Talk:Bloody Bill Cunningham

[Untitled]
This source has undergone significant changes and the sources used in its creation have been properly cited. There are no more copyright violations — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevwarAD (talk • contribs) 01:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Biased point of view
This article exhibits a biased point of view right from the title. I can accept that "Bloody Bill" is a name that has been applied to Cunningham, but using it as the title passes an immediate judgement on the person. I think the article should be entitled simply William Cunningham. However, since there are several people by that name it should be William Cunningham (loyalist militia leader).

It can be stated in the first paragraph that some people refer to him as "Bloody Bill" (but be prepared to say who and when). Saying that he "earned" the nickname again indicates a point of view versus simply saying he was called that or known to some people by that name.

There are plenty of weasel words:
 * he was "represented as" rather than simply he was a lively honest person,
 * he "claimed" to have been promised a promotion,
 * His family were loyal to "the British", not "the King"
 * The word "massacre" is used freely often without justification, and "mass murder" is added
 * The rebels were "rounded up for slaughter"
 * Hayes station was "his next butchering"

Another example: While Butler offered to surrender, a "potshot" killed one of the loyalists. It is made to sound like an accident when someone's peashooter went off. It should say clearly that one of the patriots shot and killed a loyalist while surrender was under discussion.

The sources in the article don't give an impression of neutrality. Cunningham might have been a war criminal. But we don't have to be sneaky about it. Just state the facts and back them up. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 08:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thomson v. Thompson.
William Thomson was leader in SC 3rd not William Thompson. 164.153.60.173 (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)