This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n
All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. When in doubt, don't revert!
New Evidence With Considerable Impact Released
New evidence released, relating to the event, which challenges the neutrality of the article and places the recent Saville enquiry into some doubt. If I have time I will edit the article for inclusion, anyone else in the meantime is welcome to include details, regards.Twobells (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
You mean "The British Army's first confidential report... Written hours after 13 civilians were shot dead in Derry in 1972"? That's not "new" by any stretch of the imagination. It is an old self-serving fabrication subsequently proved to be almost totally false. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Still, pushing your agenda instead of neutral, balanced fact I see. Do you ever actually read the source material or just put on your rose-coloured glasses and proceed to pontificate on Wikipedia? No wonder people mock the encyclopedia. No-one has ever seen this report before and the source requires inclusion to ensure balance and neutrality. Twobells (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I suspect I have read more on the event than you ever have (I was certainly editing this page long before you turned up). Effectively all that has happened is that someone has turned up the Army's first draft of the line they managed to get past Widgery, but which has been totally discredited since. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Surprise surprise, my criticism of the political and historical bias in this article has been removed and I was "logged out" of Wikipedia. Clearly this article is being controlled by a biased moderator with a political skew or agenda.
If you cannot even debate in Talk an article, and discuss its overall historically accuracy and key facts, then Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously as an historical or academic reference source (as indeed it's not by most leading academic universities, certainly not by mine anyway, we're discouraged from referencing to it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles and for nothing else. You presented a number of critisisms and 'facts' but you failed to provide a reliable source for any of it. The current article, on the other hand, is well referenced, though it can always be improved. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
What the IP address beginning with 86 said, IP address beginning with 89. Furthermore, nobody logged you out, you weren't logged in when you made your contribution of unverified "facts" and opinion, and still weren't logged in when you commented above. If there are any inaccuracies in the article, feel free to challenge or improve the sources. I do recommend creating an account and reading the five pillars, though. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Support change to casualties. Mabuska(talk) 19:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Impact on Northern Ireland divisions section title
Would anyone object to this being renamed? Traditionally, the word "divide" in relation to Northern Ireland would refer to the division between Catholics and Protestants. While it is true Bloody Sunday would have had some impact on that relationship it was primarily the relationship between the Catholic population and the British Army, and to a lesser extent the British establishment as a whole. Perhaps a change to "Impact on the Troubles" or "Impact on Northern Ireland" would be more appropriate?DanceHallCrasher (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the late interjection but I oppose your recent edit. Its affect continues to the present day so isn't confined to the Troubles so that is a poor title. Its impact is more in regards to the divide not the country as a whole as not everyone is seperated by the divide. Mabuska(talk) 19:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
"Northern Ireland divisions" is an equally, if not more, poor title.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)