Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Northern Ireland This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
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.)
High This article is on a subject of High-importance for Northern Ireland-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

WikiProject Northern Ireland tasks:

 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bloody Sunday (1972) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Bloody Sunday (1972) as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management.

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.)
High This article is on a subject of High-importance for Irish Republicanism-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

WikiProject Irish Republicanism tasks:

 

Contents

[edit] Fianna Éireann

The Fianna are/were not a "Junior IRA brigade," rather they were and are a Republican scouting movement. Many members would go on to join the IRA but I can't recall any Fianna bombings or shootings.

If I recall it was precisely on this point that on July 31 1997 Proinsias de Rossa won £300,000 from the Sunday Independent which, through an article by Éamon Dunphy, alleged he had been a member of the IRA when he had, in fact, only been a member of Fianna Éireann. Check The Irish Independent July 31 1999, for a background to that case. El Gringo 18:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Older comments

Shouldn't this be organized under Northern_Ireland/History or something? I see that there's quite a bit of information spread around, under The Troubles, Ireland/History, IRA, etc, but the history of Northern Ireland is so unique that it deserves a seperate page, in my opinion. -Guppie

If you had a special page on Northern Ireland history all brought together, it would take up half of Wikipedia. Encyclopedias operate on the basis of enquiring about a specific event, person or organisation. It wouldn't work if to find out about Bloody Sunday you had to go in though a detailed category list: Northern Ireland/history/troubles/Bloody Sunday. It should have links to all of those, but not be buried on one. JTD

Jtdirl, your rewrite of this page was excellent. Keep it up on Wikipedia! - AW

This article is extremely partisan and missrepresentative. -- MartinSpamer

Wow! Such insight! Could you perhaps give some specifics or edit out the POV in the article yourself? --mav

Ive tried but each time I try to improve it Jtdirl makes it worse. -- MartinSpamer

Why does this article hav such a specific title? Was there another event called Bloody Sunday that also happened in 1972? --mav

There was another Bloody Sunday in 1920. I don't know who put this name on this file (I don't think it was me!) but I suppose it makes sense to link it to its two distinguishing characteristics, Northern Ireland and 1972. The other is Bloody Sunday (Ireland 1920), when British military Auxilaries massacred people attending a gaelic football match in Dublin during the War of Independence. It is quite possible that the term 'Bloody Sunday' is also used somewhere else in the world. I suppose some unionists might be annoyed if this one here was down as Bloody Sunday (Ireland) and some people may know about Bloody Sunday and where it happened but not the date, or the date but not where it happened. Who knows, in years to come, Wiki may be teeming with 'Bloody Sundays', Amritsar 1924, Oklahoma 1948, Outer Mongolia 1971, the Orkney Islands 1982, etc. (these are all fictional, BTW.) JTD 04:45 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

I added the fact that the British never claimed any soldier was hit by a bullet, nor was any bullet recovered afterward (except those shot by the British soldiers). I also added claims by people in the crowd that no shots were ever fired on the British soldiers, that these people claim that the British soldiers were the only ones who did any shooting.

I removed the word "riot" from the first paragraph. I do not feel this is NPOV. The march was to the city square, but the British soldiers decided to block it (I guess the British have the right to determine where Irish people are allowed to go in their own city). Some of the marchers began arguing with the soldiers who were blocking their route, while the majority decided to go by an alternate route which was not blocked. Anyone who wants to use the word riot should point out why here. I think it would be less controversial if you two or three paragraphs in gave a description of the progress of the march, so that people could decide for themselves what kind of riot there supposedly was. An unqualified description of riot in the first paragraph is in my opinion, not NPOV.

To term this march a Civil Rights Association march as a riot is unfair and unjust. Differences must be made between the Civil Rights Association and the I.R.A. While Martin McGuiness second in command of the Derry brigade was in the march the claims of IRA sniper fire have never been proven.

Perhaps some context might be given somewhere in the article. That is

1. We have had very recently in Iraq examples of what happens when a armed and nervous set of soldiers is confronted by a large crowd in a hostile atmosphere.

2. The IRA deliberately killed civilians on several occasions. This doesn't excuse the British actions on that day, but the idea that the republican movement was peaceful on the model of Gandhi or Martin Luther King is a false one.


Keeping my head down now

This was not an I.R.A sponsered march while members where among the marchers (unquestionsbly) this was a Civil Rights Association march the I.R.A council had little or no authority over these marches to suggest that protesters in Derry were all active I.R.A members is absurd. Bloody sunday is considered in Republican Circles as the I.R.A s greatest advertisment for recruitment. The I.R.A as an organisation was not as powerful in 1972 as it had been previously in 1916 or as it became. The Civil Rights Association basic demands were 1. An end to Gerrymandering (Particularly evident in Derry where the city with an evident Catholic majoraty in 1972 anywhere from 75-80%) Was governed though Republicans claim ruled by a Protestant council. 2. equal oppertunties for All not just Catholics. The Derry Bogside was the most economically blighted area of Derry which did not have the same heavy industry as Belfast had throughout the 20th century. 3. In all the basic demand was "One Man One Vote"

I don't think the article requires editing it is not particularly biased to one side it sticks to both sides of what is a disputed event he does not call the Widgery report straight out a Whitewash which it is considered in Irish circles. Exonerating British Soldiers from any wrongdoing and calling the firing of over 100 live rounds into a built up area of apartment blocks 'At worst possibly wreckless' the authuor of the article makes an account of the 'Bloody Sunday Guns' some of which turned up in Little Rock, Beiruit and Sierra Leone and the guns which were destroyed in the Donnington Armoury in the midlands of England. A fair article and in no way Partisan

Exile

They are perfectly fair points. And please don't keep your head down. Keep editing! (But then I have been accused on wikipedia of being a right wing tory, an apologist for the IRA, anti-Irish, anti-British, anti-Catholic, a catholic church spy here pushing a Catholic agenda, a homophobe, an outrageous pusher of the gay agenda, an Australian monarchist, an Australian republican etc etc etc. Your points are perfectly valid. Oh dear! I guess I'm going to be accused of being a right wing tory again! Or is it a provo-supporting Brit-hater? I'm losing track of which I have been called on the various Irish pages! FearÉIREANN 17:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The present Inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday has nearly 2,500 statements from people involved, which seem to answer many of the questions raised here, and are all available on the Inquiry's website. It is acknowledged by the authorities that it's suspicious that no British soldiers were shot that day. It seems that the crowd were 'unarmed' in that they were not carrying firearms, but those who were rioting (acknowledging that many at the riot were in the wrong place at the wrong time) were throwing rocks. The witness statements are adamant that some of the people shot at were throwing nail bombs, and that some were in buildings with firearms. An MI5 agent has provided evidence that Martin McGuinness has claimed to have fired the first shot; he denies this and in fact claims that he was nowhere near the shooting. No soliders admit to having fired into the crowd, only to having fired at those with firearms and nail bombs, and to have shot into the air above the rioters heads to attempt to disperse them. But the critical question remains whether these actions can account for all the deaths (and I agree, that it should be known as 14 rather than 13 as that's the number who died as a direct result of the shooting that day).

[edit] Bono is a Catholic?

"It should be noted that Bono, a native Dubliner, was brought up as a Protestant though he later converted to Catholicism." Really? I don't think this is correct! As far as I know he went from being a Protestant to simply describing himself as a Christian. His mum Protestant and his dad was Catholic, but his father is said to have believed that children should not be so seperated from their mother by faith, so he opted to have both his sons (Norman and Paul-Paul is Bono's real name) raised as Protestants. His wife, the georgeous Ali, is the daughter of a Protestant clergyman. So, could someone get this right? Fergananim (who is neither prod nor taig).

Actually I think the Catholic parent was the mother not the father who was a Protestant (Ronan)

I added it. AFAIK Bono is somewhat close to organisations like Opus Dei. Delete it if you like the main point was that he was brought up a Proddy and is therefore unlikely to be signing songs advocating the murder of Proddies.GordyB 15:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bono is most definitely not a Catholic. He is a member of the Church of Ireland. Bono also has nothing whatsoever to do with Opus Dei. That is the weirdest claim I have ever heard. Ali, who was a college colleague of mine, will crack up laughing when I tell her of your claim! FearÉIREANN 20:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay if it's wrong delete it, obviously I got it wrong. Whether or not he is a Catholic is irrelevant in the paragraph anyway.GordyB 22:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At a certain point, reports of an IRA sniper were heard in the British command center. The order to fire live rounds was given and one young man was shot and killed. The aggression against the British troops escalated, and eventually the order was given to move the troops out to chase the tail of the main group of marchers to the edge of the field by Free Derry Corner.

Despite a cease-fire order from command, several hundred rounds were fired directly into the fleeing crowds. 12 more were shot dead, many of them killed while tending the wounds of the fallen.

Instead of arresting those involved, the British paratroopers proceded in "chasing" innocent civilians women and children with armed weapons and shot dead 13 innocent civil right marchers.

[edit] Unarmed?

Unarmed in the first paragraph? - has this ever been proven as a fact? What about the reports of sightings of stones/lethal nail bombs/ petrol bombs/snipers - do you count that as being unarmed? What about the fact that some of those present were members of the IRA?

There are many statements here which seem very POV, and this article deserves the POV tag. I am in agreement that is in need of some serious editing. Jonto 20:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

In a city like Derry, of course some of those involved would have been members of the IRA. There also were members of the Nationalist Party, church leaders (Protestant and Roman Catholic), etc. Members of the IRA were as entitled as anyone else to march, once they were not breaking the law.
As to the supposed sightings, they weren't as far as the evidence that has been presented goes, among the crowd. The crowd was unarmed. It was fired on. That is the issue. It is irrelevant whether others not part of the crowd that was fired at were armed or not. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but can it be proven definitely as to whether they were armed or not? If not, then I think "unarmed" should be removed if there is no concrete evidence; perhaps replaced with a term such as "thought to be unarmed" or "believed to be unarmed", rather than stating it as an outright fact.Jonto 20:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that not a single shot was fired at the paratroopers seems to substantiate the word "unarmed", I think. It doesn't strike me as particularly plausible that armed IRA men were fleeing like rabbits while their bretheren were being shot down.Bullzeye 07:09, 18 July 2005 [UTC]

The text doesn't actually say that everyone was unarmed, it just says that the people killed and wounded were unarmed. Sicking 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point. No one can say that all the marchers were unarmed, but it's an established fact that the ones who were shot were unarmed.thx1138 09:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Should the first sentence also not also mention "after rioting at a civil rights march"?"Jonto 21:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No, because there was no riot. thx1138 09:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Events of the day section

The Events of the day section is seriously lacking. As someone that doesn't know very much about the event I'm left with very little information about the actual event rather then the politics after it. It would be great with a more detailed timeline as well as more details about where and when the different events occured. Some suggestions for additions:

  • How many people attended the march? Over 50,000
  • Who were they? The majority was working class Catholics but also has some Protestants in attendance.
  • Why did they march? In protest against the descrimation of Roman Catholics by the British.
  • Why were there barricades? They did not get permission to March so the barricaded were put in place to stop the marches.
  • Did the group of teenagers manage to break through the barricade at Guildhall? NO - The Guidhall was not the scene of where this happened, altough the plan was for the march to end at the Guidhall the marchers did not make it past William Street the first barricade.

Did more people follow them? How big was the group? Nobody followed, a group of 20-30 youths protested at the barricades where water cannons had been used against them

  • If they did manage to break the barricade, what happened then? Did the police let the march go on peacefully at first and not until later start firing? NO again they did not get through the barricades.
  • Where was the first boy shot? Around the Guildhall barricades? Was there any reason he was signled out? Again the Guidhall barricades were not insight, all shootings took place in the Bogside.
  • When and where did the rest of the firing take place? The text only mentions that orders were given to stop firing, not that firing started. There are several statements made that firing was taking place from the city walls over looking the bogside, beside the flats in the Bogside and within Glenfada Park.
  • When did the cease-fire order happen in relation to the firing? As soon as it started? Before it started? After it had been going on for a while? The shooting had been going on for some time and continued after the cease fire order was given

I realize this is a contagious issue, but it's better to put in some uncertain information that then can be discussed and tweaked, then to put in nothing at all. Sicking 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully I've answered the first part of the first question, the rest will take a bit more time... SeanMack 06:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

So, is there any possibility to have access to other version of this event like, of people who claim that there are evidence of the precense of a sniper or that some bullets were shot not only by the army ?

    • I know some of these things you want clarified, which i will now add to the article, namely about the first killed - my uncle Jackie Duddy, and the situation surrounding his shooting. I also altered his name, as you had him listed as John...I also know for a fact that one single soldier was injured on the day itself - but that was an accident before the paras even left their barracks that morning, when he shot himself in the foot while cleaning his gun. Interesting?

Well done on this entire article, it provides invaluable insight into what is still a very important and, as yet, unresolved event in our lives. (JC, Derry. November 2005)


The fact that no weapons were found on the dead and wounded does not mean that there were no 'Weapons' used at this particular incident. bottles filled with nails, bricks and other assorted projectiles were found at the site and in it's immediate surroundings. having served in Ireland as a paratrooper myself, I have experienced being on the receiving end of this type of weapon myself, they are just as deadly as a ballistic weapon. The scene was tampered with before any investigations could be carried out. The comment that no armed IRA men would flee like rabbits while their bretheren were being fired upon is complete nonsense.

    • No, its not complete nonsene. Sure not all IRA men would have taken a stand, but some would have.

An IRA gunman is not a Hero, or have any hero like qualities. If they were why would they attack 2 british soldiers as part of a large group ? bomb innocent civilians? wear balaclavas?

  • So because some members of the IRA did wrong, all of them do? By the same logic, I can "prove" you would shoot an innocent civilian, because at least some Paras did on 30.01.72.

I served in Ireland as a member of the Parachute Regiment and have seen first hand how cowardly these so called "Hero's" are. When British soldiers are attacked should they just stand by and not defend themselves?

  • This question is kinda rhetorical, because thats not the way I believe it happened. Even if the soldiers took fire, they didnt respond to the attackers, but attacked civilians in at least a few of cases.

NO !!!!!!

I think really we need to wait until the new inquiry into what happened gives it's version of events. At least then it will be a half decent account of what happened on that day, unless of course its a £155 Million cover up (which if it is accused to be it'd be a pretty poor attempt, why waste £155 Million when you have a perfectly good Widgery cover up?).

In the section about the Saville inquiry, an Australian judge is mentioned. Later on it states that he only arrived in 2000. I propose that this section be rephrased to make it clear and easy to understand. At present the impression is given that he was there from the start.

And at the end of the day thats all we are looking for. The truth. Simply yelling and accusing each other and arguing the toss isn't going to solve anything. I'm the son of a Para who served in NI during the 70s and one of my good freinds is a senior member of Fianna Fail's youth wing (and he isn't exactly brimming with praise for Sinn Fein/IRA either to put it lightly) so seriously chaps it can be done! Now lets get back to making this article accurate, concise and neutral!--Pudduh 15:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed unproven claims about John Lennon

These claims about Lennon:

- He gave money specifically to the "Marxist" IRA organization - He paid for Bloody Sunday funerals

Validation and proof please? Don't see any - the John Lennon article also put forth a one-sided view, ignoring the very insistent denials of Yoko Ono, prominent Marxists who knew Lennon, and Lennon's biographer (who has been fighting for years to get ALL the FBI documents).

Lennon might have given money to the IRA, Sinn Fein, or even the Orangemen ... and there are factual statements showing he supported Irish civil rights... but until it can be attributed by a valid source, the above claims about funerals and "Marxist" IRA donations don't belong here. 67.10.136.147 08:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I found a picture that seems to suggest his support for the IRA [1].SCVirus 08:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

exMI5 person David Shayler made the claim that he had 'seen' documents from MI5 saying Lennon gave money to the IRA under the guise of "Irish civil rights" here. The john lennon article says he was giving money to the Workers' Revolutionary Party at the time. Shayler says he was doing that and giving cash to the IRA. This article quotes one biographer who says he wouldnt be suprised if he did give cash to IRA, also quotes 'Sinn Fein' saying the same thing here. Better article here describing the FBI's interest in him (who Shayler says were feeding FBI information) and his song about Bloody Sunday 1972.
All very "He said, she said". I dont think the allegations or "whatever" (even if they are true) belong in the article. Fluffy999 02:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Hiya, guys. Some interesting stuff, but I think the layout at least needs to be sorted out. I'll have a thing about looking at this in the future. Will try and get that going, while potentially trying to help over the neutrality dispute.

Cheers, John Smith's 23:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Congrats on an improved version. I removed the tag, but I hope we can all strive to make it even better. John Smith's 19:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me why its says 13 people were shot dead instead of 14 just because one guy took longer to die? If someone dies directly because of something you do, even if its a long time after, its still considered murder. Or should we change it to 12 because one guy might have taken a full minute to die. Where do you draw the line. YOU CAN'T draw a line it should be 14 not 13. SCVirus 22:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

By saying shot dead means they were killed in the spot they stood - one person died at a later date from the shootings.

The claim that the crowd was armed is in fact just a claim. The people who have made this claim have provided no evidence, other than the fact that I.R.A members were in the march. Now,hopefully we can leave behind this ridiculous debate about I.R.A members courage behind. If these men were armed the situation would have almost certainly degenerated into the sort of gun battle that was happening basically everyday in West Belfast at that time. The fact is that British soldiers killed 14 innocent, unarmed civilians. In my view, that amounts to cold blooded murder no different than any I.R.A atrocity. Bloody Sunday should be regarded by all right minded people as what it was, one of the worst atrocities of the troubles. how courageous of you to remain anonymous;)Samgb 15:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Shot in the back or shot in the chest?

The article has Jackie Duddy being killed both ways.Kidigus 23:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official IRA

The Official IRA article places gunmen at the scene shooting;

"On Bloody Sunday (1972), an OIRA man in Derry is believed to have fired several shots with a revolver at British troops, after they had shot dead 13 nationalist demonstrators - the only republican shots fired on the day"

but this article doesnt, which article is correct? Fluffy999 11:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Dead

Should the number of dead not be changed to 14? Or at least mention in the introduction that another marcher who was shot on Bloody Sunday subsequently died from his injuries?GiollaUidir 16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed that now. El Gringo 11:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good good. Wasn't sure if there was some accuracy reason for it being the way it was...GiollaUidir 19:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greiss Tests

I've removed the specific reference to positive results from Greiss tests on some of the deceased, as in fact all those tested proved negative. The appropriate section in Widgery (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/widgery.htm#part3) states:

"The clothing of 11 of the deceased when examined for explosive residues showed no trace of gelignite. The two others were Gerald McKinney, whose clothing had been washed at the hospital and could not be tested, and Donaghy, in the pockets of whose clothing there had, on any view, been nail bombs and whose case is considered later."

Since the tests carried out were negative - and so would not have been "prosecution evidence" - it is irrelevant to cite cases where positive results secured convictions. Nick Cooper 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OIRA gunmen?

I'm curious to see the evidence behind the claim that 'one man was witnessed by Father Edward Daly and others haphazardly firing a revolver in the direction of the paratroopers'. I'm writing a paper on Bloody Sunday, and have found no reference to this alleged OIRA gunman in any of the sources I've examined - where did this come from? (I am not disputing the claim; rather, I would like to examine the evidence supporting it, to determine if this is something I should discuss in my paper.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.98.151 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 January 2007.

Bishop Daly has spoken about this on a number of occasions, notably in the 05 Dec 1991 Secret History Channel 4 TV documentary, which also showed the photographs (now apparently "lost") of the gunman. He naturally also covered it in his statement to the BSI [2] (paragraph 24). He mentions having previously referred to the incident in a contemporary statement, which may be in Eyewitness Bloody Sunday, but I don't have my copy to hand to check at the moment. If you Google on the phrase "Daly's guman" it comes up with numerous hits on both the BSI site and BIRW's one covering references by both Bishop Daly and other witnesses. Nick Cooper 11:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the help there - now that you mention it, I do recall reading something about that in Eyewitness Bloody Sunday. I'll have to get the book out again to look it up. Thanks again.

If such pictures of a gunman did exist wouldn't they be splashed around every newspaper in the North? Anyway, it's hardly suprising stickies began claiming there were gunmen given their transition to neo-unionism.Irish Republican 02:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"If such pictures... did exist"? Nick Cooper 06:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
There never was pictures of a Sticky gunman at bloody sundayIrish Republican 18:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Funny that Father Daly freely refers to the man in question, then. And that Secret History managed to include the photographs in their documentary. And that they were discussed at the Saville Inquiry. And that both Jimmy McGovern and Peter Greengrass included the incident in their separate films. Nick Cooper 18:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the word of a member of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy in Ireland isn't going to convince me. However, I accept such photos may have existed though I find it odd they've simply been "lost".Irish Republican 03:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Fr Daly was one example; there are other witnesses who testified at Saville to having seen the man in question. In any case, the photograph still "exists" in the Secret History documentary (24m 54s in on my recording), even if the originals have been lost. On the programme it's somewhat dark, but the man is obviously holding a semi-automatic pistol similar to a M911 Colt or a Browning Hi-Power. Nick Cooper 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Republican, I read your comment and was pretty appalled. The implication that Edward Daly, a priest, would lie over something as serious this is pretty ridiculous when you consider he was there on the day and guided the injured out at his own risk. If there was anyone there on that day that could convince me there was a gunman present, it's Daly. John Smith's 15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civil rights movement

I've often heard it said that Bloody Sunday marked the end of the Civil Rights movement in the north can anyone offer any fact of this and should it be added to the article (14:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

One way or another, numerous sources have said just that, and it's certainly worthy of inclusion (surprised it's not already). Nick Cooper 15:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesnt obviously mention the attack on british troops —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.147.38.74 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 27 March 2007.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/o/Talk%7EBloody_Sunday_%281972%29_8c76.html"