Talk:Ballymurphy massacre

John McKerr

The Sutton Index of Deaths on CAIN (widely regarded as a reliable source) states that John McKerr was shot by unknown attackers (not the Brits) as he stood outside the Catholic church. It also states that a gunfight took place on August 9th. Why, User:Vintagekits, am I being prevented from correcting this? ~Asarlaí 17:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Its all the other shit that you are adding at the same time that I have a problem wiv!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't have a problem with that then why did you remove it? Also, what's "all the other shit"? ~Asarlaí 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I hightlight the issues in my edit summary - "all the other shit" is "all the other shit" you added along with the change you outlined above.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I added that shots were fired in Ballymurphy on August 9th (source), that John McKerr was shot by an unknown attacker (source), and that Ballymurphy is a mainly republican area (obvious). What's the problem? ~Asarlaí 19:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Which source says his death was part of the Ballymurphy Massacre? O Fenian (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No point asking me. I'm not the one who painted the mural, printed the posters, or made this article about it. I just corrected a couple of errors (that he was shot by "unknowns" rather than the Brits). ~Asarlaí 19:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Victims list

Every time discussions about victims lists have come up, the general consensus has always been that they add no encyclopedic information. They don't help the reader to understand the event, they serve no purpose. But rather than removing the victims list here, I would first like to ask if anyone can provide a justification for retaining it?--Oneill1921 (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Oneill1921

This incident is different to others in that it has not yet been acknowledged by the authorities. In the case of Bloody Sunday, for example, the facts are now undisputed, 14 innocent civilians were shot dead by the British army, so it could be argued that there is no need to list the individual victims and the circumstances of each death. However, in the Ballymurphy case, there has been no serious official enquiry into the matter, no acknowledgement of guilt (on either side), so the readers themselves are forced to make up their own minds by examining the details of each killing. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

From a precedence point of view, it is not "different" to others in the Massacre section both in a N.Irish and a wider world context- in plenty of cases are the "facts" not yet acknowledged by the perpetrators. That on its own therefore is not a justification for listing the victims- the question to be asked is does the listing of the names meet Wikuipedia guidelines on memorials and as it does not, does it alternatively add anything to the understanding of the event? The answer to that is "no". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneill1921 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You are being very inconsistent. Since your memorial section in Kingsmill massacre was removed, you have started a campaign to have names of Catholic massacre victims removed from Wikipedia articles. See WP:POINT. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No, as you will notice I have not unilaterally removed the victims' names. Indeed, as I am aware that every victim of these massacres was a human-being and most probably still have family, work colleagues and friends, I believe it would be extremely insensitive of me to remove those names. That sensitivity is lacked by those who appear to be operating a "hieracrhy of victimhood" on Wikipedia. I have merely asked for the justification of their inclusion in light of what has been argued elsewhere. There is a policy of "neutral point of view" on Wikipedia- I think that is necessary for the record of historical events to be of any historical worth. Furthermore, I believe that a "Catholic" victim is no more or less a victim than a "protestant" one- that, unfortunately appears not to be the belief of several of those who are dealing with N.Irish based entries. The inconsistency and indeed, moral ambivalence towards how some victims met their end is not mine. --Oneill1921 (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Oneill1921

That is way more than a list of names. It was not simply one incident, but a number of individual incidents. Each person killed in different circumstances. Agree with Rwxrwxrwx in regards to the nature of the discussion.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No,it isn't "way more than a list of names"; it remains merely a list of names and lists of names in this case have added absolutely no encyclopaedic information or value to the article. The allegation they were killed in "different circumstances" is immaterial; if they are listed under the collective title of the "Ballymurphy Massacre". Perhaps if you created individual pages for each victim the you would have more of a case?--Oneill1921 (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Oneill1921

The "allegation" they were killed under different circumstances? More inane nonsense! Read the article and stop wasting time.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read my main point again: "it remains merely a list of names and lists of names in this case have added absolutely no encyclopaedic information or value to the article"- you, once again have not answered that point. I won't remove the names of massacre victims as I believe, notwithstanding Wikipedia guidelines, it displays crass insensitivity--Oneill1921 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Oneill1921

So you have memorialised the list of victims exactly what WP:NOT says, if the removal of the text "displays crass insensitivity" Mo ainm~Talk 21:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to add a third party point of view. An encyclopedia lists facts, and those facts include the names of people killed in the events that comprise The Troubles. While I in no way claim to be an expert on Northern Ireland, I believe that in matters such as the topic of this article, ALL fatalities should be listed, including the facts surrounding each death. In the case of Ballymurphy, historical interest would indicate that this would include dead on both sides of the event. If you simply state "X number of people died in a shooting/massacre," it is not too terribly useful. For what it is worth, I would argue in favor of listing the names of the dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.209.67 (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Ballymurphy Massacre → Ballymurphy massacre – Sentence case as recommended by WP:NCCAPS. Article title was originally ‘Ballymurphy massacre' but was renamed, apparently without explanation, soon after creation. Cannot be moved without intervention due to history (redirect categorisation) in the original page, but the name may be controversial anyway. Most sources that use the name appear to use lower-case ‘massacre’, eg Belfast Telegraph, Guardian/Observer, UTV. Some sources treat it as a proper name and use upper-case ‘Massacre’, eg Morning Star. The BBC uses both forms (lower case example, upper case example) but mostly doesn't use the word ‘massacre’. The campaigning website ballymurphymassacre.com uses upper-case ‘Massacre’, even in phrases like ‘The Massacre’. Lower case appears to be consistent with most similarly-named Wikipedia articles, eg Loughinisland massacre, Greysteel massacre, Kingsmill massacre. Andy Smith (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Works for me Concur for the reasons outlined and per apparent convention evident in list of events named massacres (capital "M" normally only used where massacre is first word in label). Guliolopez (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Skull ashtray

since this is making the rounds in the media is it relevant to bring up the skull ashtray — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.23.250 (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Making rounds in the media hardly suffices Wikipedia protocols and standards for the additional of information, especially highly dubious and controversial statements. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Unknown sniper

User:Guliolopez, i couldn't remember where I had seen "unknown sniper", I remembered it as being a journalistic source and remembered it as ALSO being clear that the term simply was being used to mean "gunman at a distance" and thus excluding neither army nor paramilitary - that was the sense in which I used it, although I understand it might inadvertently imply either paramilitary or soldier deliberately placed to kill people.

In fact CAIN uses "unknown sniper", though I am not wedded to the term if another way of describing WHY it is and was a problem to identify who was responsible - the distance largely. I don't object either to your new wording, there is a balance here between recording the 'widely-held views', while giving precedence to the latest inquest verdict, ie not trying to re-try or cast doubt on the inquest evidence or verdict. Pincrete (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pincrete. Thanks for your note.

RE: "unknown sniper". OK. Agreed. While the reader is left to determine (from context) which victim is being discussed, I note that the 2014 Guardian article (also) refers to an "unidentified sniper, possibly a soldier".

RE: "updated wording". OK. While I am also OK with the updated wording order, I wonder if there is scope for a note on the coroner's criticism of the lack of investigation into McKerr's death. Otherwise, as noted, while the coroner was unable to concretely determine (effectively because of this investigative failing) who was responsible, it is clear (from today's apology and inclusion of McKerr in that apology) that the UK government accepts that the army was accountable for his death.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

While I largely agree with the thrust of what you are saying, bits of it are pure WP:SYNTH. I don't object to a weighted inclusion of any of the coroner's comments, on this or other matters - but inferring why it wasn't possible to determine responsibility, or why BoJo included McKerr in today's 'apology' is a step too far. Apologies are cheap unfortunately. Pincrete (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pincrete. With thanks for your follow-up, and while I may be misreading the intent (and which "bits" of my comment you are labelling as "pure SYNTH"), I might note that:

1. WP:SYNTH is a policy which applies to article content. Not to talk pages or other discussions which evaluate article sources and their application to content. ("[the] policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources")
2. Even if SYNTH did apply to talk page discussions, I am not arguing (now or previously) that "BoJo said 'sorry' for McKerr's death, therefore the army must have shot McKerr, therefore the content should state as much". And have made no content changes (and not proposed any content changes) to that effect. I am simply raising the apology in the context of the coroner's ruling.
3. I am however suggesting that we consider adding text which reflects the coroner's statement that the investigative failings were, to use your own term, "why it wasn't possible to determine responsibility". I suggest as much because the coroner did state in her ruling why (in her view) it wasn't possible to determine responsibility. Statements which are reflected in several sources. Not least the:

• BBC ("she was unable to determine who killed the 10th victim - John McKerr - in large part because of the "abject failing" of authorities to investigate at the time")
• Irish Times ("It was impossible in this case to say where any shots may have come from as {..} Mrs Justice Keegan was 'hampered by the inadequacy of the investigation {into the killing} at the time'.")
• Belfast Telegraph ("It is shocking that there was no real investigation into the death of this man at the time {..} This abject failing by the authorities to properly inquire into the death of a civilian {McKerr} on the streets has hampered me greatly")

Reflecting the coroner's quoted statements would not be an inference by me/us. If content like this were added, it would be expressly supported/stated by the sources. It would not be "pure SYNTH". Guliolopez (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I was referring to the talk page comments, and more specifically any idea that the 'wider apology' from Downing St means anything, not to any content in the article at present. Secondly while all sources are clear that the 'unknown sniper' could very well been a soldier, and I have no objection whatsoever to inclusion of the coroner's comments - weighted and proportionate to other comments, I think there is a fine line between that and 're-trying' the evidence of the inquest. It's a documented fact that many close to the event itself are clear in their own minds about who the 'sniper' was, just as it is well documented that authorities have hardly pursued the matter with vigour since day one. Pincrete (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. Given the above ("I have no objection whatsoever to inclusion of the coroner's comments"), I have added a note to clarify (in the coroner's own words and w/refs) why she felt it was not possible to make a more specific finding in relation to McKerr's death. While I believe this addition is "weighted and proportionate to other comments]]", and feel that it flows better at the end of that bulleted paragraph, if there is consensus/concern that this placement constitutes a "re-trying" of the inquest, I would be OK seeing it moved earlier in the section. I do think its inclusion is relevant and represents due weight. Not least as the judge felt it worth a frank inclusion in the findings/report itself. Guliolopez (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Context: focus on nationalist paramilitaries

Pincrete, re: this edit, I added that detail in yesterday – it's essentially a rewritten lift of the contextual introduction that the Guardian's article provides (3rd para). I felt it added useful information for readers coming to this article directly (rather than from other articles on the Troubles) as it helps set out the context of republican grievances about unfair treatment in the operation, which I think is relevant and important context to the event. I disagree with the removal, but I don't feel strongly enough to revert if you see things differently, I just thought I'd explain my rationale for its inclusion and see what your take is. As an aside, I was conflicted about adding a mention of the destruction of homes and "thousands" of refugees produced by the operation – which the Guardian also mentions – as I felt that it conveyed the disorderly, violent nature of the operation, but I ultimately opted to exclude it as I thought it was more to do with the aftermath of the broader operation than the narrower scope of this article. Jr8825 • Talk 13:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. RE: "I disagree with the removal". I also disagree with the removal. RE: "I don't feel strongly enough to restore". I do feel strongly enough to restore the text. And have restored it. As noted, this text is accurately reflective of the source and provides additional context for the sentence that immediately follows. Guliolopez (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I support inclusion in some form. The one-sided nature of internment was a key part of nationalist anger, which obviously were a key factor in the events of 9 August onwards. FDW777 (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't in the slightest questioning that internment was seen as being many things, one-sided/ legally dubious/ inflammatory/ counter-productive etc. and would expect to see all those responses covered in an article about internment, I simply didn't feel it was helpful or necessary or 'sat naturally' in this article. But if others disagree, so be it. Pincrete (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)