the justification that Donaghy had lit a match and was about to light and throw a nail bomb. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dead - This section needs to be rewritten entirely, with all the new information available to us from Saville. CAIN was the best source available to us for quite some time, I read through it extensively in the past. Now however, it is not the MOST reliable source that should be given the most weight. For any of the people mentioned in this section Saville will provide extensive detail of ALL the witness and forensic evidence as to the exact circumstances of their shooting. Right now it is very much cherry-picked statements of fact, so Widgery (Widgery as a source?) get quoted when it supports the popular narrative, or "one" or "two" witnesses are mentioned when that specific witness testimony supports the popular narrative which is the basis for what is written here. In most cases there is conflicting witness testimony, just look at Saville's section on the controversy of the circumstances of Jim Wray's death. Some witness said that he was shot execution-style. Others didn't. You can't just pick the ones who said he was; the evidence needs to be taken in as a whole. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Johnston - The statement "Johnston was not on the march, but on his way to visit a friend in Glenfada Park" is inaccurate. In fact Johnston, who participated in the march that day, when seeing rioting ahead, decided to leave the tail end of the march. Here is the quote from Saville: "He had been taking part in the march but on his way down William Street he saw clouds of CS gas ahead and decided to cut south across the laundry waste ground in order to visit an old man in the area of Glenfada Park. At no stage was he engaged in any form of disorderly activity." Yes, I see a cite from Taylor, but unfortunately no text excerpt. Regardless, Saville's version has more weight. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PAUSE - I'll pause for now; suffice to say I feel this section isn't our collective finest hour. In the meantime, I'd ask you look at the three sentences above that I want to change in the lede and comment there.

Regarding that, I have a short story that I think is very relevant to this situation: I used to play a lot of poker, way back in the day (before internet). You would have some "enemy", that guy you "hated" for years. And then one day, all of a sudden, you both would sort of just say "**** it" and just be more or less friends. Time and time again this happened - true story. So no matter whatever happens there always exists the possibility of eventual mutual compromise and respect, OK? Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [4] [5], 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This dispute concerns whether or not this finding of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry:

"3.70 None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm or (with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghey) a bomb of any description."[6]

is equivalent to:

"The report found that all of those shot were unarmed"

I failed in my first attempt to create this RfC, and since this went up I've changed it twice. I know its asking a lot, but please AGF for a sec: as I stated in this edit when I suggesting eliciting outside comment, I believe the heart of this dispute is my assertion that A is NOT equivalent to B. Thanks, and Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have deliberately excluded the source I provided above. I shall provide it again any many more (for the benefit of anyone else the 13/14 discrepancy is due to whether John Johnston is included in the total, since he died months later of causes attributed by others to his injuries):

• "The Bloody Sunday Inquiry report found that all those killed were unarmed"
• "IT HAS been nearly four decades since "Bloody Sunday", when 14 innocent and unarmed civil rights marchers died"
• "British Prime Minister David Cameron apologized Tuesday for the army's killing of 14 protesters in Northern Ireland 38 years ago, as the government issued a long-awaited report concluding that the protesters were unarmed."
• "Britain apologized Tuesday for Bloody Sunday--one of Northern Ireland's darkest days in which 13 unarmed Catholic protestors were killed"
• "into the killings of 14 unarmed demonstrators"
• "after a long-awaited report said all those shot were unarmed"
• "Lord Saville's 12 year inquiry concluded that 14 unarmed boys and men died"
• "The report found the order to fire shouldn’t have been given and the victims were unarmed"

And so on to infinity virtually. That LoveUxoxo has his own personal interpretation of the findings is irrelevant. A soldier "must identify a weapon" before opening fire, which does not mean shooting because someone has a suspicious bulge in their clothing. O Fenian (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O Fenian: this is my fault as I was lazy and instead of finding the correct section in Saville I just used the Guardian article (which I trusted to provide an accurate quote). I have edited the RfC above so that now it quotes verbatim the Bloody Sunday Inquiry's finding and provides a link to the appropriate section of the Report. I did not intend to make this a RfC about appropriate sources, due weight, etc., just if what we have stated in the article as Saville's finding(s) can be considered an accurate summary. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O Fenian: as you can see I edited this RfC twice, are you OK with that? *sadderz* LoveUxoxo (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly they are not equivalent. Does User:O Fenian think they are? Headlines will sometimes throw around the term 'unarmed' to create sensationalism. They may have been without 'firearms', but armed with other weapons. Niluop (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Niloup (arguing the other side since I want to be very careful here), what the report found was only that it was "probable" that (only) one person shot had nail bombs in his possession, and that when he was shot the soldiers who shot him did not know this, nor if they did that would not have given them justification for firing. All that out of the way, yes, my belief is that it is wrong to state that the report found that all that were shot were unarmed. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, Wikipedia is about verifiability over truth, but on the other hand the news articles seem to clearly misrepresent the report itself. This would be best resolved by stating both cases so as to be as neutral and verifiable as possible. Perhaps something to the extent:

News media covering the report stated that all of the casualties were unarmed, however the report itself only went as far as to confirm that the casualties were not carrying firearms or bombs.

I think something like this would cover both sides of the issue in a reasonably neutral manner and leave judgement to the reader, as it should. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Techno, you made me think whether your suggestion was appropriate, and while I could imagine of extreme cases where there would be such a strong disconnect between an official report and the media's reporting of its findings, this ain't it. Please don't view the above headlines as a representative sample, because they are not. A WP:CHERRY contest doesn't seem to me the way to "prove" anything, but I think if you look will find a strong correlation that the more in-depth articles about the report's findings, and the ones written days after the reports release (as opposed to hours), avoid stating "unarmed". Cheers LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• not equivalent. Wording from the inquiry ("None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm or (with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghey) a bomb of any description."[7]) is relevent to the article and should be added to it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• More or less equivalent. I saw the RFC, it looks to me as though that we're really just arguing semantics here, "not armed with firearms" or "unarmed" are more or less the same thing, especially when the later is backed by a reliable secondary source. The original report is a primary source, and should not be used here anyways. Even if we go by the report, the "unarmed" classification is implied, unless there is a reliable source that says they were armed with cold weapons. I suspect that some British apologist/nationalist denial/guilt might be at play here. Unfortunately, we have a similar situation at Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état, where editors with similar concerns are on a crusade to downplay and whitewash the British/American role in the CiA/MI6-led coup, some going as far as arguing that there was no coup, and that the coup was actually a "popular uprising" or "civil war" with little or no British/American involvement. Similarly, nationalist editors from Turkey, also do their best to deny and whitewash any past genocide or massacres committed by the Ottoman Empire. National guilt, revisionism, soap-boxing, whatever you call it, it's becoming a real problem in Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kurdo777, I hear what you are saying, although I disagree. As for WP:RS, in the crush of news media coverage in the hours following the release of the Inquiry's report you will find many contradictions. This can best be illustrated by performing a search yourself for news stories from that day and see how many of them say "13 killed" versus "14 killed" ...38 years later even that one basic fact is not agreed upon. I think you will find that the articles with the more in-depth analysis tend to be more careful with their words, specifically "unarmed". Semantics IS very important here, as editors we should strive to find wording that summarizes this, arguably the most important finding of the Inquiry, in BOTH spirit and letter. There are many ways to do this - I'd be happy with any of the following statements singularly or in any combination, all of which a practically verbatim from the report of the Inquiry:

• None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm or (with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghey) a bomb of any description.
• "None of the casualties shot was armed with a firearm"
• "None [of the casualties shot] was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury."
• "[None of the casualties shot] was doing anything (...) that could on any view justify their shooting."
• "None of [the soldiers] fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers."

I don't understand how any of those statements can by viewed as anything less than a complete exoneration of those who were shot. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kurdo777 that the report is a primary source and we should go with the reliable second sources which clear state "unarmed". Bjmullan (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just case people watch this page is not aware LoveUxoxo has taken out a discussion at AN/I. Bloody Sunday (1972). My take of the situation is that LoveUxoxo is trying to change too many things at the same time (the talkpage really is a mess). He also seems to have a very low opinion of what has been a relatively stable and I think good article. Bjmullan (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. O Fenian (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I've said my belief is this article is poorly sourced, has bad prose and organization, and in just almost every way is of poor quality (except for the "Background" part), why don't we get an outside opinion and ask for an assessment? Are you guys all OK with that? LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since its a child of this article, I'd like to point out that the first paragraph of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry main article is apparently not written in English. *sadderz* LoveUxoxo (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to set Miszabot to automatically archive threads older than 90 days; this will help a lot. If you want to keep threads older than that please say so. Thanks! LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MizsaBot is now set to archive threads for this page that are older than 90 days. Other than that and making next archive #2, I left it with the default parameters. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]