Talk:Bloody Sunday (1920)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.) |
||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale. | |
The following comments were moved from Talk:Bloody Sunday. Originally posted November 2002.
Contents |
[edit] Comment
- An anonymous user wrote the following on Bloody Sunday (Ireland 1920):
-
- It wasn't by the IRA, and it was the night before
- apparently referring to the following text on this page.
-
- following a series of assassinations of British agents carried out by the Irish Republican Army earlier that day.
- Well, 'earlier that day' and 'the night before' aren't really contradictory. And investigation suggests that nobody contests that it was the IRA.
This is a pretty good summary of the 1920 Bloody Sunday with one very notable exception. The author emphasizes the "unathorized" and "unapproved" nature of atrocities committed by the Black & Tans and Auxiliaries. In actuality, however, these terrorists acted under the full authority of the British government for over 2 years. They were sent to Ireland by His Majesty's Government to terrorize the Irish population into submission. They did not engage in a single terrorist act (Bloody Sunday), they engaged in thousands, killing and brutalizing at random and also in carefully targeted operations. To claim that British Crown Forces could engage in illegal terrorist activities non-stop on a daily and even hourly basis for over 2 years without approval not only challenges the imagination but denies the existence of any semblance of a chain of command within the British Army. As the English themselves would say, "Not bloody likely." In short, this was state-sponsored terrorism of the first order.
- I don't know anything about this subject, but "the author" (you reffered to) is you, be bold, click the "edit this page" and try to put it into the text, if you think your suggestions are more accurate and factual. Other users will review this (soon), don't worry. --Rotem Dan 04:22 21 May 2003 (UTC)
- But please cite wherever you can (give a solid basis for statements presented) -- Rotem Dan 04:25 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Hey, I'm a big history buff and I recall hearing something about a bloody riot in the 1950's in Hungry being called 'Bloody Sunday'. Russian soldiers sent to quell the riot killed a whole bunch of people. Is this true?
-E. Brown 5 February 2005
About how many people do we think were killed on Bloody Sunday? The article says that 10,000 spectators were there, surely they weren't all killed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.119.42 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] NPOV Tag
There is too much pov banter in the article which makes it sound like propaganda.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doctorbigtime (talk • contribs) .
- In accordance with the general principals of Wikipedia:NPOV dispute please provide an explaination of what is disputed; part of the article, all of it - what is pov banter? A NPOV tag is not the same as "I don't like the tone of the content and theirfore will tag it, and cannot be bothered editing it now or improving it" tag. Djegan 16:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've removed the tag until such time as POV concerns are detailed here. --Ryano 13:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't the U2 song about the Bloody Sunday in Derry when British forces opened fire on civil rights marchers?
[edit] Number killed
If someone ever reads this talk page who knows more about the events than I do (which is nothing) would they please have a look at the Michael Hogan (sportsman) article and clear up how many were killed that day? This article and the Michael Hogan one disagree. Cheers, Mmoneypenny 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I.don't see that they disagree on numbers killed, unless you question whether Hogan, as a member of the I.R.A should be included in description 'civilaan'.
[edit] Use of the word 'killing'
Certain editors are insisting on the use of the phrase "killing 14 people" (or sometimes 15 people) in the article's introduction, instead of the more neutral and accurate phrase "causing the deaths of 14 people."
This is POV.
On the one hand, two of the victims at Croke Park were not shot by the police--they were trampled in the panic that followed after the police opened fire. This makes the more general description "caused their deaths" accurate.
On the other hand, the article uses the passive voice throughout--especially in the section on the morning's assassinations. It's never "X killed Y"--it's always "Y was killed by X," or usually just "Y was killed," with no mention of the person responsible. Only in this one instance are editors insisting on the active voice, and with definitely assigning blame.
In my opinion, this insistence on having the police killing spectators, while the IRA's victims are merely killed by some mysterious unmentioned agency, constitutes the use of weasel words, and compromises the neutrality of the article.--Cliodule (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No in this case killed is correct, the alternative to killed is murdered. They opened fire on unarmed people. --Domer48 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with Killed it is neutral.--Padraig (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
