Split trial?
This isn't a huge article, but the section on the murder trial of Soldier F is likely to significantly increase in size as it proceeds. Might be worth splitting it off into its own article? Primefac (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
There should probably be a separate article for the trial of Soldier F, but since the court case is ongoing, this is not the best time to do it. The article risks running into WP:TOPIC and WP:NOTNEWS by giving constant updates.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Jumping in here, I think the whole trials and inquiries in general should be split into a separate article. The vast majority of the article is about aftermaths, trials etc, and the actual subject incident is getting buried with all these edits on the trials. The trials, inquiries etc. are important, but when they're more than the main event it's time to split. Canterbury Tail talk 17:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- With the trial closed and findings to be posted this week, it's either going to be "split out the trial" or "pare it down to just the general facts". For the latter, we certainly don't need the gritty details of who gets to admit evidence and statements from every victim, which was where I was originally thinking we would go; give a couple of paragraphs and call it a day. Are you thinking that other sections should be split off as well? Primefac (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- i would suggest split off into a separate "trial of Soilder F" article so as not to lose details, then just have a summary paragraph on this main article with a wiki link to the trial ... there could be a whole other can of worms about to be opened when the verdict is announced which would then need recording under the trial article too 16:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- We definitely need an article that can say the actual name of the murderer 2A00:102A:5005:66CB:680F:48FF:FE1D:88E3 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- i would suggest split off into a separate "trial of Soilder F" article so as not to lose details, then just have a summary paragraph on this main article with a wiki link to the trial ... there could be a whole other can of worms about to be opened when the verdict is announced which would then need recording under the trial article too 16:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
- With the trial closed and findings to be posted this week, it's either going to be "split out the trial" or "pare it down to just the general facts". For the latter, we certainly don't need the gritty details of who gets to admit evidence and statements from every victim, which was where I was originally thinking we would go; give a couple of paragraphs and call it a day. Are you thinking that other sections should be split off as well? Primefac (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Too soon. As WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker says, we could end up having to record information in two different places. There is no rush, let's see what the verdict is and what emerges, then we can trim, split and trim, or expand slightly, as needed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Reboot
The murder charges and trial of Soldier F sections take up a vastly disproportionate amount of space in this article. A new, separate article for those really needs to be created Billsmith60 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- It's been almost a month since the above post (which I've split out into its own section for ease of editing) and three months since the verdict and last major edits regarding this matter. I'd say we have three options for the trial section: keep as-is, trim it down, or split it off into its own article.
- At the moment, the only thing I am sure of is that I don't really want to keep this as-is; both in length and references it's about 16% of the total page length, which doesn't sound like a ton until one takes into account the page is currently at 150k bytes. It definitely has enough content (at 24k bytes) to merit being split off, I just wonder if it's a bit too in the weeds to necessitate a full article; it really comes down to "there was a trial, he was found not guilty as the evidence wasn't sufficient" and could probably/easily be condensed into 1-2 paragraphs without losing the important information. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- There should be a separate article now that the trial is over.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- I've added two tags: to suggest the creation of a separate article and note the excessive detail in the absence thereof Billsmith60 (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I split off the trial section to Draft:Trial of Soldier F. I'm not sure if we need more explanation or expansion of the lead (definitely could use suggestions on categories that we could add), but if folk are fine with what is there to start off with, I'll go ahead and move it to the article space. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Now split. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- Good job Billsmith60 (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
- Now split. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
- I split off the trial section to Draft:Trial of Soldier F. I'm not sure if we need more explanation or expansion of the lead (definitely could use suggestions on categories that we could add), but if folk are fine with what is there to start off with, I'll go ahead and move it to the article space. Primefac (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've added two tags: to suggest the creation of a separate article and note the excessive detail in the absence thereof Billsmith60 (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- There should be a separate article now that the trial is over.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Merge proposal: Bloody Sunday (1972) ← Timeline of Bloody Sunday (1972) -> *Proposed deletion*
I propose merging Timeline of Bloody Sunday (1972) into Bloody Sunday (1972). I think the content in the timeline page can easily be incorporated in the context of this article (if not already the case), and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. This page (Bloody Sunday (1972)) already has an external link to the sole source of the timeline page (Timeline of Bloody Sunday (1972)).
An issue with Timeline of Bloody Sunday (1972) is it is an article that exclusively relies on The Widgery Report (from Cain website) which violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view. OwlCritique (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
- OPPOSE: the Timeline article is not a timeline but a retelling of events based on a single source, as has been acknowledged Billsmith60 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Could you maybe elaborate on the rationale for keeping Timeline of Bloody Sunday (1972) as a standalone article, since it presents a one-sided account of events? I feel that an external link to the original source might be sufficient for readers who wish to explore that level of detail. OwlCritique (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, there are several problems, I feel. First, the Widgery Tribunal needs an article of its own. At present it links to a three-paragraph section of that on Lord Widgery. One idea is to use the existing text in the latter to preface the 'timeline' article, add to the latter to avoid the overreliance on a single source and then rename it to the "Widgery Tribunal" via a page move. The Bloody Sunday article, at its "Widgery Inquiry" section, could indeed link to this article. Also the name "timeline" is also misleading, for it isn't one: I'd expect it to be more structured and show the times at which key things happened. Merely merging this 'timeline' article as it stands into Bloody Sunday is not an option, IMHO Billsmith60 (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that the 'timeline' article needs a complete overhaul... possibly be retitled The Widgery Tribunal, including detailed information about scholarly analyses of the tribunal and later criticisms that led to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. The article as it stands right now does not meet Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Maybe it could be moved into a Draft page for the time being? OwlCritique (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, there are several problems, I feel. First, the Widgery Tribunal needs an article of its own. At present it links to a three-paragraph section of that on Lord Widgery. One idea is to use the existing text in the latter to preface the 'timeline' article, add to the latter to avoid the overreliance on a single source and then rename it to the "Widgery Tribunal" via a page move. The Bloody Sunday article, at its "Widgery Inquiry" section, could indeed link to this article. Also the name "timeline" is also misleading, for it isn't one: I'd expect it to be more structured and show the times at which key things happened. Merely merging this 'timeline' article as it stands into Bloody Sunday is not an option, IMHO Billsmith60 (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- If it's a retelling, then it either needs to be blanked or deleted instead of merged, especially if it's a retelling from a single source. Wikipedia doesn't spin off articles like this for alternate tellings. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- In its current form, the article is just a paraphrasing of a biased/flawed legal document (Widgery Report) describing events of Bloody Sunday. If you feel its appropriate, nominate the article for deletion. OwlCritique (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Would it be possible, if it would suit everyone, if someone was to create a timeline, with reference to both trials, as-well as witness statements if possible? And then rename the current existing timeline to the Widgery trial and have another separate article for the saville report? It seems like it might solve most of the issues that you have been bringing up and it allows for a non-biased timeline to be merged into the article of discussion! Stephen.frecknall (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- A timeline (with specific tines) needs to be part of this article for sure. There is already an existing article for the Saville Inquiry, so as I've observed there should be one for the Widgery Tribunal. Why not charge ahead on this basis and let others know what you've come up with? Billsmith60 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- I've updated the Widgery Tribunal article to make into a substantive one. The "timeline" article issue remains and I recommend any valuable parts of it be incorporated into this (Bloody Sunday) article and it then be deleted. I may add a "deletion proposed" tag to it soon, now that the tribunal has its own stand-alone article Billsmith60 (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- Would it be possible, if it would suit everyone, if someone was to create a timeline, with reference to both trials, as-well as witness statements if possible? And then rename the current existing timeline to the Widgery trial and have another separate article for the saville report? It seems like it might solve most of the issues that you have been bringing up and it allows for a non-biased timeline to be merged into the article of discussion! Stephen.frecknall (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
- In its current form, the article is just a paraphrasing of a biased/flawed legal document (Widgery Report) describing events of Bloody Sunday. If you feel its appropriate, nominate the article for deletion. OwlCritique (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- Could you maybe elaborate on the rationale for keeping Timeline of Bloody Sunday (1972) as a standalone article, since it presents a one-sided account of events? I feel that an external link to the original source might be sufficient for readers who wish to explore that level of detail. OwlCritique (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
As noted on the "timeline" Talk page, I am going to propose that article for deletion shorty at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. I have incorporated into Bloody Sunday all useful bits of information from the "timeline" article. Since there is also now a satisfactory Widgery Tribunal article and because the "timeline" one relies almost exclusively on a single source (Widgery), it no longer performs any useful purpose. Users are welcome to add their opinion on the "articles for deletion" page Billsmith60 (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Soldier H and his 19 shots
I have removed the following text.
Soldier H, who fired the most bullets, claimed to have fired 19 separate shots at a gunman behind a frosted-glass window, but missed each time, and suggested all the bullets had gone through the same hole.[1]
References
- "Soldier admits 19 shots story is incredible". The Guardian. 7 October 2003. Archived from the original on 2 February 2023. Retrieved 31 January 2022.
Since it's from 2003 ot didn't belong where it was (in the Savile Report section, which obviously dates to 2010), and I'm wary of including more details in an earlier section. Obviously it's an interesting story that shows how soldiers may have been economical with the truth, but the issue is that a lof of things were reported on during the inquiry stage of Savile so are we really going to include everything? If Savile made a particularly relevant finding on Soldier H that was reported on that could possibly merit its inclusion. FDW777 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
John Johnston
I'd like to come to some kind of consensus on how to deal with John Johnston in the infdbox. In the lead and body it's dealt with my attributing his death to jhis injuries, despite the Saville finding. However the infobox doesn't do that at present, but it would appear somewhat difficult to downgrade him to the injured field. Any suggestions? FDW777 (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
- The official death toll has always been regarded as 13, with Johnston's death four months later being attributed to injuries from the day of the shooting. The infobox currently says "14 (13 immediate, one died four months later)" which looks ok.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
- I don't have any problem with the current infobox, but someone did, which led me to point out it doesn't make sense to say 13+1=13. So I started this discussion to see if there might be a way of taking into account the Saville Inquiry's conclusion regarding John Johnston. FDW777 (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)