Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972)

Fianna Éireann

The Fianna are/were not a "Junior IRA brigade," rather they were and are a Republican scouting movement. Many members would go on to join the IRA but I can't recall any Fianna bombings or shootings.

If I recall it was precisely on this point that on July 31 1997 Proinsias de Rossa won £300,000 from the Sunday Independent which, through an article by Éamon Dunphy, alleged he had been a member of the IRA when he had, in fact, only been a member of Fianna Éireann. Check The Irish Independent July 31 1999, for a background to that case. El Gringo 18:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Older comments

Shouldn't this be organized under Northern_Ireland/History or something? I see that there's quite a bit of information spread around, under The Troubles, Ireland/History, IRA, etc, but the history of Northern Ireland is so unique that it deserves a seperate page, in my opinion. -Guppie

If you had a special page on Northern Ireland history all brought together, it would take up half of Wikipedia. Encyclopedias operate on the basis of enquiring about a specific event, person or organisation. It wouldn't work if to find out about Bloody Sunday you had to go in though a detailed category list: Northern Ireland/history/troubles/Bloody Sunday. It should have links to all of those, but not be buried on one. JTD

Jtdirl, your rewrite of this page was excellent. Keep it up on Wikipedia! - AW

This article is extremely partisan and missrepresentative. -- MartinSpamer

Wow! Such insight! Could you perhaps give some specifics or edit out the POV in the article yourself? --mav

Ive tried but each time I try to improve it Jtdirl makes it worse. -- MartinSpamer

---

Why does this article hav such a specific title? Was there another event called Bloody Sunday that also happened in 1972? --mav

There was another Bloody Sunday in 1920. I don't know who put this name on this file (I don't think it was me!) but I suppose it makes sense to link it to its two distinguishing characteristics, Northern Ireland and 1972. The other is Bloody Sunday (Ireland 1920), when British military Auxilaries massacred people attending a gaelic football match in Dublin during the War of Independence. It is quite possible that the term 'Bloody Sunday' is also used somewhere else in the world. I suppose some unionists might be annoyed if this one here was down as Bloody Sunday (Ireland) and some people may know about Bloody Sunday and where it happened but not the date, or the date but not where it happened. Who knows, in years to come, Wiki may be teeming with 'Bloody Sundays', Amritsar 1924, Oklahoma 1948, Outer Mongolia 1971, the Orkney Islands 1982, etc. (these are all fictional, BTW.) JTD 04:45 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

---

I added the fact that the British never claimed any soldier was hit by a bullet, nor was any bullet recovered afterward (except those shot by the British soldiers). I also added claims by people in the crowd that no shots were ever fired on the British soldiers, that these people claim that the British soldiers were the only ones who did any shooting.

I removed the word "riot" from the first paragraph. I do not feel this is NPOV. The march was to the city square, but the British soldiers decided to block it (I guess the British have the right to determine where Irish people are allowed to go in their own city). Some of the marchers began arguing with the soldiers who were blocking their route, while the majority decided to go by an alternate route which was not blocked. Anyone who wants to use the word riot should point out why here. I think it would be less controversial if you two or three paragraphs in gave a description of the progress of the march, so that people could decide for themselves what kind of riot there supposedly was. An unqualified description of riot in the first paragraph is in my opinion, not NPOV.

To term this march a Civil Rights Association march as a riot is unfair and unjust. Differences must be made between the Civil Rights Association and the I.R.A. While Martin McGuiness second in command of the Derry brigade was in the march the claims of IRA sniper fire have never been proven.

Perhaps some context might be given somewhere in the article. That is

1. We have had very recently in Iraq examples of what happens when a armed and nervous set of soldiers is confronted by a large crowd in a hostile atmosphere.

2. The IRA deliberately killed civilians on several occasions. This doesn't excuse the British actions on that day, but the idea that the republican movement was peaceful on the model of Gandhi or Martin Luther King is a false one.

Keeping my head down now

This was not an I.R.A sponsered march while members where among the marchers (unquestionsbly) this was a Civil Rights Association march the I.R.A council had little or no authority over these marches to suggest that protesters in Derry were all active I.R.A members is absurd. Bloody sunday is considered in Republican Circles as the I.R.A s greatest advertisment for recruitment. The I.R.A as an organisation was not as powerful in 1972 as it had been previously in 1916 or as it became. The Civil Rights Association basic demands were 1. An end to Gerrymandering (Particularly evident in Derry where the city with an evident Catholic majoraty in 1972 anywhere from 75-80%) Was governed though Republicans claim ruled by a Protestant council. 2. equal oppertunties for All not just Catholics. The Derry Bogside was the most economically blighted area of Derry which did not have the same heavy industry as Belfast had throughout the 20th century. 3. In all the basic demand was "One Man One Vote"

I don't think the article requires editing it is not particularly biased to one side it sticks to both sides of what is a disputed event he does not call the Widgery report straight out a Whitewash which it is considered in Irish circles. Exonerating British Soldiers from any wrongdoing and calling the firing of over 100 live rounds into a built up area of apartment blocks 'At worst possibly wreckless' the authuor of the article makes an account of the 'Bloody Sunday Guns' some of which turned up in Little Rock, Beiruit and Sierra Leone and the guns which were destroyed in the Donnington Armoury in the midlands of England. A fair article and in no way Partisan

Exile

They are perfectly fair points. And please don't keep your head down. Keep editing! (But then I have been accused on wikipedia of being a right wing tory, an apologist for the IRA, anti-Irish, anti-British, anti-Catholic, a catholic church spy here pushing a Catholic agenda, a homophobe, an outrageous pusher of the gay agenda, an Australian monarchist, an Australian republican etc etc etc. Your points are perfectly valid. Oh dear! I guess I'm going to be accused of being a right wing tory again! Or is it a provo-supporting Brit-hater? I'm losing track of which I have been called on the various Irish pages! FearÉIREANN 17:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The present Inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday has nearly 2,500 statements from people involved, which seem to answer many of the questions raised here, and are all available on the Inquiry's website. It is acknowledged by the authorities that it's suspicious that no British soldiers were shot that day. It seems that the crowd were 'unarmed' in that they were not carrying firearms, but those who were rioting (acknowledging that many at the riot were in the wrong place at the wrong time) were throwing rocks. The witness statements are adamant that some of the people shot at were throwing nail bombs, and that some were in buildings with firearms. An MI5 agent has provided evidence that Martin McGuinness has claimed to have fired the first shot; he denies this and in fact claims that he was nowhere near the shooting. No soliders admit to having fired into the crowd, only to having fired at those with firearms and nail bombs, and to have shot into the air above the rioters heads to attempt to disperse them. But the critical question remains whether these actions can account for all the deaths (and I agree, that it should be known as 14 rather than 13 as that's the number who died as a direct result of the shooting that day).

Bono is a Catholic?

"It should be noted that Bono, a native Dubliner, was brought up as a Protestant though he later converted to Catholicism." Really? I don't think this is correct! As far as I know he went from being a Protestant to simply describing himself as a Christian. His mum Protestant and his dad was Catholic, but his father is said to have believed that children should not be so seperated from their mother by faith, so he opted to have both his sons (Norman and Paul-Paul is Bono's real name) raised as Protestants. His wife, the georgeous Ali, is the daughter of a Protestant clergyman. So, could someone get this right? Fergananim (who is neither prod nor taig).

Actually I think the Catholic parent was the mother not the father who was a Protestant (Ronan)

I added it. AFAIK Bono is somewhat close to organisations like Opus Dei. Delete it if you like the main point was that he was brought up a Proddy and is therefore unlikely to be signing songs advocating the murder of Proddies.GordyB 15:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bono is most definitely not a Catholic. He is a member of the Church of Ireland. Bono also has nothing whatsoever to do with Opus Dei. That is the weirdest claim I have ever heard. Ali, who was a college colleague of mine, will crack up laughing when I tell her of your claim! FearÉIREANN 20:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay if it's wrong delete it, obviously I got it wrong. Whether or not he is a Catholic is irrelevant in the paragraph anyway.GordyB 22:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At a certain point, reports of an IRA sniper were heard in the British command center. The order to fire live rounds was given and one young man was shot and killed. The aggression against the British troops escalated, and eventually the order was given to move the troops out to chase the tail of the main group of marchers to the edge of the field by Free Derry Corner.

Despite a cease-fire order from command, several hundred rounds were fired directly into the fleeing crowds. 12 more were shot dead, many of them killed while tending the wounds of the fallen.

Instead of arresting those involved, the British paratroopers proceded in "chasing" innocent civilians women and children with armed weapons and shot dead 13 innocent civil right marchers.

Unarmed?

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)

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. FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gif\^(caint) 20:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Events of the day section

The Events of the day section is seriously lacking. As someone that doesn't know very much about the event I'm left with very little information about the actual event rather then the politics after it. It would be great with a more detailed timeline as well as more details about where and when the different events occured. Some suggestions for additions:

• How many people attended the march? Over 50,000
• Who were they? The majority was working class Catholics but also has some Protestants in attendance.
• Why did they march? In protest against the descrimation of Roman Catholics by the British.
• Why were there barricades? They did not get permission to March so the barricaded were put in place to stop the marches.
• Did the group of teenagers manage to break through the barricade at Guildhall? NO - The Guidhall was not the scene of where this happened, altough the plan was for the march to end at the Guidhall the marchers did not make it past William Street the first barricade.

Did more people follow them? How big was the group? Nobody followed, a group of 20-30 youths protested at the barricades where water cannons had been used against them

• If they did manage to break the barricade, what happened then? Did the police let the march go on peacefully at first and not until later start firing? NO again they did not get through the barricades.
• Where was the first boy shot? Around the Guildhall barricades? Was there any reason he was signled out? Again the Guidhall barricades were not insight, all shootings took place in the Bogside.
• When and where did the rest of the firing take place? The text only mentions that orders were given to stop firing, not that firing started. There are several statements made that firing was taking place from the city walls over looking the bogside, beside the flats in the Bogside and within Glenfada Park.
• When did the cease-fire order happen in relation to the firing? As soon as it started? Before it started? After it had been going on for a while? The shooting had been going on for some time and continued after the cease fire order was given

I realize this is a contagious issue, but it's better to put in some uncertain information that then can be discussed and tweaked, then to put in nothing at all. Sicking 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully I've answered the first part of the first question, the rest will take a bit more time... SeanMack 06:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

So, is there any possibility to have access to other version of this event like, of people who claim that there are evidence of the precense of a sniper or that some bullets were shot not only by the army ?

• • I know some of these things you want clarified, which i will now add to the article, namely about the first killed - my uncle Jackie Duddy, and the situation surrounding his shooting. I also altered his name, as you had him listed as John...I also know for a fact that one single soldier was injured on the day itself - but that was an accident before the paras even left their barracks that morning, when he shot himself in the foot while cleaning his gun. Interesting?

Well done on this entire article, it provides invaluable insight into what is still a very important and, as yet, unresolved event in our lives. (JC, Derry. November 2005)

The fact that no weapons were found on the dead and wounded does not mean that there were no 'Weapons' used at this particular incident. bottles filled with nails, bricks and other assorted projectiles were found at the site and in it's immediate surroundings. having served in Ireland as a paratrooper myself, I have experienced being on the receiving end of this type of weapon myself, they are just as deadly as a ballistic weapon. The scene was tampered with before any investigations could be carried out. The comment that no armed IRA men would flee like rabbits while their bretheren were being fired upon is complete nonsense.

• • No, its not complete nonsene. Sure not all IRA men would have taken a stand, but some would have.

An IRA gunman is not a Hero, or have any hero like qualities. If they were why would they attack 2 british soldiers as part of a large group ? bomb innocent civilians? wear balaclavas?

• So because some members of the IRA did wrong, all of them do? By the same logic, I can "prove" you would shoot an innocent civilian, because at least some Paras did on 30.01.72.

I served in Ireland as a member of the Parachute Regiment and have seen first hand how cowardly these so called "Hero's" are. When British soldiers are attacked should they just stand by and not defend themselves?

• This question is kinda rhetorical, because thats not the way I believe it happened. Even if the soldiers took fire, they didnt respond to the attackers, but attacked civilians in at least a few of cases.

NO !!!!!!

• Would the IRA gunmen "flee like rabbits" while their "comrades" were being shot at. Hmmm yes i believe they would. the IRA would never engage in open street warfare with the British Army. I also think its important to mention that the saville inquiry hasn't made its decision yet and that no "common consensus" exists yet about what happened - among unionists, yes; among nationalists, definitely but among the whole community, no.

I think really we need to wait until the new inquiry into what happened gives it's version of events. At least then it will be a half decent account of what happened on that day, unless of course its a £155 Million cover up (which if it is accused to be it'd be a pretty poor attempt, why waste £155 Million when you have a perfectly good Widgery cover up?).

In the section about the Saville inquiry, an Australian judge is mentioned. Later on it states that he only arrived in 2000. I propose that this section be rephrased to make it clear and easy to understand. At present the impression is given that he was there from the start.

And at the end of the day thats all we are looking for. The truth. Simply yelling and accusing each other and arguing the toss isn't going to solve anything. I'm the son of a Para who served in NI during the 70s and one of my good freinds is a senior member of Fianna Fail's youth wing (and he isn't exactly brimming with praise for Sinn Fein/IRA either to put it lightly) so seriously chaps it can be done! Now lets get back to making this article accurate, concise and neutral!--Pudduh 15:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a terrible article! Why is the Events of the Day section so small? The account given is clearly biased in favour of the Nationalist viewpoint. As it stands this article has very little informative merit. To the main authors: by providing such a biased account you undermine any truth in what you say, can't you see that? A few more counter-arguments by a knowledgeable author seem to be needed. Fc252 18:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Historically, I suspect the main reason is that much of the detail that should appear in a straightforward chronological narrative is included in the sections on each of individual killed/wounded. I contemplated doing something more conventional a couple of months back, but held off pending the Saville Report, although that now seems some way off even now. All that said, I'm somewhat mystified by your request for "a few more counbter-arguments." To what, exactly? What do you think is missing? Nick Cooper 21:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps he wants more information like was added in this edit? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... Nick Cooper 21:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed unproven claims about John Lennon

These claims about Lennon:

- He gave money specifically to the "Marxist" IRA organization - He paid for Bloody Sunday funerals

Validation and proof please? Don't see any - the John Lennon article also put forth a one-sided view, ignoring the very insistent denials of Yoko Ono, prominent Marxists who knew Lennon, and Lennon's biographer (who has been fighting for years to get ALL the FBI documents).

Lennon might have given money to the IRA, Sinn Fein, or even the Orangemen ... and there are factual statements showing he supported Irish civil rights... but until it can be attributed by a valid source, the above claims about funerals and "Marxist" IRA donations don't belong here. 67.10.136.147 08:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I found a picture that seems to suggest his support for the IRA [1].SCVirus 08:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

exMI5 person David Shayler made the claim that he had 'seen' documents from MI5 saying Lennon gave money to the IRA under the guise of "Irish civil rights" here. The john lennon article says he was giving money to the Workers' Revolutionary Party at the time. Shayler says he was doing that and giving cash to the IRA. This article quotes one biographer who says he wouldnt be suprised if he did give cash to IRA, also quotes 'Sinn Fein' saying the same thing here. Better article here describing the FBI's interest in him (who Shayler says were feeding FBI information) and his song about Bloody Sunday 1972.

All very "He said, she said". I dont think the allegations or "whatever" (even if they are true) belong in the article. Fluffy999 02:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hiya, guys. Some interesting stuff, but I think the layout at least needs to be sorted out. I'll have a thing about looking at this in the future. Will try and get that going, while potentially trying to help over the neutrality dispute.

Cheers, John Smith's 23:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on an improved version. I removed the tag, but I hope we can all strive to make it even better. John Smith's 19:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Can someone please tell me why its says 13 people were shot dead instead of 14 just because one guy took longer to die? If someone dies directly because of something you do, even if its a long time after, its still considered murder. Or should we change it to 12 because one guy might have taken a full minute to die. Where do you draw the line. YOU CAN'T draw a line it should be 14 not 13. SCVirus 22:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

---

By saying shot dead means they were killed in the spot they stood - one person died at a later date from the shootings.

The claim that the crowd was armed is in fact just a claim. The people who have made this claim have provided no evidence, other than the fact that I.R.A members were in the march. Now,hopefully we can leave behind this ridiculous debate about I.R.A members courage behind. If these men were armed the situation would have almost certainly degenerated into the sort of gun battle that was happening basically everyday in West Belfast at that time. The fact is that British soldiers killed 14 innocent, unarmed civilians. In my view, that amounts to cold blooded murder no different than any I.R.A atrocity. Bloody Sunday should be regarded by all right minded people as what it was, one of the worst atrocities of the troubles. how courageous of you to remain anonymous;)Samgb 15:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Shot in the back or shot in the chest?

The article has Jackie Duddy being killed both ways.Kidigus 23:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Official IRA

The Official IRA article places gunmen at the scene shooting;

"On Bloody Sunday (1972), an OIRA man in Derry is believed to have fired several shots with a revolver at British troops, after they had shot dead 13 nationalist demonstrators - the only republican shots fired on the day"

but this article doesnt, which article is correct? Fluffy999 11:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Number of Dead

Should the number of dead not be changed to 14? Or at least mention in the introduction that another marcher who was shot on Bloody Sunday subsequently died from his injuries?GiollaUidir 16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed that now. El Gringo 11:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good good. Wasn't sure if there was some accuracy reason for it being the way it was...GiollaUidir 19:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Greiss Tests

I've removed the specific reference to positive results from Greiss tests on some of the deceased, as in fact all those tested proved negative. The appropriate section in Widgery (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/widgery.htm#part3) states:

"The clothing of 11 of the deceased when examined for explosive residues showed no trace of gelignite. The two others were Gerald McKinney, whose clothing had been washed at the hospital and could not be tested, and Donaghy, in the pockets of whose clothing there had, on any view, been nail bombs and whose case is considered later."

Since the tests carried out were negative - and so would not have been "prosecution evidence" - it is irrelevant to cite cases where positive results secured convictions. Nick Cooper 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OIRA gunmen?

I'm curious to see the evidence behind the claim that 'one man was witnessed by Father Edward Daly and others haphazardly firing a revolver in the direction of the paratroopers'. I'm writing a paper on Bloody Sunday, and have found no reference to this alleged OIRA gunman in any of the sources I've examined - where did this come from? (I am not disputing the claim; rather, I would like to examine the evidence supporting it, to determine if this is something I should discuss in my paper.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.98.151 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 January 2007

Bishop Daly has spoken about this on a number of occasions, notably in the 05 Dec 1991 Secret History Channel 4 TV documentary, which also showed the photographs (now apparently "lost") of the gunman. He naturally also covered it in his statement to the BSI [2] (paragraph 24). He mentions having previously referred to the incident in a contemporary statement, which may be in Eyewitness Bloody Sunday, but I don't have my copy to hand to check at the moment. If you Google on the phrase "Daly's guman" it comes up with numerous hits on both the BSI site and BIRW's one covering references by both Bishop Daly and other witnesses. Nick Cooper 11:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the help there - now that you mention it, I do recall reading something about that in Eyewitness Bloody Sunday. I'll have to get the book out again to look it up. Thanks again.

If such pictures of a gunman did exist wouldn't they be splashed around every newspaper in the North? Anyway, it's hardly suprising stickies began claiming there were gunmen given their transition to neo-unionism.Irish Republican 02:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"If such pictures... did exist"? Nick Cooper 06:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There never was pictures of a Sticky gunman at bloody sundayIrish Republican 18:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny that Father Daly freely refers to the man in question, then. And that Secret History managed to include the photographs in their documentary. And that they were discussed at the Saville Inquiry. And that both Jimmy McGovern and Peter Greengrass included the incident in their separate films. Nick Cooper 18:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the word of a member of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy in Ireland isn't going to convince me. However, I accept such photos may have existed though I find it odd they've simply been "lost".Irish Republican 03:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fr Daly was one example; there are other witnesses who testified at Saville to having seen the man in question. In any case, the photograph still "exists" in the Secret History documentary (24m 54s in on my recording), even if the originals have been lost. On the programme it's somewhat dark, but the man is obviously holding a semi-automatic pistol similar to a M911 Colt or a Browning Hi-Power. Nick Cooper 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Republican, I read your comment and was pretty appalled. The implication that Edward Daly, a priest, would lie over something as serious this is pretty ridiculous when you consider he was there on the day and guided the injured out at his own risk. If there was anyone there on that day that could convince me there was a gunman present, it's Daly. John Smith's 15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Civil rights movement

I've often heard it said that Bloody Sunday marked the end of the Civil Rights movement in the north can anyone offer any fact of this and should it be added to the article (14:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

One way or another, numerous sources have said just that, and it's certainly worthy of inclusion (surprised it's not already). Nick Cooper 15:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt obviously mention the attack on british troops —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.38.74 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 27 March 2007

By any other name....

State sactioned murder! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.30.202.19 (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

World view is in. It was state sactioned murder!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.19 (talk • contribs) 14:15, April 11, 2007

Shit happens. Go on a march when your pals in the IRA are taking pot shots, then watch out . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.49.206 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 30 May 2007

General Cleanup

I hate to do this, but 'Derry' is a contested title for the name of the city involved, and a recent case in the High Court ruled that the city's official name remains Londonderry. As a result, I suggest the legally accurate name be adopted in the article, and I have amended it to reflect the fact. (cf [3] ) Hugorudd 00:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted you, the city is not referred to as Londonderry on Wikipedia, see here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Artistic reaction

I think the first half of this section is more than adequate without the ever-growing collection of lyrics in the second part, so I've nuked the second part accordingly. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, I'm thinking about moving details of the play about the Saville Inquiry into that section as well, as it seems out of place where it is. Any objections? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hugh (Pius) Gilmore/Gilmour?

One Night In Hackney, I see you've deleted the middle name and changed the surname to "Gilmour" as per the referenced CAIN page, although this has created a conflict, as "Gilmore" is retained within the subsequent text. Widgery gives his full name as "Hugh Pius Gilmore". Googling this along with "Hugh Gilmore" returns around 400 hits, marginally more than "Hugh Gilmour" and "Hugh Pius Gilmour". The BSE specifically uses both, with a Gilmore:Gilmour ratio of 17:3. Hard to call this one.... Nick Cooper 12:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Gilmour specifically states that Hugh was his cousin, and Gilmour is a prevalent name in media coverage as well. I've no particular objection to either, and I didn't notice the subsequent uses of the name as I'm just taking it one part at a time. The middle name seemed slightly superfluous to requirements to be honest. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We have middle names (or initials) for many of the deceased, which I think it legitimate for first use, but obviously subsequent mentions don't need to be specific. Nick Cooper 15:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll put it back on my next edit. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why were the Paras there?

Has anyone questioned why the Paras were there, and who ordered them to be there? The Paras are not exactly model peacekeepers and shouldn't be expected to do a Police role. If they are attacked in any way, or even threatened with attack, they are trained to react with extreme aggression -- SteveCrook 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The batallion was not stationed in Derry, but rather was "bussed in" from Belfast on the day and then left immediately afterwards. The official explanation was that they were the only extra troops available, while it has been suggested that they were specifically chosen for their more agressive character. It has been reported that this created a certain amount of resentment from the established units in the city, both because it was fealt that they would not have handled the situation in the same way, and also that the Paras acted with impunity in the knowledge that someone else would then have to deal with the situation they created. Nick Cooper 06:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And have the people that put them there been questioned by any of the enquiries? I think that would be a much more meaningful discussion than trying to question the soldiers themselves -- SteveCrook 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Edward Heath was questioned at Saville, but like many others he demonstrated a remarkable and/or convenient failure of memory.... Nick Cooper 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid POV criticisms of the British Army based on patent ignorance. It is not unusual to move trrops around; during Op BANNER not all units were allocated a TAOR and thsise that were could be redployed. --MJB 10:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What happened to objectivity???

After listening to U2's "Sunday, Bloody Sunday", my 11 year-old son asked me what the song was about. I told him it was about the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. As he asked more questions, I "googled" the topic, and got the Wikipedia article. I read the entire article and was shocked to see how biased the article was! Was it written by the IRA? As an American (with American roots from the 17th century), I have no particular point-of-view regarding Irish/English issues. My knowledge of the event has been based primarily on American, British and international media coverage of the events of that notorious day over the past thirty years. As Wikipedia seeks to be a true "encyclopedia", I was disappointed that it's coverage only shared one perspective. Lief in the US; 6/24/2007

Only since the 17th century? The Irish can hold a grudge a lot longer than that :)
The section The Dead appears to be particularly odd with a lot of people shot in the chest or stomach while they were running away. Did they run away backwards? -- SteveCrook 03:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Those that your refering to as shot in chest etc, were moving away from the main body of troops, but other troops, at the time where positioned on the Derry walls above and to the front of the crowd who where trying to escape in that direction, so they where caught in a crossfire.--padraig3uk 12:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When most of the credible evidence - whether it is eyewitnesss, forensic, documentary or cicumstantial - points to one particular course of events, it's hard to categorise giving it its due weight as being "biased". Nick Cooper 07:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The shooting of the kids in their backs is one thing. The lies, deceit and fraud of the British state in covering all of this up for the past three decades is another. The confiscation of cameras and film rolls (such as of that Italian couple- I don't know if the article mentions them), the destruction of other incriminating evidence and the state whitewash that blamed the civil rights protestors for the massacre- all of this and much more make this an extraordinarily ugly chapter. Maybe, Lief in the US, you can put forward the British case here. I guarantee you that when you do, the board will be filled with editors presenting eyewitness accounts disproving the lies of the British state on Bloody Sunday. Please put forward their defence. Wikipedia is yours as well. For that matter, to help you along, here is the British State's current inquiry into it:http://www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org.uk/. You will have all of the eyewitness accounts of the survivors on that website. 193.1.172.104 17:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that pro IRA supporters (the kind that don't feel any remorse for all the civilian deaths inflicted by these cowardly terrorists) have decided to contorl this page. Spreading they're lies abroad where people actually believe them. There is no justification for terrorism, it's not a war, it's not right. unsigned comment by 62.172.72.131 08:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What did this event have to do with terrorism? I'm certainly not pro IRA. I'm not even pro Republican. I'm British. But by any measure this was a shameful event that should never have happened and should be recorded objectively. Personally, I don't blame the individual Paras, I blame the people that sent them in. The Paras are not trained to do police work or other "peace keeping" -- SteveCrook 12:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the link here is obviously that all those damned natives were terrorists (just as all of their savage kind had been for centuries, you see). And all those wonderful colonialists were only trying to civilise them on Bloody Sunday. Ungrateful wretches, those Paddies. Simple! 193.1.172.104 17:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your opinions to yourself - Wikipedia is a place of facts. Logoistic 14:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I remind you of your own edits today with regards Bobby Sands.--Vintagekits 15:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion of my edit on that particular article is not relevent here. Logoistic 19:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to be like that, maybe it is your opinion which is not relevant here? 193.1.172.104 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Dead

This section needs to be removed per policy, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. To quote: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The victims are not notable in their own regard. It is perfectly clear from the article that the victims were massacred and much of what needs to be said about their individual killings is covered in the article already. To reiterate, this is WP policy and has been applied to other incidents occurring in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a memorial. The list gave precious little background information about any person, merely important information about the circumstances of their death which needs to be in the article. Please provide specific examples of other articles this has been applied to. Yeast Power 11:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that there is a policy against memorials, but in this case the list is given details of how each person was killed and where, this was subject to a public enquiry, as the British Army claimed that these people where armed and engaged in attacking troops at the time of their deaths, the evidence proves that this was not the case as most of them where shot from behind and some whilst trying to give aid to those already shot. Also none of the people killed that day where shown in tests to have been handling firearms or engaged in any armed attack against British troops. So in this case the list is not a memorial in that sense.--padraig3uk 11:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the list gives details of each victim's death largely so that they can be named in the article. Padraig, what you're saying is already in the article or can be summarised very easily - "Many victims were shot in the back as they ran away, others were shot dead as they lay injured." Or even as you have it, "None of the people killed that day where shown in tests to have been handling firearms or engaged in any armed attack against British troops." - with references (which are available). It is not necessary to name the victims. Yeast Power - see Omagh bombing (and its talk page) for an example. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

While there are similarities between some of the death, not all are in identical circumstances, and there is nothing inherently wrong with detailing exactly how each one died. I also sthing that you're misinterpreting WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, which actually states: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." The dead are named within the context of a notable event; the event is the subject of the page, not the individuals. Nick Cooper 12:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Omagh Bombing as with the victims of other such attacks are different, nobody claimed or suggested that any of the victims in these where in part responsible for their own deaths, with Bloody Sunday the situation is different in that the British Army and the British government tried to claim that those shot were engaged in a gun battle with or otherwise attacking British troops, the details of the circumstance showing how each person died totaly refutes these claims, this is important, and cannot be proven in a single statement covering all the victims.--padraig3uk 12:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question about how the people killed at Omagh died whereas there are (or have been) many questions about how the people died on Bloody Sunday. They're not really comparable events. And saying something like "Many victims ..." isn't very satisfactory. How many is many? -- SteveCrook 12:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well - four, according to the text. So, "Four victims..." Why is there a need, for example, to state:

1. Michael G. Kelly (17). Shot in the stomach while standing near the rubble barricade in front of Rossville Flats. Widgery accepted that Kelly was unarmed.[9]
2. John Pius Young (17). Shot in the head while standing at the rubble barricade. Two witnesses stated Young was unarmed.[9]
3. etc.

instead of

1. Four unarmed youths were shot dead as they either stood at the rubble barricade or were moving away from it, one going to the aid of another at the time he was shot.

It is blatantly clear from the article, references and external links what happened on Bloody Sunday. There is no need to state multiple times that each victim was unarmed, was shot while running away, etc. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that so much detail is used to justify the inclusion of the names. It is not necessary. Padraig - yes, the British made claims, and the claims don't need to be refuted with a single statement. Nor are the circumstances of the victims' deaths in a section titled "The Dead" the way to do it. An inline section headed "Refutation of claims" would be the non-memorial way to go there, quite possibly referring to some of the individuals where this was warranted (though personally I feel the claims are already well refuted throughout the rest of the article). Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the page clearly does not fit the definition of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Nick Cooper 12:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the comments of others above. There may be a case for removing duplicated information in places, but not the haphazard removal of an entire section (including a link to the Gerald Donaghy article), which also broke a reference in the process. I think context needs to be established first, as individual people are discussed in more depth later. Unless the article establishes who died where and in what circumstances, when they are discussed later it lacks context. Yeast Power 13:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say it fits it OK. The page, or even just that list, isn't acting as a memorial to honor departed friends and relatives. And the people listed are notable. They weren't famous before Bloody Sunday but being killed at that event made them famous. If you don't like them being included in the main page about the event, why not move them to a subsidiary page? I would still like to question how people can be shot in the chest or stomach while they're running away (Duddy & Gilmour) -- SteveCrook 13:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The circumstances of a person's death do not make them notable (as per discussion on various other pages including Omagh bombing and various American High School shootings). Otherwise there would be justification for including a list of the dead of Omagh, Columbine, Dublin and Monaghan, the M62, Birmingham, et al, in their respecitce articles. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the fact in most cases the circumstances of each death was different (only the three on the barricade can be meaningfully grouped together). In detailing how each person died, it doesn't seem particularly logical to not name them on the grounds of a rather spurious reading of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. It is equally spurious to compare this to bombing incidents, where everyone is pretty much killed at the same time and in the same location. Hungerford massacre is a more apt comparison, and the victims are appropriately named in the narrative of events. Given that we are not contrained by considerations of space and so are able to detail how each those killed on Bloody Sunday died, it doesn't made sense to not name them. For one thing, it hampers debate, if rather than saying, "who are the witness to Kevin McElhinney's death" one has to say, "who are the witnesses to the man 'shot from behind while attempting to crawl to safety at the front entrance of the Rossville Flats'?" Nick Cooper 08:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good arguments, Nick. I would still prefer to see that section written more like Hungerford Massacre - i.e., chronologically (insofar as possible) and in-line, and the ages removed, but I'll concede on the main point that the names should be included. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's undeniable that what the page has been lacking for some time is a more chronological narrative of how events unfolded, but I suspect that the reason nobody has done it yet is that they were waiting to see the results of the Saville Inquiry, which should hopefully iron out most of the disputes in this respect; certain that was why I haven't done it myself. However, since the Report seems further away than ever, I'll see if I can come up with something over the weekend. Nick Cooper 15:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, don't wait for the results of the Saville Inquiry to be published. We might not live that long :) -- SteveCrook 16:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve I answered that in the section above this, they where running away from the main body of troops, but unknown to them there route of escape was towards other British soldiers based on the top of the Derry Walls above them, it was these troops that then opened fire on them so they where being fired on from both the front and behind.--padraig3uk 13:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That should be in the article, Padraig. Useful information. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It already is in the case of Michael M. McDaid Shot in the face at the barricade as he was walking away from the paratroopers. The trajectory of the bullet indicated he could have been killed by soldiers positioned on the Derry Walls. Which is another reason why the information on how each person was shot is necessary. What would be handy is a map showing the position of the crowd and the different locations of the soldiers. --padraig3uk 14:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't wondering about that one myself, because one can be shot in the face from pretty much 270 degrees. Moreso the ones where it is stated that people were moving away and were shot in the stomach. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In the book 'Eyewitness Bloody Sunday - The Truth by Don Mullan ISBN 1-903583-16-4 p148, it shows a picture taken at the time showing the front of the flats and shows the derelict buildings on the high ground above in the background on the other side of the Derry Wall from which the British soldiers were firing from. One of the issues in this is wether these troops were part of 1st Para, or where they from another regiment and was there presence and there position known to the Soldiers on the ground before the shooting started.--padraig3uk 14:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur that there may be reasons to list the dead, if there is additional information in that list. However what is currently in the article is far too long, and has some aspects of a memorial. As such it currently does not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. If the list is to remain, it needs a rewrite. --81.132.246.132 17:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to identify what constitutes "aspects of a memorial"? Nick Cooper 17:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This type of comment lends nothing to the discussion. I would ask that editors assume good faith and avoid what could be considered a a personal attack. Thanks--Domer48 09:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What a snide comment and hardly a personal attack. Please remember, all assumptions are subject to evidence to the contrary. If it is appropriate to Birmingham it is equally appropriate here. The circumstances are available elsewhere in the article; a list of names adds nothing. --MJB 10:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit, since the section is demonstrably more than a mere "list," containing as it does much factual information about the exact circumstances about the killings. Birmingham is hardly a valid comparison, as all or virtually all of the dead there were killed at essentially the same time and in essentially the same manner. As I have pointed out previously, the circumstances of each of those killed on BS varied enough to merit differentiation in the currenty manner. Your edit summary is erroneous in claiming that the timeline is enough, which id clearly isn't in fully explaining what happened. Nick Cooper 10:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A solution may be to aggregate the dead into categories e.g. (1) 4 were shot in the back and died immediately; (2) 3 died in hosital of wounds x days later . . . et.c. If you check the Birmingham Pub Bombings article I have endeavoured to respect the dead without creating a memorial. The same must apply here. --MJB 11:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not as you suggest comparing like with like. Nick Cooper has illustrated this point quite well. --Domer48 12:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Domer has expressed willingness to compromise regarding the list here and a list for the victims of the Birmingham Pub Bombings; at User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion. ie why do we not include both lists as opposed to excluding both Aatomic1 07:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation by Aatomic1, and I will respond on your page accordingly. --Domer48 09:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist categories

The article does not state or include any references that this was a terrorist incident, so I've removed them. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4

The Friday Play, BBC Radio Four, Friday 18th January 2008, 21:00 to 21:58 GMT

Bloody Sunday: Scenes from the Saville Inquiry. First of a two-part dramatic reconstruction of the hearings about the events of Sunday, January 30, 1972, focusing on the testimony of civilians who witnessed Bloody Sunday. Adapted by Richard Norton Taylor. Directed by Nicolas Kent. Starring: Mark Penfold, Alan Parnaby, Thomas Wheatley, Michael O'Hagan

Listen online for up to a week after the broadcast -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The dead

I have removed the dead since the dead of terrorist attacks by the IRA are usually removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.68.67 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute notation

It's quite obvious that this article has abused the NPOV wiki standard extensively, almost exclusively taken from a anti-british view point and until it's re-written from a far more neutral point of view should remain so noted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov

Twobells (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel the whole article is WP:NPOV or sections of it? And have you any suggestions on what should be changed and why? thanks. BigDunc (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire article and I will be addressing it as as possible. Twobells (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed tag per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed tag? PLEASE observe wiki standards, and do NOT remove the disputed tag but attempt to discuss it here. Its quite obvious that the entire piece is pov and none neutral and by attempting to remove the POV tag without major reconstruction following the wiki neutrality standards makes it obvious JUST how biased the piece is. Twobells (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, removed tag. And oh, I did it again! READ the page I linked to.

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

If the POV is as obvious as you say, you should be able to cope with that right? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down, I am at a loss as to your reasoning, you removed the dispute stamp after I had attempted to start redressing obvious bias both in the discussion field and the piece itself, it will take some time to complete so please refrain from doing so again.Twobells (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you stop deleting sourced content to unbalance this article, otherwise you risk being blocked from editing. And you can't do the above? Good, the tag won't stay then. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourced content that is pov and therefore unsuitable, I suggest that your 'sourced content' is biased and has no place in a wiki article, its a mess. Twobells (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC) 'Unbalance' a biased article? Let me remind you of the wiki standard on neutrality:

) Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

I suggest that the article has broken at least two of the strictures and requesting arbitration. Twobells (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to be threatened for attempting to remove obvious bias from a piece and am requesting adjudication of the entire piece.I suggest that the article has broken at least two of the strictures and requesting arbitration. I cannot even attempt to start editing in both discussion and article fields without reset every few minutes then it's hopeless. Twobells (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration? Been there, done that - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. I'd suggest reading that very carefully, including the subpages. If you choose not to, you will be responsible for any consequences. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your arrogance is sickening I have to say.Twobells (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And I hope you win the lottery tonight! Now, why don't you make a list of things you allege are biased in the article? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, lets take the first paragraph as the first example: 'Many witnesses including bystanders and journalists testify that all those shot were unarmed.' Why did you feel a need to omit Edward Daly's evidence stating otherwise? Or include in the whiteash link the bbc piece? It only comments at the end a personal opinion by one person while the meat of the bbc article stated the actual facts?Twobells (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"all those shot were unarmed", not "all those there were unarmed". There is a rather substantial difference. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You just proved my point, by attempting to use sophistry rather than unbiased pov exactly how biased this article is from top to bottom.Twobells (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So biased you're still incapable of providing a list? Tell you what, I'll come back when you've produced one and not before. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not made clear what you feel is biased bout this article, it is not enough just to say the whole article is biased without providing evidence for your assumption. BigDunc (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I had been attempting to clear the most obvious bias in the article in favour of a more balanced pov while making notations in the discussion field but as soon as I started it was reset. Twobells (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC) My next task is to take advice from a couple of senior wiki contributors as I have never come across this behaviour before.Twobells (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Even before I have done that someone has removed the npov stamp again, when will the person responsible realise that the article is not his personal possession but an article to state the facts, all of them neutrally and not pick and choose according to their political ideology.Twobells (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It does need to be sourced, but the parade was illigal wasn't it?Traditional unionist (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted some of the recent changes, not so much for POV reasons, but for appalling grammar. You can't stick random words into a completely formed sentence like that. In any case. I think it's time to stop arguing about the POV template and start addressing the POV itself. -R. fiend (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

POV? Its almost entirely lifted from socialist dogma.Twobells (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You reverted the changes before they had been edited thats why, I tend to save stuff as I construct I wil stop that, but you just reverted work in progress. Twobells (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

TwoBells, I have reviewed all the edits you have made, and the overall tone seems to be of minimising the events of the day, even to the point of introducing notes of justification. You have alluded to some facts completely out of context (e.g. what Fr Daly saw), or have added others without the most basic level of source citation. I have therefore reverted all your edits. If there are specific points you wish to raise, then do so here and we can all argue whether your porposed changes are appropriate. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, so Father Daly seeing armed ira operatives amongst the protesters is out of context while the piece draws almost word for word out of the world socialist website's pov?? And describing the actions of the soldiers is 'minimising' is it? Ok, I see where this is going. Twobells (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's examine the recent changes:

"Several witnesses testified that they heard gunfire and explosions prior to the soldiers exiting their armoured personnel carriers."

• Bollocks, to be frank. The one witness I can find who says that is an RUC officer, whose evidence was repeatedly challenged and not supported by eight other RUC officers closer to the scene. There's no way there that belongs in the lead. Where's the exact source for that claim that's been added, the "several witnesses"?

"The soldiers stated that it was difficult to see through the smoke"

• Source that applies to those exact shootings mentioned after that addition? Or just a source in general for starters?

"yet it left five of those wounded shot in the back as they attempted to flee the violence"

• Comical! There were four people shot in the back (that five number might need a good look at, unless it was one of the wonded) - Patrick Joseph Doherty as he tried to crawl to safety, Bernard McGuigan as he went to aid someone else, Kevin McElhinney as he tried to crawl to safety, William A. McKinney as he tried to aid someone else. Not one person was demonstrably trying to flee the violence.

It's clear the attempt to remove bias is nothing but the addition of unsourced commentary and POV, and I call for it to stop with admin intervention if needed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Twobells, Fr Daly saw one armed man, who was demonstrably not amongst those shot (either dead or injured). You used a vague reference to this incident in the context of a sentence about those shot being unarmed. It was highly misleading of you to do so. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Me. I'm misleading? Oh thats rich. Twobells (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What is astonishing is that ANY attempt to present a more neutral pov seems to be attacked by certain people here, its not what I was trying to do but that to attempt it was to be stopped. Twobells (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Any attempt to add unsourced commentary should be stopped, and rightly so. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Potential POV issues

It seems to me the issues are:

• The legality/illegality of the protest, and where and how that should be addressed. If it was illegal, it should be stated and sourced, but not presented as if it were a justification for what occurred.

Understood, no matter what people on this board might think my belief is while it was illegal that didn't justify loss of innocent life. Twobells (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reports of armed protesters. I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that the position of the army on that day was that there were armed men among those marching. That side should be presented with sources, but with distinctions carefully made between armed men in the area, armed men in the march, and the status of those who were actually shot (is there any dispute that those specific people were unarmed?). This seems to already be at least partially addressed in the paragraph dealing with Daly and the unidentified man drawing a revolver, and the part about reports of a simper. Also, the "get some kills" reference seem unsourced, which is significant.
• The "Whitewash" and who has dismissed the investigation as such. Some? All? Many? It seems to me specifying "by some" is fair. Obviously there are some who think that it was not a whitewash.

Some of the other additions made by Twobells seem they would be fine if sourced. I'm not sure what's wrong with adding that those shot in the back were attempting to flee, as it doesn't seem POV, and it's stated quote clearly that was in the case for at least one person further in the article. If it's a matter of sources one should note that the "shot in the back" sentence is not sourced in its current state either. The perspectives of the soldiers can certainly be legitimately included if they are referenced.

Anyway, here are some issues that can be added to, discussed, dismissed, whatever. Better than edit warring. In any case, I think there is enough here to warrant a POV tag until this is addressed. Considering 90% the damn articles in WP have this or some other such tag on them, it's not exactly a huge deal. -R. fiend (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood, I have re-added the pov stamp and will work with contributors on my thoughts on how to obtain a non-emotive npov PRIOR to submitting them to the article. It will take a while to source the material from dedicated media libraries. Twobells (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Several points:

I've never seen a single source that's documented armed men on the march itself. There were reports of a couple of Officials being disarmed, and obviously the single sniper shot.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bsunday/irgovt2d.htm Twobells (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between the march and the firefight? It's very obvious. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See above re: fleeing. The four that are explicitly documented were attempting to aid others or crawl to safety. "Fleeing" doesn't fit.

I and other editors have nothing against a discussion regarding improvements to the article, you'll see we repeatedly requested it above. All we got in return was "it's biased" then the addition of lots of unsourced stuff. Hardly the way to go is it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that's why I tried to ascertain the issues at hand from examining the edits made. Certainly this "it's biased"/"No it isn't" is going nowhere. It's good to see some actual discussion. We may actually get somewhere now. -R. fiend (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that "fleeing" carries negative connotations, although as ONIH points out, most of those shot in the back can't be described as "fleeing" in even a vague general sense. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just sorted out the "get some kills" quote. It's in Geraghty, and it's also online here. Despite them using "to get some kills" at the start of the article, they give the Geraghty quote of "let's teach these buggers some lessons [Geraghty says "a lesson"] - we want some kills" further down. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. While I think some people tend to over-footnote some universally acknowledged things, statements like that are really the sort of things that need to be referenced. Glad it's taken care of. -R. fiend (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As for no documented armed men on the march, the article currently says "In the event, one man was witnessed by Father Edward Daly and others haphazardly firing a revolver in the direction of the paratroopers." Since he apparently wasn't targeted you could almost say it's irrelevant, but it does some to indicate that at least someone on the march was armed. Unless they guy wasn't among the protesters, in which case the article has to make that more clear.

As for "fleeing", I disagree about the negative connotations, but if some of them were not, in fact fleeing, but attempting to aid others, then that, at least, should be dropped. There are still other issues, however. -R. fiend (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The paratroopers basically came in then it all kicked off. For example two priests and several reporters reports several cars full of armed men come down from the Creggan after the Paras got to Rossville Street. The Paras weren't stewarding the march or anything. Once it kicked off there were guns about, but I've never heard anything about weapons being see before the Paras arrived, other than the documented single sniper shot. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's what Daly said to a television interviewer: "The fellow came out of Chamberlain Street...in his twenties. He had a firearm, a short firearm and he came along to the edge of the wall and fired one or two shots. We screamed at him to go away because we were afraid the Paras would have thought we were firing from where we were". So as I say, Daly's gunman was at a time when there wasn't a march as such. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so it's a matter of the article being unclear. I think the entire article could use a bit of reorganization. The "Events" and and "perspectives" sections seem to overlap in what they cover, but not really be in good cohesion. The "deceased" section in the middle could maybe be moved further down? These are basically separate issues.

As for POV: Was the march "illegal" (and what exactly does that mean?). If it was, it's certainly worth mentioning, not as a justification, but as an explanation of why the atmosphere was so highly charged and what the military was doing in the first place. It's a relevant fact, if true. Also, is it really unfair to add "by some" (or something along those lines) to the dismissal of the inquiry as a "whitewash"? It could at least go into a bit more detail. -R. fiend (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The march had been banned, but that's here nor there really. Let's face facts, if you've got a politically volative situation (as the Troubles were) you're not going to arrest 5,000 people for taking part in a banned civil rights march are you? The Paras were there in case the march turned into a riot, and mini-riots were a daily occurence at "Aggro Corner" in Derry at that point (see here for details), which wasn't unexpected. They were there to arrest rioters, not arrest marchers. So pointing out that it was an illegal march in the lead seems a bit excessive, as it didn't really have any direct bearing on the events of the day despite what the Widgery Whitewash said. It wasn't that there was an illegal march, it was that there was a march full stop - the legality or lack of had no real impact. There would still have been a riot at Aggro Corner, just like every other day. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't know if it's as irrelevant as you seem to indicate. I would say it's worth mentioning (not in the opening, perhaps). Sure, they weren't about to arrest everyone, but taking part if a banned march in what is already a highly volatile situation is only going to make the atmosphere more tense, and some sort of altercation more likely. If its illegality an established fact, its removal strikes me as a bit POV. Who can honestly say for sure it had no bearing? That seems speculative to me. -R. fiend (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say don't mention it, I just said don't mention it in the lead. I just don't see it as having the bearing that Widgery claims. He claims if there was no march, there would be no deaths. I don't see how he draws that conclusion. Two possibilities:

1. Even without the march, there'd still be a riot at Aggro Corner, which was what caused the Paras to go in, not the illegal march.
2. The march goes ahead legally, and there'd still be a riot at Aggro corner...

Neither the legality or illegality of the march, or the presence or lack of presence of the march caused the riot at Aggro Corner - it was a daily occurence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be part of the problem, at least from my perspective: you talk about things like "arrival of the paras", and the "riot at Aggro corner", but I don't see those covered in the article. Honestly, I don't even know what the riot at Aggro corner is. To me the article seems poorly organized, and while I just read what you said on my talk page about waiting for the results of the inquiry (I wasn't aware it was imminent), there seems to be some pretty sizeable organizational issues that should be addressed. As for your statement that it's "dubious to repeatedly claim an entire article is POV and yet be unable to produce a list of reasons why," I wholeheartedly agree, which is precisely why I was attempting to pinpoint what the areas of contention seem to be. Since Twobells doesn't seem terribly inclined to address the specifics on the talk page, maybe its not worthwhile. -R. fiend (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See this link I posted above - they had a riot at "Aggro Corner" every day. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I skimmed through the article, but the point remains that this Wikipedia article does not address this, and if it's significant, it really should be included. Also when "paras" are mentioned, is that paratroopers or paramilitaries? It's unclear. -R. fiend (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a much better sourced version of the plan to retake the Bogside that I have somewhere. IIRC there were two or three options with varying degress of force and danger to civilian lives, and what happened on Bloody Sunday was the Para(troopers) basically followed through with the plan (acidentally it seems) with the maximum degree of force and penetration into the Bogside and what was predicted in terms of casualties came true. As I said on your talk page, nobody really wants to make any major edits to the article off their own initiative until the Inquiry reports, as when it does it's going to cause a massive, massive rewrite anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, though it's a shame we have to wait to make some needed some needed improvements to the article. Here are some of the issues I'm noticing:

• Lack of much background information. It doesn't say what the march was for (beyond the vague "civil rights"), nor discuss the daily rioting in the area that the military was evidently there to attempt to put down. Ivan Cooper (who I believe was the primary organizer of the march) is hardly mentioned at all, and only in passing.
• Separate but overlapping accounts of the events, in the opening section, Events of the day section , and the The perspectives and analyses on the day section. There should be a single, more straightforward narrative of what was happening, as well as when and why. The analysis should them come afterwards. Additionally, the deceased section really needs to be moved towards the bottom. It's out of place where it is.
• Clarifying the "two phases" (march and the violence) that you specified below.

I understand why people would be hesitant to make major changes to an article right before a shitload of important information on the subject is about to be released, but I think these issues should be kept in mind, if not addressed sooner. -R. fiend (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with some improvements now, just they are better off being background and stuff, which does need expanding for more context. A fresh pair of eyes always helps. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think some sort of rewrite/addition of a background section would really be helpful. It would also have the advantage of likely not needing many changes after the report comes out, as it will probably address the events of the day, not the occurrences prior. I think it could use a sentence or two to briefly address the Troubles as a whole (for those readers who really know nothing of the situation), and spend a paragraph or two or the situation in Derry, including the unrest, as well as the organization and purpose of the march (this would also be a good place to mention that the march was banned by the government). A chronological narrative of events should follow, but that can probably wait until the Inquiry is released. This is of course all separate from the alleged POV issues, which can wait until it's made known exactly what they are. -R. fiend (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I just read the article on the Saville inquiry won't have a report until the second half of 2008 (which is probably government-speak for the first half of 2010), so it's not like this major rewrite is just around the corner. I don;t think it makes sense to hold out for it. -R. fiend (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make

It's easier if you split the events of the day into two phases:

1. The march. Other than a minor spot of trouble (and the sniper shot), it was mostly peaceful.
2. The Paras arrive, and all hell breaks loose. I do not refer to anything after that point as a "march". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good. I think there may be an overall issue with the format of the article, which is separate from any POV questions. The narrative of events is sort of broken up. This sometimes happens when articles are written by committee, and is one of the drawbacks of wikis. Maybe that should be addressed too. -R. fiend (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just easier to understand the timeline for discussion purposes that way. When people talk about guns "on the march" are they referring to pre-Para involvement, or by "march" do they mean any point during the afternoon? If I say march on here, it's pre-Para. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Whitewash

Regarded as a whitewash by nationalists, relatives, the people of Derry, the Irish Media (no direct link due to premium content) and "widely regarded". Do what you will with the wording.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

'pro-irish/socialist' fits it pretty well I'd say. Twobells (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say "honest" is better. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

From your pov which is EXACTLY my point all along.Twobells (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So that's why the evidence at the new inquiry has proved that it was a complete whitewash? You really don't have a point, you don't have sources, and you still haven't provided a single justification for the tag. If you want to make a list do it, otherwise this is getting very fucking tedious. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol, it proved no such thing the new enquiry wasn't ordered because of a 'whitewash' but was part of the NI agreement in order that Sein Fein IRA agree to civilised behaviour. How on earth is it that the british army came in to keep apart rabid enemies and end up the bad guy? Its sort of reverse rationality. Twobells (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Twobells (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Twobells, instead of adding the POV template over and over again, why don't you make a list of your issues with the article as it stands (sort of like I tried to do for you above). You don't have to worry about the sources so much for now, if you're going to confine it to the talk page. Then maybe we can discuss what should be done. This "the whole thing is POV" is going to get you nowhere. Specifics. -R. fiend (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought we cleared this up? A POV stamp was to stay in place UNTIL work could be done on the article? Everytime I refresh the page someone has removed the pov stamp, i haven't even had a chance look at it yet but until isn't it fair that the piece is biased and the stamp remain? I am not asking weeks but a couple of days would be nice instead of the constant hounding.Twobells (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Make the list, then add the tag. It's not rocket science. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean? If I could have used the time I have had to use to defend my points then the piece would be started but instead I am here consistantly having to refute the same content again and again. Now please leave the stamp alone, let me put a list together then we can discuss it. Twobells (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a POV stamp on an article to make a list of what you think is wrong with it. Please just address the specific POV issues here and you should have no problem getting the article tagged. -R. fiend (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

POV LIST

Paragraph one A: That nowhere is it mentioned that it was an illegal march, turned riot prior to any protest deaths or that the army had received intelligence from turned ira spies [documented] that there were armed ira members planning murder amongst the protesters.

Paragraph one B: Nowhere does it mention that witnesses stated there were armed protesters in the crowd one even carrying a 'carbine' [article editors ideological beliefs aside]

Paragraph one C: The IRA sniper [who many believe to be the cause of Bloody Sunday] shot is not mentioned. While some details are made further down I believe these facts should be in paragraph one OR remove other events already there; for example army vehicles running people down [I had read that those were terrible accidents as opposed to deliberate acts and should show this]

Paragraph Two: A: 'The Widgery Tribunal' should read critised by 'a few'and not to include the Guardian or BBC articles in the form of links as 'whitewash' is a personal opinion of one person's comment against the body of the articles which state no such thing. The vast majority of coverage did not conclude the enquiry a whitewash and should reflect that with accompanying links.

The perspectives and analyses on the day:

Paragraph one A: Not 'all' witnesses apart from the soldiers stated that the crowd was unarmed. One photo journalist is mentioned by name, but other witnesses categorically state that a carbine was seen being carried as well as hand guns and explosives. [I will firm this up next week when I visit the The Military Historical Society at The National Army Museum]

Paragraph 3 A: The article is quick to state the opinion of a local coroner but nowhere are counter opinions given weight from the official enquiry and elsewhere of which there are many documented.

paragraph 4 A: 'It is now widely accepted that the nail bombs photographed on Gerard Donaghy were planted there after his death, and firearms residue

on some deceased came from contact with the soldiers who themselves moved some of the bodies'. Widely accepted by who and reported where?

The Saville Inquiry:

Paragraph 1 A: 'The evidence so far has undermined to some extent the credibility of the original Widgery Tribunal report. Allegations were made

etc...' allegations made by who and sourced where?

Paragraph 1 B: 'Allegations were made that some bodies were placed next to guns and explosives, and other substances (including playing cards) have

been found to cause false positives in tests for explosives.' Again, allegations made by who and where were thes playing cards found? Source it

please.

paragraph 1 C: 'Some of the scientists responsible for the original etc..'

Which scientists dismissed their original findings and where is it stated?

Paragraph 2 A: Why mention martin mcguiness in that context?

Paragraph 3 A: You state that O'Hara alleges to have been the second in command in Derry that day not Ward but fail to follow that up with the

response by Ward: 'I see the same pattern through all the witness statements that I have read, so they have obviously been either coerced or coaxed, or all pulled into line to make the same accusations to discredit my evidence to the inquiry." Mr Ward, who was 16 years old at the time of Bloody Sunday, said it was agreed with Mr McGuinness that a nail-bomb attack would be carried out in Guildhall Square in the city.'

Extremely important in reference to the whole piece but ignored, why? Here was a senior sein fein ira member who's testimony will prove vital to the current enquiry yet has been ignored.

And finally that the entire article has for whatever reason decided to completely ignore one side's evidence, the soldiers, which is totally unacceptable. I think the only way to go forward is that there should be TWO versions of events and let the reader decide for themselves.

I stand by my claim of extremely biased point of view and request the pov stamp to be re-instated until redressed.

Errata:

I:

I have General Michael Jacksons autobiography 'soldier' on order and it will arrive soon which covers the day in depth. Interestingly there seems to be a DA notice on some aspects of ira leadership involvement that day that mentions their plans in-depth which is under the 100 year rule, but only put in place after the Good Friday Agreement was announced,I'll try to glean what I can but it smells of political appeasement for short-term stability.

II:

As an aside earlier I was accused of mitigation because I attempted to redress what I believe [and many others from what I hear and read] bias in the article. Trying to gain balance is sometimes difficult especially when dealing with such emotive subjects but it doesn't help to make spurious accusations based on ignorance. Twobells (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I request sources for many of the claims you have just made. Without sources, they can't really be discussed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements: http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=1159966&Action=Book&ProductID=0102220727&From=SearchResults Twobells (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Autobiography of OTD: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Soldier-Autobiography-General-Mike-Jackson/dp/0593059077

Both the Saville & Widgery enquiries contains all the material including some very interesting evidence from Mr O'Hara. We cannot discuss that it was a riot off an illegal march? I see. Mike Jacksons book 'Soldier' is a great source. Twobells (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All well and good but statements must be WP:V and WP:RS so could you point editors to where you got these statements with page numbers and if from books ISBN too thanks. BigDunc (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I too would request reliable sources to support this list of comment and opinion. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, and therefore must be referenced. This list without sources dose not form the basis for discussion. Rather than mention sources cite them, and then it can be discussed --Domer48 (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact here's a specific list of the things I require sources for:

• "the army had received intelligence from turned ira spies [documented] that there were armed ira members planning murder amongst the protesters" - SOURCE?
• "witnesses stated there were armed protesters in the crowd one even carrying a 'carbine' " - SOURCE?
• "The IRA sniper [who many believe to be the cause of Bloody Sunday]" - SOURCE?
• "but other witnesses categorically state that a carbine was seen being carried as well as hand guns and explosives" - SOURCE?

Sources please. With the rest, I'll tag what's needed for attribution and citations now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way. Per WP:NPOV if we are presenting two different versions of events you're going to have problems with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The overwhelming majority of the reliable sources disagree with the soldiers' version of events, which is why the article is currently correctly weighted in terms of coverage given. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

'Coverage given'? The vast weight of both national and international coverage did not consider the enquiry a whitewash and should reflect that. Twobells (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You cannot just dismiss their evidence, thats both ludicrous and toxic, we need two versions of the events.Twobells (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We haven't dismissed it, it's in the article. If you don't understand how WP:NPOV works you've no business adding a NPOV tag. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Where are the soldiers statements of events? I believe the piece to be politically- motivated pov.Twobells (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements submitted to both enquiries contain all the sourced documentation. 09:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And everything I say can be sourced to books, available from libraries or book shops. Please stop being obtuse, and provide actual sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean obtuse how? ALL the material is hard copy and available on request at the TSO, there is no better source than that, surely better than some book shop. Twobells (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The second Inquiry amounts to "at least 60,000 pages of written submissions. Nine hundred and twenty witnesses have given oral evidence, and there have been some 1,000 written statements from civilians, soldiers, police officers, journalists, government officials and paramilitaries" - vague comments about "statements submitted to both enquiries" cut no ice. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vague comments? Everything laid out above is in statements from both enquiries available at the TSO.Twobells (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If everything is laid out in statements, as you claim then provide a source to support these claims, failure to backup your claims without a WP:RS means they can't be included.--Padraig (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements: http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=1159966&Action=Book&ProductID=0102220727&From=SearchResults Twobells (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have access to Widgery, I'd like exact excerpts (complete with paragraph numbers) that back up what you say. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As above, the second inquiry runs to at least 60,000 pages. Simply saying "it's in a statement to the inquiry" isn't helpful. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements associated with the POV LIST: Statements: http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=1159966&Action=Book&ProductID=0102220727&From=SearchResults Twobells (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I will have the Saville material soon as its published, but each and every question I raise in the POV LIST is available from the TSO link. Twobells (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Statements for everything I say. Now please stop being obtuse, and use direct excerpts and paragraph numbers from Widgery. Assuming you have a copy, you should be able to do that with ease? If you can't do that, I'll draw my own conclusion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)