Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Committal hearing[edit]

Primefac, you removed my addition of the report on the new committal trial of Soldier F. Can you restore it, please? It's sourced and relevant to the article. If you want to leave out Soldier F's name, fine, rather than me adding it earlier in the coverage of Soldier F, I'll open a separate RfC on the censorship of his name. Thanks in advance. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bastun: it looks like Primefact didn't remove that part. Could you check again? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, you're correct! Primefac, my bad, apologies. Don't know how I missed it when I went looking, but I did. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC about naming "Soldier F" in the Bloody Sunday (1972) article[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Numerically, there is a very slight lean towards opposition to the proposed question. The argument on both sides essentially boils down to whether WP:BLPNAME (and to a lesser extent, WP:BLPCRIME) applies in this situation. Those in favour say that it has been widely disseminated, while those opposed say that the small number of publications - the majority of which they say are primary - does not meet that threshold. I see no indication that there is a single irrefutable standpoint or comment that holds more sway than any other. Therefore, there there is no consensus on the question of whether to include the name of Soldier F in this article.
In other words, the result is insufficient to either determine that BLPNAME does not apply or overrule it with a local consensus, and thus the name will not be included. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the article name "Soldier F", the soldier on trial for several murders on Bloody Sunday, and whose identity is the subject of a British injunction? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Yes (as creator of the RfC). Soldier F has been named in the UK parliament by Colum Eastwood, MP. That naming was reported widely, and Village Magazine has published a detailed article also naming Soldier F. His name is well known in Derry (and his first name has previously been used on this talk page). There is an active injunction in the UK against naming Soldier F, but Wikipedia is not censored, and Wikipedia is not subject to UK court orders. There is precedent for naming people in articles, despite the existence of such orders. Per Sceptre, in a section above, the article on Gylfi Sigurðsson mentions his arrest for child sex offences, despite that information being suppressed in the UK. During the superinjunctions affair, we were pretty firm that as soon as one reliable source not subject to a court injunction mentioned suppressed information — like the Sunday Herald was in the case of Ryan Giggs — then inclusion on Wikipedia was permissible. The Pell and Sigurðsson cases indicates that this precedent still applies. WP:BLPNAME does not apply. First, it is not a blanket ban on identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. That policy merely states it is often preferable to omit it. Soldier F was central to events, is subject to an ongoing trial, and was not a "private individual" during the events of Bloody Sunday. As has been determined by public inquiry, he was acting as a member of the armed forces, under orders. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, per WP:BLPNAME:

    "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories."

    Soldier F's name has been intentionally concealed and has not been widely disseminated. So far, less than five reliable source news pieces have come up that directly name him. This does not clear the "widely disseminated" bar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Misuse of parliamentary privilege is a very poor excuse to skip WP:BLP and WP:BLPNAME. The Banner talk 17:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note: There was no breach of parliamentary privilege, according to the Speaker of the House of Commons. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is way I stated "misuse" instead of "breaching". The Banner talk 17:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You confuse me. How is it "misuse" when it is allowed? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Given Eastwood made his comments during the consideration of a bill which would've given Soldier F legal immunity for deliberately shooting unarmed civilians in the back, it didn't even reach the reduced bar of "misuse". Also, we didn't care about "misuse of parliamentary privilege" when it came to superinjunctions. Turns out all Trafigura needed to do was shoot a few unarmed children in the back for the media to care about their anonymity. Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Being "creative with the rules" is to my personal opinion a type of misuse. And my vote stands. The Banner talk 19:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish republicanism. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Reply[reply]
  • Yes: Wikipedia is not censored. The anonymity order only applies to the UK, and it's long-standing precedent that Wikipedia does not bow to extraterritorial injunctions (c.f. Ryan Giggs, George Pell, Gylfi Sigurðsson). Additionally, describing Soldier F as a "private individual" is stretching the definition to its limit; he was, after all, acting as an agent of the British state during the course of the killings (which he admitted to doing) in one of the biggest atrocities of the Troubles. I know British society tends to cover up for its war criminals (remember those Marines successfully using the insanity defence to excuse an extrajudicial field execution?), but Wikipedia does not, and should not, bend to those sensitivities. Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, for the time being. NOTCENSORED and whether parliamentary privilege was misused are red herrings. Per Firefangledfeathers, the issue is WP:BLPNAME and whether the name has been used widely in sources. I could find hardly any sources republishing the Hansard report. For me to chnge my mind, those that want to include it need to major on what sources are publishing the name. (By the way, I find Sceptre's argument that a person ceases to be a "private individual" because they were a former soldier in a state's army highly unconvincing. WP:RGW?) DeCausa (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed. In context, the policy's use of "private individual" is contrasted with the immediately preceding guidance on "public figures". This isn't a "private vs. government" situation at all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are two definitions of "private individual" that could apply, and Soldier F meets neither; he was in army fatigues when he took part in an extremely high profile act of unlawful (and unjustifiable) killing. After all, is Tetsuya Yamagami a private individual? Sceptre (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What are the two defitions and where can they be found? I don't see them in the policy. Also, what relevance is Tetsuya Yamagami? He's defintely not someone who's identity has "not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" - he's all over global media. DeCausa (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The two definitions are "someone who is not a public official" (i.e. "acting in private capacity"), or "someone who is not a public figure". You'd have to be stretching either definition to say that Soldier F – by his own admission, one of the perpetrators of one of the British Army's most infamous post-war atrocities – is either of the two. Yamagami became a public figure when he shot Abe; Soldier F became a public figure when he killed multiple civilians in broad daylight. An anonymity injunction doesn't make him a private individual any more than it made Sigurðsson or Giggs private individuals. Sceptre (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think Sceptre has summed up the possible interpretations well. I'm convinced the policy is referencing the latter meaning, as the whole of that section is drawing distinctions between well-known public figures and lesser-known private individuals—no part of it draws any attention to whether someone is involved in government work or not. The distinction between Soldier F and Yamagami is obvious. Editors worked hard in the aftermath of Abe's assassination to observe the BLP policy and remove the name until Yamagami was formally charged, at which point there were uncountable sources disseminating his name. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. While Wikipedia not bound by English law in this respect, the issue is essentially similar to cases where public figures have taken out super-injunctions which editors generally respect, because to ignore them could have ramifications for editors based in England & Wales. If Soldier F is identified here, editors based in E&W may avoid contributing, which could have a detrimental effect on the balance of the article. The fact that the case is sub judice is also a factor. Naming Soldier F really serves no intrinsic purpose at this stage. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In other cases where privacy injunctions have been granted, but extraterritorial RSes have nevertheless published the suppressed information, the community has typically not respected injunctions (unless they had legal effect in San Francisco). We mentioned George Pell's (later overturned) rape convictions in the "cathedral trial" whilst it was temporarily suppressed, and we also mention Gylfi Sigurðsson's current arrest (also for child sex offences). If there is truly any legal liability for editors in this case, WMF Legal will tell us. But they haven't, precisely because despite being sub judice, there is no civil or criminal liability for anyone who publishes extracts from Hansard. Sceptre (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are, however, other super injunctions that are not mentioned on the pages of the people they relate to. There are also cases where someone has been named under Parliamentary Privilege, but the press have avoided quoting Hansard. However, we also come down to the basic issue of what naming Soldier F actually achieves. The trial has yet to start. He may be identified in the course of it, or - in the event of a conviction - at the end. If he is cleared, where does that leave us? It seems that some are keen for Wikipedia to indulge in what amounts to little more than a "we know who you are/where you live" back-alley threat to someone who has yet to be tried. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because the British press are (maybe somewhat understandably after Operation Midland) paranoid about breaching anonymity orders – even where they can avail themselves of qualified parliamentary privilege – doesn't mean we have to be.
Additionally, the use of anonymity orders when it comes to prosecuting the atrocities of the Troubles is a controversial issue in Northern Ireland, especially when combined with the attempts over the past few years to grant amnesty for those same atrocities. The naming thus becomes a not-insignificant public interest issue, in that regard. Sceptre (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So we must name him to make sure that this cover up isn't perpetuated. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, the "accuse your opponent of being a woke SJW" card, a classic. RGW is one of the most misused snarl words on this encyclopedia, and in any case, doesn't apply; nobody's saying the sources been presented don't pass muster, after all.
Nor is anything that I've said is actually incorrect; the anonymity order was an issue of public interest, as was the use of anonymity orders to ban reporting of toxic waste dumping, as was the use of anonymity orders to ban reporting of celebrities' infidelities. No MP wakes up one morning and thinks "oh, wouldn't it be such a jape to breach a court order today?"
What reason is there to treat this case different from other cases we've dealt with before? I don't think an attempt to remove content in the Gylfi Sigurðsson article related to his arrest for child sex offences would be ultimately successful, even though that naming hasn't been in that many reliable sources either.
Sure, Soldier F's representatives have been diligent in enforcing the court order elsewhere. Other websites can deal with that as they please, but fundamentally, Wikipedia is not censored. Unless and until the WMF step in, we treat this case the same as all the others. Sceptre (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. What should determine how we treat Soldier F's identity is the fact that his name has not been widely disseminated [and] has been intentionally concealed" rather he was "an agent of the British state during the course of the killings (which he admitted to doing) in one of the biggest atrocities of the Troubles". Isn't your answer to Canterbury Tail's question below, 'the just exposure of a wrong-doer'? DeCausa (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gylfi Sigurðsson's name "has not been widely disseminated [and] has been intentionally concealed" in connection with child sexual offences. We still mention his arrest for child sex offences.
Soldier F arguably ceased to be a private individual on 30 January 1972, and definitely ceased to be a private individual on 15 July 2010. That his full name wasn't published in reliable sources until recently does not make him a "private individual"; indeed, his identity was well known in Derry for many years before Eastwood's speech.
Additionally, the only suppressible element of his identity is his surname; his forename appears in the report of the Savile inquiry and reliable sources predating Eastwood's speech include it too. Sceptre (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. There are no reliable references (Hansard is iffy) With "British society tends to cover up for its war criminals" - that's every country.( IRA's murder of two Australian tourists by incompetents in Netherlands). (I am Australian -and yes we are rubbish as well). Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question - What does naming the soldier achieve for the article? What does having the name bring to the article that cannot be provided by the "Solder F" pseudonym? What is it we, as an encyclopaedia project, aim to achieve by it? I know it's a piece of factual information, but it's not widely disseminated and therefore the WP:BLPNAME could apply. Lets just be sure we know the goals of naming them here as part of the discussion as I can't see the replacement of a pseudonym with an actual name as being contextually important and it doesn't lose anything. Canterbury Tail talk 21:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good question - but is a better question not "why would we conceal the name?" There is absolutely no question that in the absence of an injunction, then both Soldier F, and the late Soldier G would be named in the article. Why? Because they were central to events, their identity is known, and has been published. True, in the absence of an injunction, the names would have been published much more widely. But WP is not censored, and despite the existence of injunctions in other cases, WP has published the names of those involved - multiple examples above. Publishing the names does, as you say, add factual information, and in addition reinforces the fact that WP is transparent and independent of outside influence. (Though that has not always been the case in the past - as can be seen from discussion earlier on the page, off-Wiki steps have previously been taken to conceal names.) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not coming down on one side of the discussion or another, and I will refrain from casting a view, but I just want to make sure that the outcome of the discussion is based on encyclopaedic values and integrity of the article, not they need to be named and shamed and held accountable or other reasons as this is understandably a sensitive topic. At the end of the day we should go with what multiple reliable sources are saying, not what our emotions are telling us. If multiple widely disseminated reliable sources are using the name then I don't see there's an issue. What I do find interesting is the comment above on he was acting under orders from the armed forces and government, which to my mind would actually lend credence to the fact that their individual identity is not that important as they were just a tool and extension of the government, not acting on their own. I think this may be better served actually on the BLP Noticeboard than here, may be more likely to get more neutral viewpoints.Canterbury Tail talk 12:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think anyone has ever said that the Paras had specific orders on that day, but it is well known that they had general orders (of questionable legality) to shoot-to-kill. Regardless, though, whether they were acting under orders or not is beside the point, because members of pretty much any military in the world have a legal obligation to refuse to use force that they know to be unlawful.
This point is mostly beyond the scope of this discussion, though, beyond its use to argue why Soldier F should not be considered a "private individual". The question here is whether the article should include the name or not, and myself and Bastun have given reasons why the precedent is that we should. To depart from that precedent would require a good reason. Sceptre (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that's wrong. Per WP:CONLEVEL we don't work on the basis of precedent unless and until a policy has actually been changed. That's not the case here. A local consensus on a particular instance might be relevant to consider the arguments raised but the consensus in that case is very defintely not a "precedent" in that way. Consensus is free to emerge in whatever way the editors posting to on this page see fit consistent with policy. DeCausa (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Canterbury Tail, this is also now an issue on the Village (magazine) article. I don't want discussion to be spread over two or three locations and am not very familiar with the BLP Noticeboard. Would it be in order to post there, directing people to this RfC? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I think so. I’m not hugely a participant at the BLP/N but I think a quick presentation of the facts there would be in order. I think the conversation may need to be moved there as whatever the outcome it will affect more than one article so a consensus here wouldn’t apply to others, but one there would. Unfortunately I will likely not be able to participate or moderate any discussions for a bit as I’m travelling from tomorrow, coincidentally Ireland and Northern Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 18:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, (Summoned by bot) for the time being. NOTCENSORED and whether parliamentary privilege was misused are red herrings. Per Firefangledfeathers, the issue is WP:BLPNAME and whether the name has been used widely in sources. per DeCausa. Hardly any RS have published this name. So, as Canterbury Tail asks What does having the name bring to the article that cannot be provided by the "Solder F" pseudonym? - nothing AFAI can see unless this is an attempt to right great wrongs by "naming and shaming" an individual who was almost certainly culpable to a very substantial degree - but legally guilty of what is more problematic - and who is now very unlikely to ever be tried in any court anywhere (principally because of a lack of admissable evidence that would be likely to meet the standards of criminal proof needed for a successful prosecution in 2022 - regardless of any proposed Amnesty or NI settlements). Pincrete (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? His committal hearing takes place on January 16th. Guess we'll find out then. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That isn't a committal hearing in the usual sense, it's a hearing to verify whether he can be charged and tried - the present CPS position being 'no'. It "will determine whether there is sufficient evidence against Soldier F to proceed to a Crown Court trial. If he is named and tried - obviously that changes everything. Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • NB: Per CanterburyTail's advice, above, I have opened a discussion at the BLP Noticeboard, here, about whether or not Soldier F should be named. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. As I understand the situation, the person that has been named as Soldier F is not yet convicted of being Soldier F or the crimes Soldier F has committed, just that there is a trial over this person. Because it seems clear that this named person is not notable for anything at this point, naming them would be highly inappropriate despite the publication and seemingly well-known-ability of it. We did the same for the Christchurch shooter until he was convicted, as an example case in point. --Masem (t) 22:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No - per my comment at the related BLPN discussion. Note, I am Northern Irish, so this does colour my opinions more than most editors. Despite my own preference towards inclusion of Soldier F's name, and foreknowledge of it due to it being an open secret within Northern Ireland for decades, BLPNAME applies in this case. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes he has been named in Hansard due to Eastwood's speech, the Village is a reliable source and as that article notes Soldier F's name is widely disseminated. The Spectator: [1] has already noted that his first name, Dave, is already publicly known, Peadar Tóibín named Soldier F under parliamentary privilege in the Dáil in February and if you just Google Soldier F name his full name comes up multiple times, so WP:BLPNAME is satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But it doesn't and that's the point. When I google it, I see hardly any potential RS that mention it in addition to links in this thread. There's not even much non-RS (social media etc). (Note BLPNAME: When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.) Of particular note, is the absolute absence of international coverage; no American media are publishing it for instance. DeCausa (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Its certainly of greater interest in England and Ireland than elsewhere, but BLPNAME doesn't require that it be published in any particular area. Anyone interested can do the Google search and find Dave/David's full name in seconds. Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • When I google it, the bottom of the results page tells me "In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 4 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Google Soldier F Dave, still plenty of results with his full name. Mztourist (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps it's because of where I am (Northern Ireland), but when I do that Google search the only results that come up are Twitter, Facebook, and At the end of the search results page, is a notice In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 26 result(s) from this page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wow, then Google is clearly restricting the results. I just searched it again and the Village Magazine story was the first one that came up with Dave's full name in the headline. I was in Ireland the other week and didn't even think to try it while there. Mztourist (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. As explained by Firefangledfeathers, to publish the name would be a breach of WP:BLPNAME. The starting point in a situation like this is that the name should not be included because it has been deliberately withheld. It is down to those arguing for the inclusion of the name to show a good reason to mention it. At the moment, however, all arguments in favour seem to be that a couple of relatively minor sources have named him, or WP:RGW. Neither is anywhere sufficient. Furthermore, and as DeCausa and Firefangledfeathers have explained, the argument put forward that Soldier F is not a private person because he was acting as a state agent at the time has no bearing on whether he is a private person for our purposes (applying WP:BLPNAME). There are people who are state agents who are not private persons (eg Liz Truss or Micheál Martin), but there can also be people who are state agents and are private persons. Likewise there are non-state agents who are non private and non-state agents who are private. One thing really has nothing to do with the other. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, per BLPNAME, that it has no WEIGHT of coverage, that it would not do much for the article, and finally that would be inappropriately flogging of allegations for an innocent person. Whether they are later cleared is not needed - they are technically innocent until proven guilty so it would be morally wrong and legally libel to name them at all until publicly charged. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes - Despite being censored in the UK, Soldier F's name is public knowledge and Column Eastwood's naming of Soldier F has been reported by numerous sources (satisfying the "widely disseminated" requirement of WP:BLPNAME), albeit some reports have been suppressed from search results. I would suggest that Soldier F is a public figure as his actions have had a significant influence on the public interests of society in Northern Ireland. Cashew.wheel (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No – reliable sources do not indicate the name has been widely disseminated as required by WP:BLPNAME policy. It is the WP:ONUS of those wanting to include to provide reliable sources which show wide dissemination. Also, providing the actual name of the accused doesn't add to the article. Since this is a WP:BLP issue best to be conservative and wait for trial outcome and wide name usage in reliable sources. --Guest2625 (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes. It's already been widely disseminated so WP:BLPNAME doesn't apply. Alaexis¿question? 07:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes Apparently necessary information. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes. Discussed in Hansard and Village magazine, WP:BLPNAME does not apply. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes. His name has been published in Irish media more than once. The only nation that censors his name is the nation that's responsible for the crime he committed. (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only nation that censors his name is the nation that's responsible for the crime he allegedly committed.. Even former paras are innocent until tried in a court of law, operating under international standards of evidence. What no one is taking note of in this discussion is that naming him HERE may very well make any potential trial even more problematic than it already is. A huge amount of the info in the public sphere (including much from Saville) would be explicitly inadmissable in a trial. What's the point of naming? To 'name & shame' in the absence of any conviction? Pincrete (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm sorry, what's the basis for your claim that What no one is taking note of in this discussion is that naming him HERE may very well make any potential trial even more problematic than it already is.? We only report what other reliable sources have already put on record in the public domain. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, per WP:BLPNAME - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes. His name is public and is known to the world. Wikipedia is not censored and British censorship laws do not matter. We would not let court ruling in the Soviet Union censor us and we should not let court ruling in England censor us. His name is important to Bloody Sunday and it must be written. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Many media also publish his first name Dave. This is no secret. Even if we do not use his family name, we must use "Dave". Ghost of Kiev (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Absolutely. There is no reason to withold the name of Soldier F. The policy cited is WP:BLPNAME, but Soldier F's name is widely disseminated. News media that includes his full name are as follows: <redacted>. His full name is listed in Hansard <link removed> and it is on the website of the Dáil Éireann <link removed>. While there are some on Wikipedia who would rather censor this, and even some who would edit war or abuse administrator tools to do so, they should read WP:Wikipedia is not censored and cease their ridiculous opposition to including key verifiable facts. Maine 🦞 19:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Barkeep49 If you are going to delete links and make names impossible to see, you might as well start with Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972): Difference between revisions - Wikipedia. But I don't understand why you are doing this. Maine 🦞 20:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think you edit conflicted with me restoring Ghost's mention of the first name and am guessing that's what you're largely talking about here. More broadly it has been longstanding practice to OS mentions of the full name. I admit to not being 100% comfortable with that practice for reasons I mention here but as OS is a tool of first resort and given the elements at play until consensus has been established otherwise in this case, a more cautious approach is going to be the default. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Barkeep49 I'm not seeing a consensus that we should affirmatively ban links that mention his full name, but whatever. Are you able to at least restore the name of the publications I referenced, as well as how many articles from each publication that I referenced? It would provide more detail than "redacted", but it also would not mention the name directly or by link. Maine 🦞 20:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The practice is among those with the oversight permission. Where you included the names of the publication (Hansard and Dáil Éireann) I kept them @Maine Lobster and where you only had links they've been removed. If you would like to name the places where you'd previously just had a barelink please go ahead. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So I have to go find all of the links again so I can list how many articles there are in each publication? Maine 🦞 20:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    User:Barkeep49 please provide the specific policy that supports you deleting the links that mention Dave's full name. This seems like massive overreach meaning Users can't even check the links for themselves to see whether or not Dave's name is widely disseminated in accordance with WP:BLPNAME. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OSPOL criteria 1, Identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Maine Lobster: At present there is no consensus on whether we can or cannot include Soldier F's full name in this article, this talk page, or elsewhere, due to policy related privacy concerns. That lack of consensus will hopefully be addressed either way when this RfC is closed. But because F is accused of a crime, and no conviction has yet been made, we must err on the side of caution for now. While I recognise your assertion with regards to NOTCENSORED, unfortunately we do not have a consensus as to whether or not that policy point takes precedence over the relevant BLP policy concerns. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. Unless and until his name is widely reported in reliable sources it is a violation of BLPNAME. I also note multiple violations of BLPCLIME in discussion - Soldier F has not been convicted of any crime and commenters should not state or imply otherwise unless and until that changes. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IRA involvement[edit]

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

One of the victims was revealed to be an IRA member: Jgins (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That isn't quite what the source says. Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To claim they were 14 unarmed civilians is misleading given that one was an active IRA supporter. (Jgins (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
The Guardian states that the RUC and Army alleged one individual was found with nail bombs beside him and that the first inquiry agreed with them. Leaving aside if a nail bomb constitutes armed there's no independent source asserting that they were his Lyndaship (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)To unpack that, are you querying "unarmed" or "civilians"? If it's "unarmed" there's a disputed claim that a nail bomb was found beside him. That predates and is separate from the IRA membership claim. But also I don't think it's genrally accepted. Or is it "civilian" that you're raising? I guess in the eyes of the IRA a 17 year old member of Fianna Éireann isn't a civilian. Is that what you're saying? DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He was a member of the IRA, an illegal terrorist organisation. He was not a civilian. Since nail bombs were found it is misleading to claim the dead were unarmed. (Jgins (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
The nail bomb allegation isn't generally accepted AFAIK. Do you have sources that say otherwise? The "civilian" point is an interesting one. Generally, being a memeber of an illegal (criminal) drganisation doesn't mean an individual ceases to be a civilian. Normally, a civilian is defined as someone not in the armed forces of a country. Of course, the IRA perspective was that they were combattants in an armed conflict with British forces. Therefore, they would not consider their volunteers as civilians. Do you share their perspective? DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IRA was clearly fighting a guerilla war, like Franco in 1936-39. (Jgins (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Errr … Franco led a regular army, + renegade army units, which were aided and equipped by Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy (particularly air and naval support). Comparing him to the IRA is frankly absurd. Whatever one thinks of them, the IRA didn't have two airforces at their disposal! Pincrete (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Franco used guerrillas, hence his famous "Fifth Column". The IRA was aided by the RAF and the Royal Navy. Why do you think armed Collins' National Army? (Jgins (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Gerard Donaghy[edit]

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The lede should mention that Gerard Donaghy was a member of the junior IRA. Jgins (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apart from any other consideration, WP protocol is that any info must be in the body of the article (which the lead is a summary of). So even if substantiated, the claim would not belong where it is being placed, or probably anywhere in the lead. Nothing in the Gdn source suggests that Donaghy was other than a civilian. Even if you think the worst of him, he was a junior supporter of a banned organisation, but as DeCausa implies, you have to swallow IRA rhetoric to call it an 'army' or him other than a civilian. Almost all sources will endose that viewpoint I believe. The nail bomb presence or not is now unsolvable, but perhaps the claim could briefly be added to Donaghy's entry on the page. David Cameron, when announcing the Saville Inquiry in the UK HoC described the killed as 'unarmed', but the accusation that he was carrying bombs is probably worth stating briefly. Pincrete (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cameron is not a reliable source. World War II ended the distinction between civilians and the armed forces. (Jgins (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Well I agree about Cameron of course, he's an authority on nothing except his Govt's positions. But there are no civilians anymore, despite lots of people using the word and we must add a claim to the lead that no inquiry, book or other account of Bloody Sunday thinks is remotely important (that Donaghy may have had links to a junior wing of the IRA), because Jgins thinks it has to be there. Good luck with idea!.Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Donaghy was an IRA terrorist. A book by the IRA in 2002 mentioned this. (Jgins (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
There's a section on each of the dead in the body of the article which, in the case of Donaghy, already covers in detail the nail bomb allegation. I don't see a problem with adding in there the IRA connection sourced to the Guardian article. But please, can we refer to Fianna Éireann? Even though the Guardian calls it the "junior IRA" the phrase is, IMO, cringeingly unencyclopedic. I don't see any need to change the lead though. DeCausa (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lede is misleading. (2A00:23C5:C410:5601:F87C:E9C6:D36F:50E2 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
It isn't, the preponderance of sources treat all the killed as both unarmed and civilian. Relatively minor 'quibbles' about either can be - and are - dealt with later. It would be WP:SYNTH to say otherwise. Pincrete (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC) DeCausa, I endorse your suggested addition, as long as it is phrased approx. as "The Gdn reported that an IRA book had claimed Donaghy had been a member of Fianna Éireann". We have no way of knowing how accurate either the Gdn or the (IRA?) book itself was. Pincrete (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He was a member of the Fianna Éireann. Not that he was shot because of this, or his actions on the day. Despite conclusions latterly, Eamonn McCann's book Bloody Sunday in Derry: What Really Happened states he was examined by two doctors, an officer of the British Army on duty, and several civilians (one of them a reporter), and none of them saw any nail bombs in his tight-fitting jeans.--Kieronoldham (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He may have dropped them on the ground. He was there that day because he was a member of a banned terrorist organisation. (2A00:23C5:C410:5601:DC4C:D8E3:ACBD:1E06 (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Do you have sources for either of those two statements? (Although the first one is just speculation which wouldn't be relevant anyway) DeCausa (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IRA organised the event. It's why McGuinness was carrying a submachine gun that day. IRA members were ordered to drop their bombs on the ground before being captured. (2A00:23C5:C410:5601:931:B24D:8DBE:C3A8 (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Source? DeCausa (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] (2A00:23C5:C410:5601:931:B24D:8DBE:C3A8 (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
That's not what you said. DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]