Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:01, 4 August 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,064 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972)/Archive 3) (bot← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:17, 4 August 2015 edit undoMabuska (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,831 edits →Terrorism Next edit →
Line 50:		Line 50:

	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."'' ] (]) 20:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)		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."'' ] (]) 20:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
	:One academic's viewpoint does not quantify it's inclusion especially when it can't be cited in ~~thea~~ ~~rticle~~ and made clear it is according to one academics viewpoint which thus falls foul of ]. Do you have other academic from a spectrum of authors that ~~make state~~ it is such? Quite an appropriate quote from ] 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 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 ]. Do you have other academic wors from a spectrum of authors that declare it as such? Quite an appropriate quote from ] 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:17, 4 August 2015

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)

Categories: