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 (Jan 2002–Oct 2009)

Unarmed in the first paragraph? - has this ever been proven as a fact? What about the reports of sightings of stones/lethal nail bombs/ petrol bombs/snipers - do you count that as being unarmed? What about the fact that some of those present were members of the IRA?

There are many statements here which seem very POV, and this article deserves the POV tag. I am in agreement that is in need of some serious editing. Jonto 20:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

As to the supposed sightings, they weren't as far as the evidence that has been presented goes, among the crowd. The crowd was unarmed. It was fired on. That is the issue. It is irrelevant whether others not part of the crowd that was fired at were armed or not. FearÉIREANN(caint) 20:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but can it be proven definitely as to whether they were armed or not? If not, then I think "unarmed" should be removed if there is no concrete evidence; perhaps replaced with a term such as "thought to be unarmed" or "believed to be unarmed", rather than stating it as an outright fact.Jonto 20:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that not a single shot was fired at the paratroopers seems to substantiate the word "unarmed", I think. It doesn't strike me as particularly plausible that armed IRA men were fleeing like rabbits while their bretheren were being shot down.Bullzeye 07:09, 18 July 2005 [UTC]

The text doesn't actually say that everyone was unarmed, it just says that the people killed and wounded were unarmed. Sicking 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

All the dead tested negative for gunshot residue, There were IRA members,official and provisional at the march but they to were unarmed. Ivan cooper was promised that guns would stay away from the march by the IRA. The only weapons used by demonstrators were stones and bottles, and this was before the paras started shooting.--86.138.174.119 (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

To quote the Widgery report:

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

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

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

Are you talking about the article in general, or the specific issue under this heading? Nick Cooper (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, sorry I didn't continue the debate on the POV tag last year(had my spleen removed after I collapsed :-() the article is MUCH better but I still feel the re isn't sufficient balance in the opening paragraph.Twobells (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Many witnesses, including bystanders and journalists, testify that all those shot were unarmed' but other witnesses state that some were armed yet the opening paragraph makes no mention of that and it still reads as a biased piece....Twobells (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IRA have also claimed that due to the high chance of being searched by police on the march, none carried weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.47.146 (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we should take the IRA's word for it? Come off it! What if Al Queda claimed they hadn't carried out 9/11, would you take that at face value as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessexboy (talk • contribs) 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is STILL POV, the fact the march was banned needs to be included in the first paragraph for balance.Twobells (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Twenty-seven civil rights protesters were shot by the British Army Parachute Regiment during a banned Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association march' would do it.Twobells (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see why this fact is still after all this time not evident in the opening :-( Twobells (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, whhen this came up previously, this issue was that all marches and parades were covered by a blanket ban at the time. Describing it simply as a "banned march" could be taken to mean that it was the subject to specific controls, e.g. the march was proposed, then banned, but went ahead anyway. This sort of ambiguity is to be avoided, and the the actual circumstances are explained quite early in the page, anyway. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then how about: 'Twenty-seven civil rights protesters were shot by the British Army Parachute Regiment during a Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association march all of which were banned at that time'Twobells (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Or similar, otherwise people looking down the lens of history won't get an accurate understanding of the situation.Twobells (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Just read the article at link #41 here which talks about the allegation that the army could have used a modified SLR that fired a .22 round rather than the standard 7.62. This modification was requested by Major General Robert Ford who wanted to start shooting dead rioters using the modified weapon. I have read lots about these events but this is new to me and it is not mentioned in this article or the Saville Enquiry either. Bjmullan (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ford is, however, mistaken in his recollection about why the SLR conversion was available, which was actually for training purposes, particularly at recruit level. The first experimental non-reversible conversions were carried out in 1959 - long before the Troubles - but not brought into service. A reversible conversion kit suitable for British imperial measure rifles was manufactured by Heckler & Koch (based on their kit for the metric SLR used by the Germany army) in the 1970s - details here and here. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just made a quick edit so that the Derry/Londonderry controversy mentioned in the article, acturally appears in the article. Now I know that Derry auto-links Londonderry when linked in wikipedia, and I'm not trying to step on anyone's perceptions, I just put in a Derry}Londonderyy so the paragraph looks right.155.91.28.232 (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first picture on the right - needs to be way way more neutral. "The Day Innocence Died"? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know there were images of the massacre as they've become somewhat iconic images. Is there any that we could justifiably use under 'fair use' criteria. All the images, while valuable are retrospective subjects such as murals.Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

There is too much detail regarding the apology in the opening paragraphs. 'The British Government later apologised for the event' would do for the opening section. Details of the apology should be further down the article.Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this article, to begin with I found it awkward that the city is called "Derry" throughout, given that all the news sources about the Saville inquiry are calling it Londonderry. But then I came upon this:

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

Seriously? This is obviously backwards. Londonderry is the official name. The unionists are just calling it by its official name; it is the nationalists who have their own name for it. They have every right to call it whatever they want, but the wikipedia name compromise has resulted in a nonsensical sentence which reverses the actual nature of what's going on. john k (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed per WP:TOPIC. Thanks. --John (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid the addition of the {{current}} template. The template states that it is a current event. Yes, there are issues coming up about it right now, but that tag is misleading in this context. If anyone would like it added back please discuss here. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the numbers, as it seems some confusion has crept in regarding the total. Twenty-six people were shot, of whom thirteen died on the day, but one of the injured - John Johnson - died several months later. It seems in the past someone added the number of fatalities - i.e. fourteen - to the number of injured - i.e. thirteen - even though one of the latter is also one of the former. I've also changed the reference to all those who were shot being protesters, as John Johnson at least was not. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]