Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:36, 18 April 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bloody Sunday (1972) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

A news item involving Bloody Sunday (1972) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 15 June 2010.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on January 30, 2011 and January 30, 2014.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Northern Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Irish republicanism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing an infobox. Military history: British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Mabuska 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Obituary of General Sir Robert Ford

This Daily Telegraph article contains the sentence.
In a confidential memorandum, written three weeks before Bloody Sunday, and sent to his superior officer, Lieutenant-General Sir Harry Tuzo, Ford stated that he was coming to the conclusion that the minimum force necessary to restore law and order was to shoot selected ringleaders among the “Derry Young Hooligans”.
Feel free to use it. JRPG (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages? 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)

Political and historically biased

This version of the historical event is heavily politically biased from the very first paragraphs to the last in the introduction. The whole article has a biased feel to it, instead of being historically factual and neutral. It leaves out key pieces of established factual information from the subsequent trial and witness testimonies, which goes some way to explaining why the soldiers reacted how they did, and why 14 civilians ended up getting shot dead.

Here are the facts as I have seen and heard them from an accurately depicted drama of the events and the subsequent trial known as "Bloody Sunday", which is on YouTube if anyone cares to watch it. It gives an unflinching and unbiased recreation of the whole incident, and the aftermath, and it's a crucial source of information for historians and commentators to refer to, since a lot of research was done into making the drama to ensure it was accurate and factually correct down to every detail.

Fact #1 The British soldiers had several rounds fired at them from an IRA gun-man from a sniper vantage position, and several people (intermixed with civilians) were seen carrying firearms. This was confirmed by several witnesses, including at least one Catholic witness. Several witnesses testified they heard gun shots from the IRA side before the British soldiers fired a single round.

Fact #2 The soldiers faced an incredibly hostile mob and a situation which was quickly spiraling out of control, and the soldiers genuinely feared for their lives. Rocks and other missiles were being thrown at the soldiers (some hitting the soldiers) and the mob was advancing on their position in heavy number, far out numbering the soldiers who risked being overrun. The soldiers gave numerous warnings for the mob to halt and go back to a certain point where they had crossed over into and where the march was prohibited from going. They were given repeated warnings they would be fired upon. Repeated warnings which were ignored by several of those who did eventually get shot.

Fact #3 The event has to be viewed in the context of prior events which occurred in the previous year to soldiers of another regiment deployed there. Several of those soldiers were brutally ambushed and targeted by the IRA resulting in several British soldiers deaths. They were also regularly facing sniper fire, booby traps and lures (often children) with the full cooperation of local civilians. In one incident for example, a pram was left in the street as a lure in that area and a soldier was shot from an overlooking house upper window. The IRA (and civilians) were well practiced in tactics like this against the British soldiers, that is unprovoked attacks, and cold-killing murders. The soldiers of Para 1 on Bloody Sunday obviously had that on their minds, of what had occurred to their colleagues the year prior and the tense and dangerous situation they were in, this was the heartland of National Republicanism in Northern Ireland. Naturally there was a lot of hostility towards the IRA (and the civilians who were siding with murderers and appeared to be trying to repeat the same thing against their own regiment on the day of the incident). This time the order was clear (from the British military command): We have to regain control of this area and show the IRA we're in control. We don't want a repeat of that situation. Shoot if you're unable to hold the mob back or feel your lives are in danger. That was clearly the case and the criteria for using live rounds had been met. An order which came from the top down, and was given before events unfolded. The use of Para 1 was deliberate by the British army high command. They were a hardened regiment, and not a regular army regiment. It was obvious the British army was preparing for, and expecting the situation to turn ugly. However, the use of Para 1 could be criticized and questioned, as this Para regiment was well known for its brutal use of force and heavy-handed tactics. For managing a civilian demonstration, it could be argued that this particular regiment should not have been deployed "front line" and perhaps would have been better in a reserve position alongside a regular regiment, if the military did have intelligence or reason to believe it could turn into an IRA ambush.

Fact #4 The IRA (supporters, and Republican Nationalist sympathizers) used the guise of a peaceful protest march to create the confrontation with the British soldiers and cause a riot. This is well established and evident from the presence of known key IRA people and the presence and use of firearms against the soldiers, and the diversion of the march off the agreed route and into an area they were told not to go before the march. Clearly some IRA planning had taken place. It could be said that the IRA used the civilians. By putting them into a dangerous and volatile situation. They merely underestimated what they were up against and didn't expect Para 1, but expected little or no resistance from the British soldiers, as was usual. The IRA then must take and hold some responsibility for what happened to the people there on that day, just as much, if not more so than the British high command and the soldiers of Para 1.

Fact #5 On the British army side there was a break-down in communications and the chain of command as events unfolded very quickly. The commanding officer on the ground had to react quickly and make decisions, but didn't have a clear sight of the situation or full command of the situation. Orders were given remotely over radio as the commanding officer was some distance away. This led to delays in communication and some confusion on both sides, as to what the situation was, and how much force to use, and more crucially, when it should be used.

Someone should do more research into and include these facts in the article to provide a more balanced and less skewed, politically biased version of what happened. It comes across as an unnecessary and excessive use of force by the British armed forces against an innocent civilian population, when the reality doesn't match up with that. Yes, it could be debated and argued whether it was necessary to shoot that many people, and each death has to be looked at. However it's far more complicated than that.

When dealing with historic events like this, it's always important to present an article accurately, factually and politically neutrally. Using terms like "massacre" to describe what happened is historically and factually inappropriate. That word has very negative connotations in both an historical and a military context. It suggests the British army lined up people and shot them for no reason. Or randomly fired upon people who posed no threat. That's definitely not the case if you watch the drama and see the scene unfold. People were told not to move and to stand still against a wall or stay in certain areas, until the army could move in, check who was armed and make civilian arrests. Instead, people ignored orders and moved (some running in a threatening manner or posture which suggested they could be carrying concealed weapons), after warnings were given. One by one, people got shot over a period of time. It wasn't a quick sudden event, neither were the killings planned, and so the incident does not justify being called a massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.26.204 (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

1. Beattie, Jilly (1 March 2016). "Bloody Sunday exposed: First confidential British Army report "fully justified" deaths and injuries". Belfast Live. Retrieved 1 March 2016.

• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Selected anniversaries (January 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2014)
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Northern Ireland-related articles
• High-importance Northern Ireland-related articles
• All WikiProject Northern Ireland pages
• B-Class Disaster management articles
• High-importance Disaster management articles
• B-Class Irish republicanism articles
• High-importance Irish republicanism articles
• WikiProject Irish republicanism articles
• B-Class Ireland articles
• High-importance Ireland articles
• B-Class Ireland articles of High-importance
• Ireland articles needing infoboxes
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• Start-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles