Talk:Remembrance Day bombing

message: I have only ever heard this referred to as the Enniskillen bombing, and I propose moving the article there. Lapsed Pacifist 17:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the more common name is "Remembrance Day Bombing". I propose moving it again to that. Stu 13:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is specifically remembered for taking place on Remembrance Day, so I've moved it to "Remembrance Day Bombing". Stu 09:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "In reaction to the bombing, Bono the Irish rock band, U2, pausing during the singing of his famous protest song about the Troubles, "Sunday Bloody Sunday," to denounce the violence and the Irish-Americans supporting it with an ignorant romanticism."
Why is Wikipedia so full of garbled sentences and other detritus? 86.136.7.160 17:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: The introduction to the comment by Bono uses the following phrase (my emphasis added): In reaction to the bombing Bono [...] denounce[s] the violence and the Irish-Americans supporting it with an inspired romanticism, saying ...
I don't wish to change the words inspired romanticism (I see there was a revert war on this subject a few weeks ago), but I don't think they're appropriate here.  Surely these words, which do not form part of a quote, are POV, or am I missing something? --The.Q(t)(c) 10:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and I see they've been removed already by User:Java13690. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro to Bono's comment 

message: Bono's comment is not without interest, but it is out of place here. Would we want all major historical events to be marked by the comments of pop stars.90.16.41.171 07:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reactions to events in the Troubles are often included. And I feel it is worth including this one. Especially seeing as it is from a Nobel Prize nominee, during a protest song about the Troubles. Stu ’Bout ye! 22:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bono who?

message: The item referring to the UDR as the target is taken from the article at .   In it the two following sentences appear:
* A parade of UDR soldiers was on its way to the war memorial for the service when the bomb exploded. The IRA said that was its intended target. 
* Even if the UDR men had been there, they couldn't have been killed without killing civilians too. 
Confirming the IRA have stated that the UDR parade was the target.
GDD1000 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UDR Targets 

message: I have protected this page for two weeks, because of an edit war.
Please discuss any edits on this talk page and try to reach a consensus. If a consensus is reached, you can use  which will summon an admin to consider performing the edit.
And yes, I probably have protected The Wrong Version. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: It seems to me that there two answers to the question of "who was the target?" -- there is the IRA statement, and there other accounts which seem to be more specific. So why not report both versions? Why not say something like "The IRA said X, while Y and Z said the Target was ...".
Wikipedia is not obliged to take any organisation's own statement as gospel truth, and per WP:NPOV we should give due weight to the different accounts.  Isn't the NPOV solution here to report what the various commentators have said, and leave the reader to make up their own minds on which accounts they prefer? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with that and change the title of the item to "Was The UDR the Target".  I have however found another link to the New York Times and it seems to confirm that only UDR soldiers were present at the parade.  I also have a BBC video which shows a large number of UDR soldiers in parade dress assisting the wounded http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9b0deedb1031f93aa35752c1a961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all I would invite comments on their inclusion. GDD1000 (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No BHG I think your getting me wrong here, not when a source is obviously wrong. They report the false claim that the IRA had stated they targeted the UDR, which has been proven to be incorrect with a direct quote, so you're into fruit of the poisonous tree territory. The source clearly has a poor reputation for fact checking on this occasion, given that it has attributed a claim to the IRA which they never made. BigDunc (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon Dunc, first thing to remember is that the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, so we don't need to try uncover some sort of "absolute truth" here, and in fact we shouldn't. It's an interpretation of the rather vague IRA statement, and whether you or I agree with it is not the point. As long is it's clearly attributed, it can be included, and it should be. The IRA doesn't get the only statement on the subject, any more than a wikipedia article on Gibraltar should include only SAS statements. The IRA statement may be true, it may be false, it may be partially true ... we don't know and it is WP:OR to judge; all we can do is to both quote the IRA statement and quote commentary and reports. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok BHG thanks for your input but the section will need a substantial re-write. BigDuncTalk 07:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The source is not Suzanne Breen it is a report done by her on Denzil McDaniel – editor of Fermanagh's Impartial Reporter. No disrespect to Denzil but I dont imagine it is a hotbed of journalism, and was done to promote a book he has wrote on the subject. BigDuncTalk 08:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I have already said as much to BHG lets get this page unlocked so we can re-write the Target section to include the IRA statement. BigDuncTalk 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, verifiability is important. Which is why we should not use sources that are verifiably wrong. This is not a case of taking the IRA's word over another source, it is that the other source is clearly wrong. Let us examine what the IRA's statement actually said - "aimed at catching Crown forces personnel on patrol in connection with the Remembrance Day service but not during it". Now let us examine what the other source claims they said - "A parade of UDR soldiers was on its way to the war memorial for the service when the bomb exploded. The IRA said that was its intended target." Much has been made about the UDR soldiers being an honour guard or colour party, therefore they do not fit the statement in any way at all. The IRA never, ever said the UDR was the intended target, read the actual statement. Therefore while verifability is important, this is an encyclopedia and we should not include the mistaken beliefs and sloppy research of journalists especially when they are contradicted by the actual facts of what was said. On top of that we are still being taken off course by the editor that refuses to follow policy. Does anyone actually think it will be possible to find online details of movements of British Army soldiers on a particular day in 1987? Not particularly likely is it? Therefore simply because there is an absence of them means nothing. The former UDR member claims a source that refutes Breen's comments are needed, well there is one. Her article attributes a claim to the IRA that they never made. Facts are more important than opinion, and the fact is the IRA's statement says the bomb was "aimed at catching Crown forces personnel on patrol in connection with the Remembrance Day service but not during it" not what she said. She cannot get basis facts right can she? If you want to quote parts of WP:V how about the part about reputation for fact checking and accuracy? As shown, the facts are wrong. It is not a case of "x says the target was this" versus "y says the target was this", it is "x says the target was this" and "y says x says the target was this" and y is wrong as proven by what x actually said. Domer48 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: The discussion above has not moved beyond an argument about only two sources: an IRA statement and a newspaper article about a book, and both are inadequate sources. The IRA statement may be true, and it may just be what the IRA felt in convenient to say at the time, and the newspaper article is review of book — it would be better to see what the book itself has to say on the matter, rather than relying on a review of it.
Additionally, there must have been acres of newsprint used in coverage of this issue, as well as plenty of statements, whether by Republican sources or N.Irish security sources or the British government. It seems quite inadequate that this discussion consists only of picking over the details of two short items from the hundreds which must exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Breen's article carefully. It says "A parade of UDR soldiers was on its way to the war memorial for the service when the bomb exploded. The IRA said that was its intended target." It does not say "An IRA source said" or "IRA sources say, it says "The IRA" and "The IRA"'s statement does not say what she claims it does. Let us stick to the facts of what were said, not the meanderings of journalists who are demostrably wrong. She cannot speak for the IRA when the IRA contradict her.--Domer48 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: For the umpteenth time Breen does not assert that. She asserts the IRA said that, and it is contradicted by what the IRA actually  said in addition to other secondary sources. Domer48 (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An observation 

message: I've made some changes.  Can we have a new list of outsranding issues please?  We're making some progress.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So is there consensus to request the article be replaced by what is on my userspace?Traditional unionist (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I have addressed them systematically, you have not come back to me with anything further.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, didn;t see your comment of the 11th, will address that now.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvements 

message: "Remembrance Day Massacre" seems to be a very rarely used name for the event, especially compared to "Remembrance Day Bombing". It probably could be in the article, but it's certainly not a name that should be in the lead. Domer48 (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually an event that has several names, but Enniskillen Massacre seems to be the most popular from the research I've done.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're developing a very strange intrepretation of WP:OR.  It is referenced.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: TU you assert that one name is more common than another. You may be right, but where's the evidence? A reference for one or two instances of one or other name merely establishes that the name has been used, not which name is more common. Neither you nor Domer have offered any evidence for your positions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I offered evidence two days ago.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was evidence of the usage of one name. The question here is comparing which is the most common usage, and that requires evidence which compares the extent of usage of all the possible names ... and so far, nobody in this discussion has offered any such evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight in lead

message: I'm not an expert on U2, but as far as I know the band did not start doing the "vamp" in the middle of the song to protest the violence "in reaction to the bombing". They were already doing it prior to this. See Sunday_Bloody_Sunday_(song)#Live_performances. Maeglin (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's true then the whole lot should be taken out of this article.  There's a world of difference between a "spontaneous outpouring of emotion" quote and an "Outrage of the Week" quote.  Scolaire (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sunday Bloody Sunday

message: I added these to be helpful, due to embellishments being present. Will editors removing them please make sure sentences are properly sourced, and there is no original research present. Also at what part of the documentary (assuming those words are said in it) are those words spoken? Domer48 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The very beginning from memory.  Part of the introduction.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the first tag is not valid as it is a direct quote from the documentary.  The second is a quote from the third line of the source given.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags re-added

message: I've been watching the documentary and I can't see how the previous sentence was properly sourced. Please provide exact quotes that support the wording, and a rough time they appear in the show please. BigDuncTalk 17:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal from lead 

message: There are objections (noted by reverts with cursory edit comments) to the addition of this article to a category regarding massacres. As no discussion has taken place, I would like to request comments on the issue. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Been discussed before, see Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive19. That you think the sky being blue is the same as an unsourced POV label being applied to an event is quite telling. I'm not seeing any argument in favour of inclusion, merely the false assumption that it is up to others to justify why the category shouldn't be added. 2 lines of K303 15:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I requested more evidence in a related rfc here. Blue Rasberry 18:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Per both 2 lines of K and Bluerasberry. The assumption of bad faith and intensions should be addressed. --Domer48'fenian' 09:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Wasn't there an agreement that the massacres category was not to be used for ANY Troubles related incident? Short of deleting the stupid List of massacres article and all the stupid related categories, I think it's the best solution. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we have a centralised discussion about this on one article please? At the moment there's various points germane to the discussion as a whole on various different pages, which doesn't seem an ideal way of going about it. And yes Stu, well sort of. The consensus in the discussion linked above was not to use the category for Troubles related articles, with the exception of Greysteel massacre and Kingsmill massacre since those are universally known by those names. No opinion on whether Bloody Sunday should be in there or not, but I've got a rough idea of who added it. The whole "if that event was a massacre then this one was too" argument is a complete non-starter also. 2 lines of K303 13:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

text: This is a non-starter, since you are doing the comparing. If the massacre of civilians, whether intentional or not, must be in these categories or related ones I look forward to you adding :Category:Massacres in Germany to Bombing of Dresden in World War II and Bombing of Dresden in World War II. Or are 20,000+ deaths not a massacre while 11 deaths are? 2 lines of K303 15:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category addition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Remembrance Day bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071120075202/http://www.entemp.ie/press/2001/180901.htm to http://www.entemp.ie/press/2001/180901.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified