Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972) - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gob Lofa (talk | contribs) at 12:47, 29 August 2015 (→Terrorism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:47, 29 August 2015 by Gob Lofa (talk | contribs) (→Terrorism)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Article policies

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.

Misplaced Pages

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

	Northern Ireland portal 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

	Ireland portal 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.

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.

This article attracts a lot of trolls the best advice is to not feed them

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 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 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 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)

Categories: