Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972)

missing names

(Redacted). Why isn't it in the article? 2A00:1028:8390:C7F2:E0A8:443D:80B9:C02D (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Read the multiple sections above. TL;dr version: there isn't consensus to include his name in the article. If Dave is convicted, it can certainly be included then, I would imagine. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Introduction of the term 'Soldier F'

I don't mean to start any new discussions about whether 'Soldier F' should be named; there seems to be no new consensus on that front. But the article does not actually introduce or define the term 'Soldier F' despite using it numerous times in important contexts. This is confusing. If we are going to use this term, in quotes no less, then it should be prominently explained (in whatever manner existing consensus allows).

I would add something myself, but given the previous lengthy debate I thought it best to raise the issue with editors more familiar with the issue. Rwbogl (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I clarified the "Soldier F" definition in the bulletpoints under the Report subheading. Mztourist (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mztourist What was your edit? It seems to have been removed since, and "Soldier F" doesn't appear in the article body any more. Cortador (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cortador this change: [1], its still there. regards Mztourist (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

My search messed up, my bad. Cheers! Cortador (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"Bogside Massacre" and number of fatalities

@Ianmacm Can you assist?

@Kathleen's bike insists on reversing edits. I explained why bogside massacre is superfluous to the lede, which should be both concise and not duplicated.

Bloody Sunday (1972) is universally known and not the alternative they have submitted.

"‎Both bogside and massacre in bold are superfluous in the lede when two links to both words are already present. 13 died on Bloody Sunday, not 14. This ties in with the Martin McGuinness page which has been updated to reflect accurately the deaths that occurred as a result of British soldiers opening fire. A further death four months later, from injuries is also recorded". Jaymailsays (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

See guidance at WP:OTHERNAMES. The presence of two words, unconnected, in the sentence does not have the same effect. Kathleen's bike (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

My two cents is that "Bogside massacre" is nowhere near being the WP:COMMONNAME for this incident. It probably doesn't need to be in the opening sentence. As for the death toll, it is not disputed that thirteen people died on the day of the incident; this is still regarded as the official death toll and is quoted by many sources. John Johnston died four months later and is widely regarded as the fourteenth victim.[2] The wording should make clear that thirteen people died on the day and Johnston died later.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Concur with Ianmacm - it's universally known as "Bloody Sunday", and "Bogside Massacre" is much rarer and isn't used again in the whole article. (>330,000 hits for "Bloody Sunday" +1972, versus 22,000 hits for "Bogside Massacre). Should not be in the lede sentence, might merit mention as an alternative name in the body. "The wording should make clear that thirteen people died on the day and Johnston died later" - yes, this. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES the question is whether it's a "significant" alternative name, not per se how it compares to "Bloody Sunday" in use. COMMONNAME is a different and inapplicable test and being "much rarer" than Bloody Sunday doesn't exclude it as an ALTNAME. I don't think there's any doubt that it's normally called Bloody Sunday. Having looked at Google Books, there were more references to "Bogside Massacre" than I was expecting. It's a marginal call, but I think it does just make it as a "significant alternative name". It's a redirect, so it's also helpful that anyone who gets to the article through that means immediately sees why. It's not as though there are a long list of alternatives cluttering the first sentence so I don't really see a pressing need to exclude it. DeCausa (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You may not personally see a pressing need to remove "bogside massacre" in bold, from the opening description but it is, at least in this discussion a minority view. The use of massacre is immotive and a term often used to further propaganda and it is rarely seen as neutral.

It is not disputed that armed individuals attended the protest and the military perceived they were under threat from, weapons, car bombs and nail bombs.

Had the leadership of both sides, simply withdrawn and dispersed from the area, probably there would have been no loss of life that awful day. Jaymailsays (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

"Immotive"?[3] Do you mean emotive? That's neither here nor there. (And "Bloody Sunday" isn't emotive????) The only question is whether it's significantly used or not. I didn't realise you just didn't like it. That's absolutely no reason to remove it - and you'll notice no one else has argued that. You're in a minority of one (so far) on that. DeCausa (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

And, Jailmailsays, the heading that you chose for this thread (Reporting Edit warring!) could be seen as a WP:PA so I've changed it to something that's more appropriate. I don't see any edit-warring. You WP:BOLDly edited, were reverted once and then you took it to Talk. That's exactly as it should be. No edit-warring. DeCausa (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources for the name "Bogside massacre", we should probably include it somewhere. If it's not widely recognised enough to be used in the opening sentence, maybe put it later in the lead. I'm less concerned about the nuance around the number of casualties; it needs to be conveyed somewhere but if it makes the opening sentences too wordy the important bit is that 14 people were killed and we can make it clear as the lead goes on that #14 was a few months later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The BBC and the Guardian use shootings rather than massacre. The use of massacre is over used in the opening paragraph and throughout the Article. Where used it should be stated who used the term and in what context, in my view. Jaymailsays (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia reporting that someone else has called something a massacre, especially if it become the common name, cf. Milltown massacre (redirect, bolded in the opening) or Hungerford massacre (article title) off the top of my head. We shouldn't call it such in Wikipedia's voice of course. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Bogside Massacre is widely used in news media and books, thus per guidance at WP:OTHERNAMES ("significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph"), it very much belongs where it is. Kathleen's bike (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

About the names and victims: RTE Archives - Witness To Bogside Deaths 1972, RTE Archives - Remembering The Victims 1974. Both Irish sources. About the names: Het Parool 31-1-1972 (called "bloedbad", i.e. massacre in English) (Dutch source). I hope this helps. The Banner talk 16:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Or the highly regarded A Treatise on Northern Ireland Volume 1 (Colonialism) by Brendan O'Leary, page 40 - Bloody Sunday is the only one of the events just described with significant numbers of civilian deaths to be commemorated as a massacre—it is sometimes called “the Bogside massacre.”. O'Leary is clearly a subject matter expert. Kathleen's bike (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2024

Change interment without trial to interment 85.31.142.37 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "Internment without trial" used in the lead and Background sections has an element of tautology, because internment is by definition detaining a person without a legal process. I think this what 85.31.142.37 is trying to say. The wording could be changed as it is explained in more detail at Operation Demetrius.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

No. A reader shouldn't have to click through to another article to find that out. "Internment without trial" is absolutely a common term, especially in the context of Northern Ireland. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)