Talk:Bloody Sunday Inquiry

message: Removed the spectator references as the majority of the articles are for subscribers.68.71.35.93 22:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think the article is out of balance due to the following section in the timeline:
It is worth noting that there is no mention of the paratroopers in the article except for a brief mention on the effect of the morale on the report being released. It is unbalanced to mention the role of one of the protagonists and not the role of the other. 
I do not doubt the factual accuracy of the above statement (but I do notice that it is unreferenced). Quasihuman (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think due to the repeated delays this article has been somewhat neglected other than to update it about the most recent delay. Now the report has been published I am sure this article will be improved. O Fenian (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the phrase "Yet again" justified? I'd be inclined to start the sentence without it.Patrick lovell (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed that, and some inaccuracies. The timeline does need plenty of work however. O Fenian (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance of article 

message: Could someone add a list of members for the council or report group or panel or whatever it is called? Perhaps in an Infobox? Sadads (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership of inquiry council 

message: What were they? Kittybrewster  ☎ 07:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can accept Mr. Cameron's speech as a fair summary of the conclusions: the order to Support Company to go in was wrong; the shootings were unjustified; none of the people shot were armed; none of the soldiers had reason to believe that they were under threat of death or serious injury; some people were shot as they were fleeing or coming to the aid of other victims; there was no conspiracy at senior military or government level.  Scolaire (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

text: And also, as stressed by Mr. Cameron, whether or not Martin McGuinness was armed, he did nothing that would justify the actions of the soldiers.  Scolaire (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So why did they shoot? The article doesn't say. Does the report? Peter jackson (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. That is still the big unanswered question.  Scolaire (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious why the soldiers shot: Irish nationalists, whether armed and dangerous or not, still deserve to be pwned. Hence despite the findings of the report, opening fire was the right thing to do. 79.75.141.101 (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except that is the precise opposite of what the report says. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text:  WP:CIVIL prohibits personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities.Autarch (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: So we've spent vast amounts of time & money but still don't know why it happened? Typical. Peter jackson (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, "we've spent vast amounts of time & money" to know on the balance of probabilities what happened, definitely proving certain things in the process. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Ultimately it comes down to certain individuals making decisions which they have not yet explained, despite being given every opportunity to do so, because Saville has effectively discounted all other possible reasons. "Fear and Panic" is acknowledged in the case of the firing of three soldiers (not all of which caused injury or death), but not in the rest, although the degree of certainty varies. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Some paras do fear and panic? And the others did what and why? Kittybrewster  ☎ 10:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the specific situation in question, Saville thought some of them probably did. One junior officer, for example, fired "warning shots" over a crowd he claimed was hostile, but which Saville concluded was not, but he (the officer) only thought might become so, so was not justified under the contemporary rules of engagement. One army witness suggested that at least two of his comrades seemed to be working to a personal "game plan," once the shooting started. The majority of soldiers whose shots were thought to have actually hit people were only linked to one or two casualties each, but just three soldiers (including the two with the "game plane")were definitely responsible for six deaths, and with a fourth soldier killed or wounded another eleven people. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Are you saying that this could have been a matter of national policy? Like setting yourself up for failure?--71.162.248.240 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusions of Inquiry

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101103103930/http://report.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/volume01/chapter005/ to http://report.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/volume01/chapter005/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151202040321/http://mfsupportcentre.com/the_firm/public_case_documents/examples/bloody_sunday.htm to http://mfsupportcentre.com/the_firm/public_case_documents/examples/bloody_sunday.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110313135215/http://www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/questions-and-answers/index.html to http://www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/questions-and-answers/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100618112208/http://report.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/volume01/chapter004/ to http://report.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/volume01/chapter004/
*Added  tag to http://www.uup.org/news/general/general-news-archive/time-for-northern-ireland-to-move-on-empey.php
*Added  tag to http://www.spectator.co.uk/archive/features/11580/the-truth-is-he-lied.thtml
*Added  tag to http://www.spectator.co.uk/archive/features/9644/the-politics-of-bloody-murder.thtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified