Jump to content

Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972)/Archive 3

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

AN/I

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

I agree wholeheartedly. O Fenian (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, as I've said my belief is this article is poorly sourced, has bad prose and organization, and in just almost every way is of poor quality (except for the "Background" part), why don't we get an outside opinion and ask for an assessment? Are you guys all OK with that? LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Since its a child of this article, I'd like to point out that the first paragraph of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry main article is apparently not written in English. *sadderz* LoveUxoxo (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Narrative of events section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PAUSE - I'll pause for now; suffice to say I feel this section isn't our collective finest hour. In the meantime, I'd ask you look at the three sentences above that I want to change in the lede and comment there.
Regarding that, I have a short story that I think is very relevant to this situation: I used to play a lot of poker, way back in the day (before internet). You would have some "enemy", that guy you "hated" for years. And then one day, all of a sudden, you both would sort of just say "**** it" and just be more or less friends. Time and time again this happened - true story. So no matter whatever happens there always exists the possibility of eventual mutual compromise and respect, OK? Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Background section

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

I'm going through this section line-by-line and I think its so well-written and NPOV. I would like to attempt to "tidy", but first I want to know who my hero is. ...and the winner is: User:One Night In Hackney - I love you man! LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Quick example of what I think is a "tidy" version: [1] LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

The changes to the first paragraph are biased and inaccurate. O Fenian (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you please be specific? Since I am not very familiar with The Troubles I basically used what I saw in the current version, as well as the main Troubles article. If there are biases or inaccuracies I'd certainly like to fix that. Much appreciated LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, we will deal with one item at a time. Where in the Troubles article, that you apparently claim you got the information from, does it claim that discrimination against the Catholic minority in electoral boundaries, voting rights and allocation of public housing "was perceived as widespread"? O Fenian (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Ugh, truly the reason I used that word was to describe the motivations of the civil-rights movement, NOT to imply that those perceptions were false in any way. Removed that word, hope that helps. LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Since you apparently do not know much about the Troubles, let me enlighten you about the gerrymandering in Derry, where ward boundaries were specifically redrawn to ensure Unionist control of the council. In the 1960s the South Ward returned 8 nationalist councillors, from 10,047 Catholic votes and 1,138 Protestant votes. The North Ward returned 8 unionist councillors, from 2,530 Catholic votes and 3,946 Protestant votes. The Waterwide ward returned 4 unionist councillors, from 1,852 Catholic votes and 3,697 Protestant votes. So despite Catholic voters outnumbering Protestant voters by 1.6:1, the Unionist councillors ountnumber Catholic councillors by 1.5:1. That the electoral boundaries were deliberately redrawn to achieve this is not disputed either. You might want to remove the word "widespread" too though, if you did not already.
The Battle of the Bogside did not really culminate from attacks on civil rights marchers. While there was certainly a gathering storm from incidents such as that, the Battle of the Bogside happened due to the annual march by the Apprentice Boys of Derry. O Fenian (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
See, isn't this great? Thanks for your input, One Night In Hackney had that in, I should have kept it. Put it back in. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Automatic archiving of talk

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

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

Twenty-six shot

Thirteen killed.Pamour (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"defenseless people who lay wounded on the ground were shot by soldiers who stood over them" needs a citation

While idly perusing the article, this statement jumped out at me. I'm unfamiliar with the sources on the matter, but if it is indeed attributable then it needs to be cited. It's too inflammatory a statement to leave undefended. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday (1972): Did the Bloody Sunday Inquiry find that all those shot were "unarmed"?

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

"3.70 None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm or (with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghey) a bomb of any description."[2]

is equivalent to:

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

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

I see you have deliberately excluded the source I provided above. I shall provide it again any many more (for the benefit of anyone else the 13/14 discrepancy is due to whether John Johnston is included in the total, since he died months later of causes attributed by others to his injuries):
And so on to infinity virtually. That LoveUxoxo has his own personal interpretation of the findings is irrelevant. A soldier "must identify a weapon" before opening fire, which does not mean shooting because someone has a suspicious bulge in their clothing. O Fenian (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
O Fenian: this is my fault as I was lazy and instead of finding the correct section in Saville I just used the Guardian article (which I trusted to provide an accurate quote). I have edited the RfC above so that now it quotes verbatim the Bloody Sunday Inquiry's finding and provides a link to the appropriate section of the Report. I did not intend to make this a RfC about appropriate sources, due weight, etc., just if what we have stated in the article as Saville's finding(s) can be considered an accurate summary. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
O Fenian: as you can see I edited this RfC twice, are you OK with that? *sadderz* LoveUxoxo (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Clearly they are not equivalent. Does User:O Fenian think they are? Headlines will sometimes throw around the term 'unarmed' to create sensationalism. They may have been without 'firearms', but armed with other weapons. Niluop (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment Niloup (arguing the other side since I want to be very careful here), what the report found was only that it was "probable" that (only) one person shot had nail bombs in his possession, and that when he was shot the soldiers who shot him did not know this, nor if they did that would not have given them justification for firing. All that out of the way, yes, my belief is that it is wrong to state that the report found that all that were shot were unarmed. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
On one hand, Wikipedia is about verifiability over truth, but on the other hand the news articles seem to clearly misrepresent the report itself. This would be best resolved by stating both cases so as to be as neutral and verifiable as possible. Perhaps something to the extent:
News media covering the report stated that all of the casualties were unarmed, however the report itself only went as far as to confirm that the casualties were not carrying firearms or bombs.
I think something like this would cover both sides of the issue in a reasonably neutral manner and leave judgement to the reader, as it should. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment Techno, you made me think whether your suggestion was appropriate, and while I could imagine of extreme cases where there would be such a strong disconnect between an official report and the media's reporting of its findings, this ain't it. Please don't view the above headlines as a representative sample, because they are not. A WP:CHERRY contest doesn't seem to me the way to "prove" anything, but I think if you look will find a strong correlation that the more in-depth articles about the report's findings, and the ones written days after the reports release (as opposed to hours), avoid stating "unarmed". Cheers LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • not equivalent. Wording from the inquiry ("None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm or (with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghey) a bomb of any description."[3]) is relevent to the article and should be added to it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • More or less equivalent. I saw the RFC, it looks to me as though that we're really just arguing semantics here, "not armed with firearms" or "unarmed" are more or less the same thing, especially when the later is backed by a reliable secondary source. The original report is a primary source, and should not be used here anyways. Even if we go by the report, the "unarmed" classification is implied, unless there is a reliable source that says they were armed with cold weapons. I suspect that some British apologist/nationalist denial/guilt might be at play here. Unfortunately, we have a similar situation at Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état, where editors with similar concerns are on a crusade to downplay and whitewash the British/American role in the CiA/MI6-led coup, some going as far as arguing that there was no coup, and that the coup was actually a "popular uprising" or "civil war" with little or no British/American involvement. Similarly, nationalist editors from Turkey, also do their best to deny and whitewash any past genocide or massacres committed by the Ottoman Empire. National guilt, revisionism, soap-boxing, whatever you call it, it's becoming a real problem in Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment Kurdo777, I hear what you are saying, although I disagree. As for WP:RS, in the crush of news media coverage in the hours following the release of the Inquiry's report you will find many contradictions. This can best be illustrated by performing a search yourself for news stories from that day and see how many of them say "13 killed" versus "14 killed" ...38 years later even that one basic fact is not agreed upon. I think you will find that the articles with the more in-depth analysis tend to be more careful with their words, specifically "unarmed". Semantics IS very important here, as editors we should strive to find wording that summarizes this, arguably the most important finding of the Inquiry, in BOTH spirit and letter. There are many ways to do this - I'd be happy with any of the following statements singularly or in any combination, all of which a practically verbatim from the report of the Inquiry:
  • None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm or (with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghey) a bomb of any description.
  • "None of the casualties shot was armed with a firearm"
  • "None [of the casualties shot] was posing any threat of causing death or serious injury."
  • "[None of the casualties shot] was doing anything (...) that could on any view justify their shooting."
  • "None of [the soldiers] fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers."
I don't understand how any of those statements can by viewed as anything less than a complete exoneration of those who were shot. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Kurdo777 that the report is a primary source and we should go with the reliable second sources which clear state "unarmed". Bjmullan (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
What if the findings are mentioned in a secondary source such as BBC here? or sunday observer (Sri Lanka) here? (I apologize for having inadvertently dragged the issue of Iranian 1953 coup article into your RfC. I'm the editor Kurdo is complaining about, but am not "on a crusade to downplay and whitewash the British/American role in the CiA/MI6-led coup", only trying to get a mention of the military and Iranian involvment in the coup.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Equivalent. If they were not armed with firearms or bombs, what kind of weapens would they have carried? Hurleys? Stones? Against a trained military force armed with firearms of any kind, you are in fact unarmed. Eddylandzaat (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
a bomb. Gerald Donaghey may possibly have been carrying a bomb. "None of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm or (with the probable exception of Gerald Donaghey) a bomb of any description." --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'm responding to the RfC. If the report said that one of them probably was carrying a firearm or a bomb, then they're not at all equivalent. If news reports are wrong, then we shouldn't be using them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment It sounds like the term 'unarmed' is inappropriate, since it is inaccurate. If the protesters possessed bombs, visible to the shooters or not, a clear description is not simply the term 'unarmed'. If what is meant is "without firearms", then I think the article should be clear. Niluop (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be plenty of fundamental misunderstanding of the events of Bloody Sunday, and the "rules of engagement" (or Yellow Card rules, to be specific) that the British Army were bound by.

The contention of the British Army is that all those shot were armed with a gun or bomb, and that they were shot in accordance with the Yellow Card rules, which can be found in the Widgery Report.

  • "You may fire without warning
  • 13 Either when hostile firing is taking place in your area, and a warning is impracticable, or when any delay could lead to death or serious injury to people whom it is your duty to protect or to yourself; and then only: (emphasis in original)
  • (a) against a person using a firearm against members of the security forces or people whom it is your duty to protect; or
  • (b) against a person carrying a firearm if you have reason to think he is about to use it for offensive purposes."
  • The term "firearm" is defined as including a grenade, nail bomb or gelignite-type bomb.

So the presence, or not, of nail bombs in Donaghy's pockets is irrelevant to his shooting. This is even made clear by Widgery:

  • There are two possible explanations of this evidence. First, that the bombs had been in Donaghy’s pockets throughout and had passed unnoticed by the Royal Anglians’ Medical Officer, Dr. Swords, and others who had examined the body; secondly that the bombs had been deliberately planted on the body by some unknown person after the Medical Officer’s examination. These possibilities were exhaustively examined in evidence because, although the matter is a relatively unimportant detail of the events of the afternoon, it is no doubt of great concern to Donaghy’s family. (my emphasis)

Unless he had a nailbomb in his hand at the time either being used against the security forces or public, or they believed he has reason to think he was going to use it for offensive purposes, he couldn't legally be shot. Soldiers do not have the right to open fire based on bulges in pockets that may be nailbombs. Widgery and Saville basically made the same finding regarding Donaghy, but neither of them placed a bomb in his hand at the time he was shot.

While Widgery did not appear to place weapons in the hands of Donaghy and others at the time they were shot, he did believe a number of them were handling weapons due to "evidence", the details of which are available if anyone wants to look at it but isn't really necessary to explain. Saville dismissed the evidence, and found that none of them (with the possible exception of Donaghy) had been in possession of weapons.

If someone wants to add a note directly after unarmed explaining this, then go right ahead. There is no reason why the remaining innocent victims of Bloody Sunday should not be fully vindicated in the text because of Donaghy, which the wording I reverted quite spectacularly failed to do. It instead read like something out of the Widgery Whitewash. All of those shot were unarmed while shot, since they were not holding a weapon. That is backed up by countless sources. If anyone wants to suggest wording that takes this into account knock yourself out, but otherwise I believe a clarification in a footnote regarding unarmed is all that's needed. 2 lines of K303 13:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The play Bloody Sunday: Scenes from the Saville Inquiry

The paragraph about the play seems grossly out of place. I'm reading about people dying and getting killed and then all of a sudden, it starts talking about a play? Why not throw in U2's song while we're at? Dear god, it is in there, in the "Artistic reaction" section. Ugh. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's been a month and no one's responded to this discussion. Is it OK if I remove the play? How about the song lyrics, too? I'd rather keep this a serious article and omit the tivia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, it's been five months and no one's objected on the talk page. Rather than removing it from the article, I moved the paragraph to a different section.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

On a vaguely related note, I'm not sure we need the lyrics in there, or if there use is even covered by fair-use since the lyrics themselves aren't the subject of commentary in the article. Any objections to just listing the songs in the section above, assuming they aren't there already? 2 lines of K303 12:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Listing them should suffice.Autarch (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency re stone-throwing

The narrative section and Narrative of events of Bloody Sunday (1972) say that stones were thrown at police, but later the article says that the Saville Report concluded that stones weren't thrown. Is the Saville Report wrong? If not, the earlier section could be reworded to say something like "according to X, Y and Z stones were thrown at police, although the later Saville Report concluded that this was not the case." --Chriswaterguy talk 08:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Irish name dispute

Guys, is het possible to discuss the dispute about the Irish name here? There is a 1RR-rule hanging over it and I don't like the idea of another war on this article. The north has seen enough warring, so please discuss it here. (BTW: I have requested page protection for editwarring) Night of the Big Wind talk 13:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Irish name of the event is perfectly valid here - just as An Gorta Mór has appeared for nearly a decade in the Famine article, apparently without exciting anyone. Moreover, the Irish name appears later in the piece in reference to the song. Let it be. Brocach (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Bjmullan (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
There are differences Brocach. An Gorta Mor is an academic common name for the Great Famine and merits inclusion. I see no evidence so far that it is the same for Domhnach na Fola, and O'Dea apparently agrees on the lines of WP:COMMONNAME. The only evidence provided in this article is a poster poem by the obscure "Derry Frontline" - not exactly reliable or academic evidence for this issue. If it is then the historical Irish poem that provides a full Irish version of Londonderry merits the inclusion of it in the Londonderry article (however it was disregarded as a poor source).
If it is a common-name then surely there are academic sources that use the name to provide reliable, verifiable, and neutral evidence that it is indeed so. If not then for it to be included with such a poor source, it would need reworded to place it into context. Mabuska (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
What does WP:COMMONNAME have to do with anything? 2 lines of K303 13:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The Gaelic name should be removed. There's no reliable source to indicate that it is commonly used or recognised. Get rid until such sources can be provided. Mooretwin (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to see any reason for objecting to the inclusion of an Irish-language term other than some personal objection to the language. A Google search for "Domhnach na Fola" shows 22,700 hits, for sites in English, Irish and other languages. How many more than that could possibly be required to show that the term is widely known and belongs in this article? As for WP:COMMONNAME that is completely irrelevant - it relates to the naming of articles, not to mentioning alternative names within the article, which would invariably be expected. No-one is proposing to change the name from Bloody Sunday (1972). Brocach (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ask O'Dea Hackney he cited it as his reason. Mooretwin we don't have to get rid of it altogether failing the providing of reliable evidence, a simple rewording and replacement elsewhere in the lede to put it into a proper context would suffice. Mabuska (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
@ Brocach, doing such a search on Google is pointless for many queries as some results are mirrors of Wikipedia, whilst others have copied information off others, and then take into account those that would fail verifiable and reliable. General Google searches especially when it only provides 22,700 hits isn't compelling evidence. On this issue several that make mention of Domhnach na Fola make no mention at all of Bloody Sunday. Though just to clarify for Brocach - i haven't objected to its inclusion in some form seeing as it is used by some people (though whether it deserves its currently placement is dubious at the moment). Mabuska (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
@Mabuska, "several that make mention of Domhnach na Fola make no mention at all of Bloody Sunday"... we must have different internets. Can you point to mentions of Domhnach na Fola that do not refer to Bloody Sunday (the 1972 one or one of the other events so known)? I have tried other search engines, same results. Brocach (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As both alternative names are valid, but much less frequently used than Bloody Sunday, I have moved them to a new second paragraph. Brocach (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia style manual (WP:LEAD: "...significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages." I have used the second para for ease of reading - there is no doubt that the event is generally known as "Bloody Sunday" and both alternatives, though well established and referenced, are infrequently used. The Irish form is significant in the context of an Irish city, many of whose residents know that language, in a way that Czech or Finnish, referred to by O'Dea, obviously are not. Brocach (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not a significant name, so I've restored it to later on in the lede as per Brocach's original solution. Mooretwin (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Depends if your using Google.co.uk or Google.ie i guess Brocach lol ;-)
I like Brocach's suggestion which is what i was hinting at above as it prevents giving undue weight to a term that may be a significant in another language but as Brocach said is infrequently used. It also follows the quote he provided from WP:LEAD and matches the style used at Great Famine (Ireland) where there seems to be no issue with it's placement outside of the first couple of sentences. Hackney provided a better source than that poetic poster, and i'll add a link to it so that readers can verify it.
Just a shame other editors prefer to edit-war than discuss the issue - in fact one of those editors would appear to be guilty of slow edit-warring over it without entering proper discussion on the matter. Mabuska (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is fine. But, editors repeatedly reverting to their version with no consensus is unacceptable. There is no consensus for the most recent edits to this article. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 21:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It is plain that there is no consensus for the inclusion of the little-used, but valid, Irish name in the first sentence. My compromise includes it in a less prominent position. I have not 'repeatedly reverted' to my version: each time I edit, I include any improvements made by other editors. Brocach (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
It's been stable in the article since at least 17 June 2010 (that's judging by access date alone, without even looking at the page history to see when it was actually added). If it's been in for 18 months, that's the consensus position. I object to the move on basic grounds. Almost every language (with a few exceptions) is spoken less than English, therefore "lesser" (for want of a better term) languages will always be less used terms. Yet WP:LEAD doesn't say to discriminate in that way, it says to include them in the first sentence. 2 lines of K303 12:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Hackney, guidelines are just that - guidelines, they are not strict rules to be enforced. Also consensus can change. Lee-way and flexibility matter more as long as editors agree, and Brocach's suggestion keeps it included just not in the exact same place.
If we are to cite policies, WP:UNDUE may be applicable as we are giving an undue weight to an infrequently used name in its current position which implies that it is a frequently used term for it, the same for "Bogside Massacre", which until now i've never heard used. Surely your able to compromise? Other editors wanted it removed altogether. Mabuska (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

major ted loden

Just corrected Bloody Sunday text which stated that a Major Ted Loden was commander of 1 para in Derry on Bloody Sunday. I am old enough to remember it was Lt. Col. Derek Wilford, not Loden. Loden served in Aden, not N.I. Wilford, now 76 and living in Belgium, was described in Saville report as having disobeyed orders by allowing his troops to use live rounds against civilians.

Only Wilford knows the truth. 109.149.6.87 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

According to a BBC report on the Saville inquiry findings relating to the key soldiers involved with Bloody Sunday, it states that Lt. Col. Wilford was directly in charge of the soldiers who went into the Bogside to arrest rioters, protect the public, and return back to base unharmed. However, Wilford disobeyed his orders by his superior Brigadier Patrick MacLellan. In contrast Major Ted Loden, was the commander in charge of soldiers following orders issued by Lieutenant Colonel Wilford. Furthermore, following the events of Bloody Sunday, Wilford was the awarded the Order of the British Empire by the Queen. See here Bloody Sunday: Key soldiers involved, BBC News — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.72.220 (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of vital information on Bloody Sunday

Some guy named 'The Banner' who seems to be Dutch keeps removing information to Bloody Sunday. Although 'The Banner' may not like the information or it conflicts with what you think you know, the information I had written is reliable and has valid citations. please stop. In the first instance, there would be no in-depth mention of all the key figures from the British Army in this article and therefore misinform a reader. For instance, the article argues Loden was in charge on the day when in fact it was Wilford which is covered in the paragraph I had written before The Banner removed it. See as follows:

Regarding the soldiers in charge on the day of Bloody Sunday, Saville found: Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford was commander of 1 Para and on the day was directly responsible to arrest rioters and return to base. However, Wilford 'deliberately disobeyed' his superior Brigadier [Patrick] MacLellan's orders by sending Support Company into the Bogside [and without informing MacLellan][71]. Brigadier Patrick MacLellan was operational commander of the day. The Saville Inquiry cleared MacLellan of any wrong-doing as he was under the impression that Wilford would follow orders by arresting rioters and then returning to base and could not be blamed for for Wilford's actions.Major General Robert Ford was Commander of land forces and set the British strategy to oversee the civil march in Derry. Although, Saville cleared Ford of any fault, He found Ford's selection of 1 Para and in particular Wilford to be in control of arresting rioters was disconcerning, specifically as "1 PARA was a force with a reputation for using excessive physical violence, which thus ran the risk of exacerbating the tensions between the Army and nationalists".Major Ted Loden was the commander in charge of soldiers following orders issued by Lieutenant Colonel Wilford. Saville cleared Loden of misconduct citing that Loden "neither realised nor should have realised that his soldiers were or might be firing at people who were not posing or about to pose a threat". In short, the inquiry found that Loden could not be held responsible for claims (whether malicious or not) by some of the individual soldier's of receiving fire from snipers. Captain Mike Jackson [later General Sir Mike Jackson] was second in command of 1 Para on the day of Bloody Sunday. Saville cleared Jackson of sinsiter actions following Jackson's compiling of a list of what soldiers told Major Loden on why they had fired. This list became known as "Loden List of Engagements" which played a role in the army's initial explanations. While Saville found the compiling of the list was 'far from ideal', he accepted Jackson's explanations based on the list not containing the name of soldiers and the number times they fired. Saville had concluded that Lance Corperal F was responsible for a number of the deaths and that a number of soldiers have "knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing"[76]. Intelligence officer Colonel Maurice Tugwell and Colin Wallace, (an IPU army press officer) were also both cleared of wrongdoing. Saville believed the information Tugwell and Wallace released through the meadia was not down to any deliberate attempt to deceive the public but rather due to much of the inaccurate information Tugwell had received at the time by various other figures. Major Michael Steele who with MacLellan in the operational room and who was in charge of passing on the orders on the day. Saville accepted Steele could not believe other that a separation had been achieved between rioters and marchers because both groups were in different areas.

Secondly, there is no mention of what happened to these key figures after Bloody Sunday in the article. I had written the following:

Nonetheless, six months after Bloody Sunday, Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford who was directly in charge of 1 Para, the soldiers who went into the Bogside, was awarded the Order of the British Empire by the Queen, while other soldiers were equally decorated with honors for their part on the day

I think this is valuable information because the true extent of injustice the people of Derry experienced, but 'The Banner' clearly does not think so and had removed it.

Thirdly, removed by 'The Banner' was the reaction by Wilford on Blairs intention to run the Saville Inquiry, although he mentions a comments by certain members of the British army that may give the wrong impression they wanted this. In fact, they didn't as indicated by Wilford below:

In 1998 Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford expressed his anger at Tony Blair's intention of setting up the Saville inquiry, citing he was proud of his actions on Bloody Sunday.Two years later in 2000 during an interview with the BBC, Wilford said ""There might have been things wrong in the sense that some innocent people, people who were not carrying a weapon, were wounded or even killed. But that was not done as a deliberate malicious act. It was done as an act of war."

Finally, and most importantly 'The Banner' removes the comments of Cameron in the Houses of Commons which I had written as:

Reporting the findings of the Saville Inquiry in the House of Commons, the British Prime Minister David Cameron said: “Mr Speaker, I am deeply patriotic. I never want to believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our army, who I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve. But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong."

Omitting this comment is silly beacuse this comment is iconic of when the British government accepted they were wrong on Bloody Sunday and needs to be kept in. It is what many people had sought for a long time and it is disrespectful to not include it.

All that has been written here can be backed up from here: 

(they are mostly BBC reports)Bloody Sunday: Key soldiers involved, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10287463

Britain's propaganda war during the Troubles, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/8577087.stm [[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2521517.stm%7C Major gives Bloody Sunday evidence, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2521517.stm]] Bloody Sunday: PM David Cameron's full statement, BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10322295 Col Wilford: Don't blame my soldiers, BBC News, Bloody Sunday Inquiry, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/northern_ireland/2000/bloody_sunday_inquiry/673039.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.72.220 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it is disrespectful to point on my nationality as first point. There is no relevance or need to do that. Secondly, I advised to move the info to Bloody Sunday Inquiry because it will fit better there. The Banner talk 17:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

and as I pointed out to you none of this fits beeter in th Bloody Sunday Inquiry, for instance, how does the fact that many of the British soldiers been decorated by the Queen six months after the event fit much better in the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Saville did not investigate this aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.72.220 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The article should be neutral. You can create another article Awards given for Bloody Sunday or something like that. The Banner talk 22:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

To create a seperate article just to write one line of "awards given for Bloody Sunday" would be silly, lt alone misdirection. By keeping this information in this article not only reports factual information but also keeps the article neutral. It portrays the true sentiment of what was occurring at the time. I mean, how would this information not be keeping the article neutral. For instance take the following paragraph which is already in this article (and was not placed there by me)and tell me how exactly it is more neutral than six months after Bloody Sunday the Queen decorated a number of Service men (which I had added):

"Following the events of Bloody Sunday Bernadette Devlin, an Independent Socialist nationalist MP from Northern Ireland, expressed anger at what she perceived as government attempts to stifle accounts being reported about the day. Having witnessed the events firsthand, she was later infuriated that she was consistently denied the chance to speak in Parliament about the day, although parliamentary convention decreed that any MP witnessing an incident under discussion would be granted an opportunity to speak about it in the House.[50] Devlin punched Reginald Maudling, the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Conservative government, when he made a statement to Parliament on the events of Bloody Sunday stating that the British Army had fired only in self-defence"

The fact is these decorations by the Queen to British soldiers occurred as a direct result of Bloody Sunday and therefore merit mentioning as Wikipedia aspires to show factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.72.220 (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

List of the dead

Is this really necessary? Didn't I read somewhere that only the most notable names should be kept unless it's a standalone list? SonofSetanta (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Whilst a list is merited, an article such as this will always receive an unmerited amount of republican bias and defence from sympathetic editors. Best thing to do is ensure that what is being claimed by the sources is actually in the sources, as no doubt some manipulation and word-play is in play. Mabuska (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The article, as it stands, isn't written in a way which gives any dignity to the dead. SonofSetanta (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Only negative gunshot results mentioned in list of dead.

In the list of the dead, for those whom the gunshot residue tests turned up negative, it's mentioned. The positive results aren't. 92.1.37.91 (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

92.1.37.91 might give greater detail of the positive results. No British soldier was killed or injured, as far as I can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.152.221 (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Notable "Cheifly" because of the Paras did the shooting?

Last line of intro states:

"Bloody Sunday remains among the most significant events in the Troubles of Northern Ireland, chiefly because those who died were shot by the British army rather than paramilitaries, in full view of the public and the press."

Bloody Sunday had one of the highest death tolls of any single action. I don't think it is a "man bites dog" type of significance. 69.138.223.87 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

William McKinney

According to most sources, William McKinney was not shot while stooping over the body of Gerald McKinney; he was shot at the same time as Quinn, Mahon and Wray in Glenfada Park prior to Gerald McKinney. Gerald McKinney and Gerald Donaghey were both shot in the same location afterwards with some sources stating the shot which hit Donaghey in the abdomen travelled through Gerry McKinney's body. Eamonn McCann's book clearly states William McKinney was shot while fleeing through Glenfada Park and before Gerry McKinney was shot in the same location, as do several online sources. One can be found here (check the text and the imagery indicating positions of wounded and fatalities). One more here.

I was considering adding the above references, plus McCann's book, to an adjustment to the circumstances surrounding William McKinney's death, but thought it more appropriate to place this info. on the talk page 1st.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

IRA funding of NICRA

"The NICRA were secretly sponsored by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in the hope that there would be a campaign of civil disturbance which would unseat the unionist government in Belfast."

The source is well-respected and not in question, but this phrasing could do with some clarification. Does the source specify the degree of funding NICRA received from the IRA? Were they wholly funded by the IRA or only partly? If partly, what proportion of their funding came from IRA sources?

The current phrasing is ambiguous but implies that NICRA were wholly funded by the IRA. I'd like this clarified from the source, or other sources cited to clarify this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.147.193 (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it needs clarifying. Mabuska (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to unconstructive edits by 79.97.222.210

Your edits to the article as in most articles you edit is unconstructive and silly. The first paragraph of the lede already states that NICRA organised the protest march and here is the key wording: "organised", which implies they organised it but that others could join it. Your edit which states "by the" implies it was NICRA and only NICRA that was at this march. If you want to be specific about who organised it in the very first sentence then you have to be even handed and state that the 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment, formed the bulk of the army there that day too. The way the opening paragraph is suffices in terms of succinctness of getting the essential information displayed. Your edit adds in needless repetition.

Secondly your removal of the reason for the march citing "NICRA had lots of aims beside the end of internment" is silly because, whilst obviously NICRA had more aims that just that, this specific march as the body of the article states, was about internment, hence the large "Background" section dedicated to the issue of internment.

Also you are well aware of WP:BRD.

Mabuska (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism

From the abstract: "The second half of the paper investigates how Paul Greengrass’ films Bloody Sunday and United 93, which both deal with the topic of terrorism, transform the rhetorical dimension of a terrorist outrage, the main thesis being that the films appropriate the dimension of silence and speechlessness in order to become monuments of commemoration." Gob Lofa (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

One academic's viewpoint does not quantify it's inclusion especially when it can't be cited in the article and made clear it is according to one academics viewpoint which thus falls foul of undue weight. Do you have other academic wors from a spectrum of authors that declare it as such? Quite an appropriate quote from WP:UNDUE is "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.". It is quite a minority viewpoint in academia, it's not listed as terrorism in the multitude of academic books I have on Irish history. Mabuska (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Mabuska, you say in your edit summary one isn't enough. How many would be? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The above response makes this issue pretty clear and was suffice for the category, but more so for the body of the article. It is a tiny minority viewpoint, and your specific placement of it in the article is inappropriate for such a minority viewpoint and the wording of it does not put into proper perspective. But most of all, it violates WP:UNDUE, and even if you could find a few more examples it is still an minority viewpoint—and a highly contentious one at that—that does not merit the status that you want to give it.
If you continue to insist on this highly contentious and undue statement, then I can only suggest opening a RfC for more input for you will not convince me. Like seriously, putting such a highly contentious fringe viewpoint at the start of the second sentence of the lede as if it had credible weight. Mabuska (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the statement merits inclusion, albeit not in the lead. Is there another section where it might work? Kafka Liz (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree considering we only have one source for it, however I don't see an appropriate section for such a tiny minority fringe viewpoint to put into a proper perspective in the article. It just doesn't fit into the sections we have in the article, a highly sensitive article at that, that doesn't need tinyminority viewpoints detracting from it. Per WP:UNDUE a reason for the inclusion of such a tiny minority viewpoint is perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views and no such article exists. Or more specifically directly from WP:UNDUE:
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Mabuska (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's that kind of minority; at least one former Taoiseach has referred to it thus. It would fit nicely in 'Perspectives and analyses of the day'. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually it wouldn't and you'd be giving one minority fringe view more coverage than it deserves. As already said, open a RfC for more input and/or provide more sources. If you do find more (biased or not, and a Taoiseach is hardly unbiased), then its going to need to be specifically worded to make sure the proper context is given, unlike your previous attempt. Specific wording that would be better drafted by an other editor considering your past issues with accurately using sources.
Yet you still have to prove it is a minority viewpoint worthy of inclusion, and then the manner of how it is included. All we have is one academic whose credibility is not assured.
You need a far stronger case Gob Lofa and you know the crack. Mabuska (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The above quote – from the abstract of the paper, as Gob Lofa acknowledges – does not reflect what the author actually says about Bloody Sunday. He says, "This date marks the crossroads between the Civil Rights Movement and the Troubles, the violent radicalisation of the Northern Irish Conflict and the terrorist attacks committed by the Irish Republican Army", and later, "The film shows how members of the IRA immediately begin to recruit new members who will then be responsible for the terrorist attacks of the following decade". Thus, although he says that the film deals with the topic of terrorism, he doesn't describe the killings themselves as terrorism. Scolaire (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs, Scolaire. He describes them as "a terrorist outrage". Mabuska, considering your past issues, it's difficult to accept your good intentions here. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
No, he doesn't, Gob Lofa. You're still taking words out of context from the abstract. Nowhere in the paper does he refer to the Bloody Sunday killings as a terrorist anything. Scolaire (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
From the body: "In the following article, I will argue that the logic of terrorism follows a certain set of rules: as the main aim of an attack is not to kill but to shock or convince a wider public, they are in essence rhetorical. Against this backdrop I will investigate how both Bloody Sunday and United 93 face the rhetorical potential of terrorism. Both films, I will argue, turn out to be meta-rhetorical: by rhetorically commenting on the rhetoric of terrorism they ultimately transcend the logic of a terrorist outrage". Gob Lofa (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Which supports the point made by Scolaire ----Snowded TALK 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
No, Scolaire was saying the opposite. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, I see you haven't changed in the two weeks I have been away ----Snowded TALK 18:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I must confess, I didn't break out the champagne on your return. A bald "Which supports the point made by Scolaire" just comes across as flat out provocative time-wasting. Explain yourself or jog on. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Bloody Sunday and United 93 are two films. I take it that you know that. He says that he is going to discuss how the two films Bloody Sunday and United 93 "rhetorically comment on the rhetoric of terrorism". That cannot in any way be construed as saying that the Bloody Sunday killings were a terrorist act. Which supports the point made by Scolaire. Scolaire (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
So when he says "The second half of the paper investigates how Paul Greengrass’ films Bloody Sunday and United 93, which both deal with the topic of terrorism, transform the rhetorical dimension of a terrorist outrage...", what terrorist outrage do you believe he's referring to in regards to the first film? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
And what terrorist outrage do you believe he's referring to in regards to the second film? Is it the killing of the hijackers and the downing of the plane by the passengers? If it's open to interpretation in one way it's also open to interpretation in the other. There's a reason that synthesis is not allowed on Wikipedia. Either he said in plain English that the Bloody Sunday killings were a terrorist act or he did not. Since you seem to have reread the paper a number of times, you know that he did not. Scolaire (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as well as the downing of the towers. What's open to interpretation? Unless you know of other terrorist outrages in the films. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you read my question. I asked you was he referring to the passengers as terrorists and the hijackers as the victims. If you take a sentence that doesn't make a clear statement and start adding your own commentary, it is open to more than one interpretation. But never mind: the simple fact is that you do not have a statement that it was terrorism, and you can't argue your way around it. I'm going to stop now. This is annoying as well as pointless. Scolaire (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't read your question as carefully as I should have. I would contend that describing the passengers' action as terrorism is an interpretation so outlandish that I doubt you'd find any backers. Are you gaming? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I said never mind: the simple fact is that you do not have a statement that it was terrorism, and you can't argue your way around it. I also said I'm stopping this, and I am. Scolaire (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Crime

Hi Scolaire, I didn't create that category. Is your position that the killings were legal? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

My position is what I said in my edit summary. Categories are not there to make political points. The other articles currently in it should also be removed, for the same reason. Scolaire (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
At least you're consistent. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bloody_Sunday_(1972)/Archive_3&oldid=1136569763"