Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972)

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)

I'm not convinced we need the ongoing daily updates. FDW777 (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I suspect (as implied by ianmacm below) that once things wrap up/settle down it can either be pared down (significantly) or split. I can wait. Primefac (talk) 09:17, 2 October 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)

Until the status quo changes, then... no. A page split will not magically change the consensus here not to include the name. Primefac (talk) 21:21, 9 November 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. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮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)

"G. Donaghy" surname

This may be an old question, but Gerry D's parents' gravestone (Charles and Rebecca) says "Donaghey" and he is listed there as "Gerald" (see his Talk page for source). Hence is he "Gerald/Gerard" "Donaghey/Donaghy"? Billsmith60 (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Both Gerald and Gerard are commonly used in references, same for the surname. FDW777 (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

True, but that does not move my query on: should not the boy's name be spelt correctly? Billsmith60 (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Correctly according to who though? For example the highly regarded Eyewitness Bloody Sunday by Don Mullan gives his name as Gerard Donaghy (even in the recently published 25th anniversary edition), and it's not an outlier. FDW777 (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Err, as noted, the family gravestone Billsmith60 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Is that what most reliable sources are consistently using? It is rather uncommon, but not rare or unknown, for children to have different surname spellings to their parents. We need reliable sources about his surname, not his parents. Canterbury Tail talk 15:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I assume you mean in the same way Michael Collins gravestone has his birth date wrong? FDW777 (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Nope. A birth date on a tombstone can never be definitive. Moreover, that is a state, not a family plot, unlike the Donaghey one in Derry. Are you claiming that the Donagheys got their own name wrong? I cannot understand your flippant attitude to this question and won't be engaging in endless debate about it Billsmith60 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

A gravestone that states their parents name is not a reliable source for how their surname was. You came to the talk page for a consensus (thank you for that), but it's quite clear consensus has not been reached. And the parents wouldn't have gotten their name wrong, as they didn't make the gravestone and were in fact dead at the time. There are plenty of examples of family with differently spelled surnames, otherwise surnames wouldn't evolve and change over time. Transcription issues on birth certificates that no one noticed and become official etc. Canterbury Tail talk 22:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Also where did you get that photo of the gravestone? It's a different gravestone to what is detailed as being at the grave. Canterbury Tail talk 23:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

What I think (confidently, but of course it would be original research) is that this victim was called "Gerry Donaghy" in everyday parlance, as would be the case in Derry city and elsewhere. Hence, with "Gerard" being far more common than "Gerald" in NI, it was assumed that the diminutive "Gerry" must be "Gerard", when I believe that is not the case and that "Gerald" is correct. The same goes for the surname: Donaghy is much more common than Donaghey, although less so than with Gerard/Gerald. In addition to the original gravestone photo and evidence from the Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday, which support my view that the correct name is "Gerald Donaghey", please note the following. I really have no axe to grind here, merely wishing this article to be correct in naming this victim.

1. https://museumoffreederry.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Family-statement-Jan-2012.pdf: The Bloody Sunday Trust:. 2012 statement from Bloody Sunday families on the Bloody Sunday March (p. 3): "Gerald Donaghey – represented by Geraldine Donaghey".

2. https://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/victims/memorials/photos/Derry/Rossville_St/BS_Monument/lrg/DER07MEM_BS_Mon_Rossville_St_0122.JPG Bloody Sunday memorial: "Gerald V. Donaghey".

3. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/17620064/gerald-vincent-donaghey#view-photo=9352175 New headstone in Derry City cemetery, mounted by the brothers or sisters of the victim: "In memory of our dear parents Charles Donaghey … Rebecca Donaghey … their son Gerald". [I accept that find a grave is not regarded as a reliable source…]

4. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-18454782 BBC: "Gerald Donaghey ..."

5. https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/images/photos/bsunday/donaghy.htm Cain web service: "Photograph of Gerald Donaghy, killed on 'Bloody Sunday', 30 January 1972" Billsmith60 (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree about the need for consensus at all times and that none has been reached. The fact that the Saville Inquiry also has 'Gerald Donaghey' is further evidence that 'Gerard Donaghy' is wrong. As regards the gravestone: the victim's parents died some time apart. If the surviving parent did not arrange the headstone then a close family member surely did so – evidence that they know the correct name. Anyhow, I'll dig further. Cheers Billsmith60 (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Query again, where did you get thet photo as it seems to be different to what is detail as being the grave in any other photos. For the record, I believe you're correct, we just need to have it backed up. Canterbury Tail talk 12:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, my updated post above missed yours by a couple of seconds Billsmith60 (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gerald Donaghey gravestone.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Bloody Sunday (1972) Template:Arrow Timeline of Bloody Sunday (1972)

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)