Talk:Remembrance Day bombing

Move
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)
 * 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)

I disagree with your assertion. I tried a quick Google test with both terms, which seemed to prove you right, but many of the results turned out to be spurious. So I'm at a loss as to how to find out for sure. Lapsed Pacifist 00:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll support that move... Massacre seemed POV in my view - JVG 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

ive only ever heard of this as the enniskillen bombing too. google has 419 pages calling it what this page is called and 38900 calling it the enniskillen bombing.

That's incorrect. A specific phrase search for "Remembrance Day Bombing" returns 502 results:. A few more if you take common spelling mistakes into consideration. A specific search for "Enniskillen Bombing" returns 659. "Enniskillen Bombing" is a far more general term, and will include other bombings that occured in the town. Stu  ’Bout ye!  09:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Remembrance Sunday Bombing, as that's when it actually happened. Remembrance Day refers specifically to 11 November. Also, the following sentence has no source and doesn't even make sense:


 * "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)


 * That piece of POV is easily solved by quoting directly from a reliable source's transcript of U2's remarks and citing the source. -- I sl a y So lo mo n  |  t a l k  09:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro to Bono's comment
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)
 * Agree, and I see they've been removed already by User:Java13690. Stu   ’Bout ye!  15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Bono who?
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)
 * 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)

UDR Targets
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)

Protected
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 editprotected which will summon an admin to consider performing the edit.

And yes, I probably have protected The Wrong Version. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page that's debatable but there is mediatioon going on which includes the link which is being challenged. When one is resolved, so will the other. GDD1000 (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

work
I've done some work on this which can be found here. Comments welcome.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have the actual source, and it proves them wrong. Richard English "Armed Struggle" p 255. The IRA's statement says "Crown Forces" not UDR, therefore the UDR target was never admitted.

Please remove the following unsourced information and original research from "The Target" section, as discussed above.

"The Bomb was intended to kill Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers who were parading to the memorial."


 * The source 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.'."


 * From WP:NOR - Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. Now there is three ways of reading this in relation to who or what the target was, 1) was the UDR, 2)was the cenotaph and 3) was the parade, its open to interperatation, so it can not be used. However  "Crown Forces" can, and should replace the "UDR."--Domer48 (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is incredulous. The fact that the UDR was the target is sourced by more than one reference!  Why you are dieing in a ditch over this is difficult to fathom.  It is cited and verified.Traditional unionist (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In anycase, the fact that it was a military parade that was the target proves it was the UDR, as the UDR were the only soldiers on parade that day.Traditional unionist (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment and opinion, provide a source which states this in a clear or consistent way. I will not enter into pointless discussion unless you provide a source which supports you comments. --Domer48 (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "The calculation was taken as to the number of casualties they could inflict on the civilian population against the number of casualties they could inflict on members of the security forces. And they decided that the risk was worth taking, ." Possibly best to change that to soldiers/security forces/whatever, with some detail on the civilian deaths being collateral, but that no members of the security forces were killed. Have you read over the changes I've made on my userspace?Traditional unionist (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We both agree then that "The Bomb was intended to kill Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers who were parading to the memorial." Is not supported by the source, and yes an alternative to "UDR" should be used. I have no problem with "Crown Forces," and we have the source there to cite it. I have read the changes on your user page. --Domer48 (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The source provided clearly says the UDR were the target. It would be reasonable to include the Armed Struggle quote as well to show the differences of opinion between the two writers but it would have to be qualified by pointing out that the UDR were the only soldiers on parade. Unless you can find another quote which lists other servicemen as being present in the form of an honour guard. If however these are territorial, then the target would still be the UDR as TA soldiers were not considered targets by the IRA due to their non-involvment in the IS situation. I should point out as well that there are photgraphs of UDR soldiers in parade uniform at the scene, whereas there are no photographs of any other regiment.GDD1000 (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ for now, for want of consensus. It's not BLP, so the assumption is for the status quo per The Wrong Version. Happy‑melon 11:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As this item is also being discussed on the Ulster Defence Regiment page I believe concensus can be found - eventually. I am happy to leave the situation here, as is, until agreement can be reached.GDD1000 (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the opinion expressed by some newspaper journalist, the IRA has never stated the UDR were the target. The statement actually said it was "aimed at catching Crown forces personnel on patrol in connection with the Remembrance Day service but not during it" Therefore it's a huge leap of logic to claim the UDR were the target, as a UDR parade is nowhere near the same as Crown forces personnel on patrol. S with regard to the actual statement the IRA never said the UDR were the target, so the journalist has made it up out of thin air. BigDunc (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Where does this "on patrol" come from. That is an opinion from another journalist, so which jouranlist is correct. My source is the Sunday Tribune. The words were in print. You can disagree all you want but it's a verifiable source and complies with policy. Notwithstanding that, there's no reason why another source which contradicts it cannot be included.GDD1000 (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a direct quote from the IRA statement FACT, not an interpretation of some journalist  OPINION do you see the difference here? BigDunc (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do. I also see that the Sunday Tribune have stated it was the UDR who were the target. Does that make them wrong? I have also seen photographs (and have some in my possession) of various people treating the wounded. I see the RUC, I see the UDR in "parade uniform" and I see civilian bandsmen - no-one in combat uniform. I also have links which show the proximity of the bomb to the cenotaph with opinions that it was the area around the memorial which was the target. It's obvious the company of UDR who were on the parade were the target because no other military unit was in Enniskillen in the strength to provide those numbers. You just don't want to admit it. You have claimed neutrality on this in the past but I respectfully submit that, as a member of an Irish Republican interest group, you are allowing your conflict of interest to prejudice your view on this. GDD1000 (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * At last finally we are getting somewhere, so you have links that say the cenotaph was the target are they wrong? Have you just found a dispute to the target? All I can see in the Tribune article is an ambiguous statement regarding the intended target. I have given you a direct link to what the IRA said was the target not your WP:OR or the mistake of some reporter. BigDunc (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And another thing regarding WP:COI. I'm also doing a degree in computer science and am a member of Wikiproject Computing suppose I better tell them I have a COI there too. Before you accuse someone of having a COI please read the guidlines on it would you. BigDunc (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It comes down to the same thing. Suzanne Breen is not a fool and I see no-one contesting her report, except you and Domer48. She has firmly and unequivocably said that the UDR were the target. The UDR are Crown Forces and there is no evidence to show there were any other units in the area before the bomb went off. Photographs of the immediate aftermath clearly show UDR soldiers in parade dress assisting the wounded. No evidence of any other unit. A search of the internet has not even yielded anecdotal evidence of another unit being in Enniskillen that day although it has provided proof that all troops in the area came under the command of 4UDR in Enniskillen as part of the Ulsterisation process. As for COI. I believe you and Domer48 have, on several occasions used my membership of the UDR as a basis for COI. If you have an interest in Republicanism it would indicate a support for Republicanism, which is most definitely a conflict of interest when it comes to discussing Crown Forces in the Northern Ireland Troubles. Computer studies isn't. I am making no judgement on you (or Domer48) personally. In my opinion everyone is entitled to their views and passions. As I have said in the past however, it doesn't matter how neutral one tries to be, there will always be a little prejudice in favour of one's own opinions. I accept that - so should you. In this case I am, not being prejudiced. The information is there. Crown Forces+Colour Party=UDR. Unless you can find a statement which is equally definite and says it WASN'T the UDR? GDD1000 (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion
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? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok BHG thanks for your input but the section will need a substantial re-write. BigDunc  Talk 07:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you like me to do the rewrite then review it here? Or would you prefer to do it?GDD1000 (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The source is Suzanne Breen. The Northern (Irish) Editor of the Sunday Tribune. Someone I would consider to be a reliable source and an authority on the subject. Have you found anyone refuting her statement anywhere? I think not. A good, reliable, verifiable source which complies with policy.GDD1000 (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. BigDunc  Talk 08:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So she did a report and she's not the author/source? Come on BigDunc, no disrespect but that's a very flimsy premise. It doesn't matter either what your impression of the editor of a regional newspaper is. These publications play a very important part in reflecting local opinion on a wide variety of subjects. If the editor wrote a book then I would consider it a pretty informed source too. I may, as I'm sure you would, take some of his theories with a pinch of salt, but I do (as I'm sure you do) feel the same about Peter Taylor or anyone else who has set themselves up as an expert on Irish affairs. However, the fact remains, as BHG has pointed out that this information is there as verifiable and it would be a whole lot better for all of us if you would just agree to its inclusion and then move on to other articles. You may have crossed swords (metaphorically) with me over THIS item and the UDR one but that doesn't mean we can't collaborate on other Irish matters. I too have a strong interest in Republicanism and you may find my views eye-opening. Let's just get this over with shall we?GDD1000 (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. BigDunc  Talk 11:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems we may still have an issue with Domer48's opinion - see below. GDD1000 (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"I also see that the Sunday Tribune have stated it was the UDR who were the target" - wrong. The Sunday Tribune stated that the IRA said the UDR were the target, but Richard English and the direct quote from the IRA statement prove this is untrue, the IRA said no such thing.--Domer48 (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It has already been established that the Sunday Tribune quote is verifiable and that the object of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Are you now suggesting that Wikipedia policy should be brushed aside?GDD1000 (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Firstly sir, let's get something very clear. You have been asked before to act in a civil manner towards other editors. Civility is part of Wikipedia policy too but you seem to be discarding that bit because it doesn't suit you. Do not refer to me disrespectfully as "the former UDR member". This is not Stormont! Secondly: you don't know what Suzanne Breen's sources were ergo you can't speak for her. Suffice to say that no evidence exists to challenge her claim that the UDR were the target, therefore her article in the Sunday Tribune stands as verifiable. We are moving towards a concensus here and I respectfully request you muck in and help instead of allowing your own COI to drive you on this. Do we have a deal?GDD1000 (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An observation
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 &mdash; 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly spent a lot of time searching and can't find anything of use. Of course that could be down to my inexperience. The only things I can find are pictures and a video, both of the immediate aftermath, which shows quite a lot of UDR soldiers in parade uniform running towards the scene, (confirmed by an item in the New York Times) along with a few policemen and some civilians in band uniform. I can find plenty of references to the location of the bomb, its close proximity to the cenotaph and reports from the police which indicate the building wasn't searched because of strained relations with the RC church who claimed they were being victimised. These reports (verifiable) also contain statements from the night watchmen in the church property claiming to have heard the bomb being planted the night before. They also contain information confirming the bomb was on a timing device rather than being set off by radio control. I have also got separate documents which confirm that, post Ulsterisation, 4 UDR was in command of all troops in the area and that the nearest regular unit was at St Angelo airfield. I haven't checked the article to see if any of these items are duplicated there. I'm also wary of introducing anything else which may be contentious. I'm of a mind, once this particular issue is resolved to let sleeping dogs lie.GDD1000 (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

As has already been pointed out, policy requires the link to be verifiable, not true. I totally agree that we shouldn't edit in untruths, especially not on such a contentious issue. I find it perfectly reasonable however that the UDR were the target as asserted by Breen.GDD1000 (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

You should be a politician you know? You just can't admit to anything! I'm sure they'd find a place for you in Stormont.GDD1000 (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Work (again)
Could we perhaps have some discussion on this please? I'd like to have concensus and then have the articvle imporved.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I love the way you've done it. I think it's an excellent piece although I think to keep within the concensus agreed here you'd need to preface the words "The bomb was intended to kill Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers who were parading to the memorial" with "It has been alleged that" and then include the other link with the IRA statement that the bomb was intended to "kill a Crown Forces patrol".   If we had that then I for one would be content to leave the article alone until other relevant information comes to light.GDD1000 (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you give me a precise form of words?Traditional unionist (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"The IRA released a statement stating it was a "Crown Forces patrol" (link) who were the target but it has been alleged that the bomb was intended to kill Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers who were parading to the memorial"(link)GDD1000 (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * TU, a quick technical point. To make it easier for others to assess the sources you have used, please could you use the cite templates to format the references? I think that all of these refs could probably be done with cite news and cite web. The use of those templates lends a consistency to the references which make it very easy to see who was the author, where it was published and when. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm off to the pub in a mo, but I'll get onto that sometime tomorrow.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the proposed draft: That's just the tip of the iceberg. Like I said TU, I did read it. Domer48 (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Poppy day massacre - unsourced and may be undue weight in the lead
 * The bomb was intended to kill Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers who were parading to the memorial - see discussion above
 * The footage was shown on television stations throughout the world within hours showing the devastation caused by the bomb - unsourced
 * The bombing led to a public outcry in the Republic of Ireland, the UK, and elsewhere - unsourced
 * The Fermanagh Brigade of the IRA was stood down after what was one of the most horrific and brutal attacks of Northern Ireland's Troubles - unsourced, POV
 * The bombing also had a negative impact on Sinn Féin's electoral support. In 1989, in the first local elections held in Fermanagh after the bombing, it lost four of its eight council seats and was overtaken by the SDLP as the largest Nationalist party. It was not until 2001, 14 years after the Enniskillen bomb, that Sinn Féin support returned to its 1985 level - original research
 * Reactions section in general - too much of a quotefarm, summarise

Poppy day massacre - unsourced and may be undue weight in the lead I have no opinion on this. I'll go with the flow.

The bomb was intended to kill Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers who were parading to the memorial - see discussion above I've already suggested wording to replace this.

The footage was shown on television stations throughout the world within hours showing the devastation caused by the bomb - unsourced That can be sourced easily.

The bombing led to a public outcry in the Republic of Ireland, the UK, and elsewhere - unsourced Again, easily sourced. I've even seen the transcript of a debate in the Irish Senate on this.

The Fermanagh Brigade of the IRA was stood down after what was one of the most horrific and brutal attacks of Northern Ireland's Troubles - unsourced, POV Nope, this is true (from memory)I'm sure quotes can be found.

''The bombing also had a negative impact on Sinn Féin's electoral support. In 1989, in the first local elections held in Fermanagh after the bombing, it lost four of its eight council seats and was overtaken by the SDLP as the largest Nationalist party. It was not until 2001, 14 years after the Enniskillen bomb, that Sinn Féin support returned to its 1985 level - original research'' It's fact, I've seen this in various sources.

Reactions section in general - too much of a quotefarm, summarise Maybe but it's going to be worse with all these other quotes. I haven't been looking to change anything other than the targetting item I included. I'm only putting my opinion on the other stuff to be helpful. I can assist with quotes if necessary because I'll still have the searches in memory.GDD1000 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

unionist]] (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I love the way you've done it. I think it's an excellent piece although I think to keep within the concensus agreed here you'd need to preface the words "The bomb was intended to kill Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers who were parading to the memorial" with "It has been alleged that" and then include the other link with the IRA statement that the bomb was intended to "kill a Crown Forces patrol".   If we had that then I for one would be content to leave the article alone until other relevant information comes to light.GDD1000 (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you give me a precise form of words?Traditional unionist (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"The IRA released a statement stating it was a "Crown Forces patrol" (link) who were the target but it has been alleged that the bomb was intended to kill Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers who were parading to the memorial"(link)GDD1000 (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * TU, a quick technical point. To make it easier for others to assess the sources you have used, please could you use the cite templates to format the references? I think that all of these refs could probably be done with cite news and cite web. The use of those templates lends a consistency to the references which make it very easy to see who was the author, where it was published and when. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm off to the pub in a mo, but I'll get onto that sometime tomorrow.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Poppy day massacre - unsourced and may be undue weight in the lead
 * 


 * The bomb was intended to kill Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers who were parading to the memorial - see discussion above
 * I think we've delt with that, hopefully to satisfaction, but we'll come back to that.


 * The footage was shown on television stations throughout the world within hours showing the devastation caused by the bomb - unsourced
 * That does appear troublesome to source. I've had a quick look and not come up with anything.  Seems somewhat of a truism, but we'll see what GDD1000 comes up with on that.


 * The bombing led to a public outcry in the Republic of Ireland, the UK, and elsewhere - unsourced
 * Again, a trusim, but sourced adequatly from the Taylor documentary, I'll tag that.


 * The Fermanagh Brigade of the IRA was stood down after what was one of the most horrific and brutal attacks of Northern Ireland's Troubles - unsourced, POV
 * Needs reworded, but can be sourced as accurate.


 * The bombing also had a negative impact on Sinn Féin's electoral support. In 1989, in the first local elections held in Fermanagh after the bombing, it lost four of its eight council seats and was overtaken by the SDLP as the largest Nationalist party. It was not until 2001, 14 years after the Enniskillen bomb, that Sinn Féin support returned to its 1985 level - original research
 * Not OR. It's properly referenced from primary, reliable sources.


 * Reactions section in general - too much of a quotefarm, summarise
 * I would say it's needed to source your number 4 on this list.

Traditional unionist (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The TV footage is easy to source. There was an amateur cameraman there who captured the immediate aftermath and it was that footage which was broadcast round the world. The link to the footage from the BBC with an overlaid report is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/low/dates/stories/november/8/newsid_2515000/2515113.stm - there is also a link here which verifies at least one of your statements http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/8/newsid_2515000/2515113.stm - New Yorls Times link here http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4D9163FF936A25752C1A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all - Comments in the Irish Senate http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0117/S.0117.198711110003.html  Any of that any good to you?GDD1000 (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just picking up on one point here, TU's assertion that "The bombing also had a negative impact on Sinn Féin's electoral support". The fact that Sinn Fein's vote fell can be verified by electoral statistics, but the statistics do not explain why the vote fell. Linking cause and effect in this way is a classic case of synthesis, and a source is required for that analysis. TU actually half-acknowledges this when he notes that "referenced from primary, reliable sources"; what we need here are secondary sources to support the analysis. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do understand the difference, however I will point out that that is not my assertion. It's lifted right from the existing article.  I would also posit that there is no mention of a link.  Stating that the IRA murdered 11 people in 1987 and then stating that their electoral support declined subsequently is not OR unless you state one was the cause of the other.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is in your draft, it is still your assertion. You stated "is not OR unless you state one was the cause of the other", yet the sentence says "The bombing also had a negative impact on Sinn Féin's electoral support". That is very clear cut, it is OR.


 * Also in response to your other points. The target has not yet been adequately addressed, discussion is still happening. As usual with the request for a source for a "public outcry", anything you cannot provide a source for becomes a "trusim". Source please? "Needs reworded, but can be sourced as accurate" - why not provide a source then? I have just said it was unsourced and POV, so asserting there is a source is not very helpful, if one exists please provide it. "I would say it's needed to source your number 4 on this list" - I would suggest none of those quotes show there was a "public outcry", merely criticism from politicians. Now there are other points I will raise but lets just get this one out of the way first. Domer48 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Article improvements
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)

I've examined the piece and have no issues.GDD1000 (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

No, there is not consensus. Please address the many issues raised above. Domer48 (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have addressed them systematically, you have not come back to me with anything further.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, didn;t see your comment of the 11th, will address that now.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight in lead
"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)

I've heard and seen it referred to as the Remembrance Day Bombing/Massacre, the Poppy Day Bombing/Massacre and the Enniskillen Bombing/Massacre. I would not be able to shed any light on which one is the most popular nomenclature. I don't care what it says and won't object to it.GDD1000 (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Your origional research would have to be referenced.--Domer48 (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're developing a very strange intrepretation of WP:OR. It is referenced.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I offered evidence two days ago.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A recent BBC link gives it as the POPPY DAY BOMB GDD1000 (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

BBC also calls it the Enniskillen Massacre In fact the first four pages of a Google search for the terms are unambigous. Enniskillen Massacre seems to be a popular nomenclature.GDD1000 (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Blockquotes
As I'm sure Domer will confirm, I am not a fan of blockquotes. In this case particularly, a statement that "the bombing led to a public outcry in the Republic of Ireland, the UK, and elsewhere" is self-explanatory and verbatim quotes from the Dáil, the Seanad or the stage of a rock concert add precisely nothing. On a related issue, Template:Cquote specifically says that the cquote is not meant for this purpose: "NOTE: This template should not be used for block quotes in article text." (emphasis in original) Scolaire (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't have an issue with that but I think we're being drawn into looking for sources for virtually every word in the article. GDD1000 (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I almost agree entirely. Surely the Bono quote is notable in its entirity?Traditional unionist (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why a quote from a pop singer is more notable than quotes from men who were elected to speak for the people of Ireland, but if there is a consensus for Bono I won't press for its removal. Scolaire (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bono quote is remarkable in its own context and I would support its inclusion.GDD1000 (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The bono quote will have to go, he dose not speak on behalf of anyone. Why should his opinion have such WP:WEIGHT?
 * Definetly has to go he speaks for no one but his own egomaniacal self. BigDunc  Talk 13:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that very well be true, but his statement does seem to have a limited but identifiable notability.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that on that occasion at least, he was speaking for a large majority of people on this island. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 18:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The rest are gone, it has to go. --Domer48 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Converted it to a reference. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 19:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sunday Bloody Sunday
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). Maeglin (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

Tags re-added
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)
 * The very beginning from memory. Part of the introduction.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Removal from lead
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. BigDunc Talk 17:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Left in the one ref that actually says what is in the sentence. BigDunc Talk 18:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis
I agree with Domer48's removal. Two different sources were being combined to present a viewpoint not supported by either. One talked about the "Enniskillen calamity" in general terms, while the other says "This attack will shake the IRA to its core". Combining both together was synthesis. The aim should not be to include as many negative words in the lead as possible, so the argument that a particular word was sourced is meaningless especially with the synthesis. I welcome further discussion here. BigDunc Talk 19:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How is TU so sure here the documentary sources the wording in question when he says he was "Not being in possession of the documentary at that time"? The sourcing of wording has been challenged, once it's been challenged the burden of evidence goes over to you.


 * This edit - "The footage was shown on television stations throughout the world within hours showing the devastation caused by the bomb" is not sourced by "Amateur video footage of the aftermath of the explosion on November 8 1987 was broadcast internationally". Perhaps Domer should have amended the text first rather than tag it (but given TU's propensity for instantly reverting that's generally a bad idea), but he did it next. If that's the sort of sloppy sourcing that TU thinks is correct, it's quite valid that the wording above needs to be clarified. The citations were not valid, simple fact.


 * This edit by TU is very dubious. This source contains the text "This attack will shake the IRA to its core", and this source uses the phrase "Enniskillen calamity" in general terms. I would agree that it's an improper synthesis to merge the two sources together to replace "attack" with "calamity". I've watched the documentary, I never heard the phrase "key turning point", although I did hear "turning point" at least twice, but I may be mistaken. So assuming I'm right, why was "key" added back? Why was "because of the extreme and provocative nature of the attack", without addressing the disputed sourcing issues? Is it too much trouble to wait for a couple of days, before adding back disputed content?


 * In general, the simple fact that something can be sourced doesn't mean it has to go in the lead. TU complains that "but one that takes the unfavourable statement about the IRA away" is the ultimate in hypocrisy, given he is trying to add the most negative wording possible to the lead, despite it not even being in the main body of the article. I notice in the reactions section Gordon Wilson's famous interview isn't even mentioned, despite it being one of the most enduring from the Troubles. Yet people have found time to scour through parliamentary debates to find the most negative wording possible from as many people as possible, says it all really.


 * I don't see anything overtly disruptive here. The addition of tags for disputed content isn't disruptive. Finding neutral wording isn't disruptive. Attempting to create a balanced lead without including 8,000 adjectives isn't disruptive. The sourcing and synthesis issues are getting there, but as we all know, admins don't generally bother about content disputes as it's too much like hard work. 15 cans of Stella  303  00:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Content disputes are somewhat outside the scope of admin influence, its persistent behavioural problems underlying disputes over content that they can better address. Nonetheless, it is my opinion that merging content from two distinct sources like this is classic WP:SYN. If the content is accurate and relevant, it can be stated independently in the appropriate place (which isn't necessarily the lead). If it is not accurate, then it shouldn't be there. If there is dispute over the veracity of information in televisual sources and it can't be validated by a third party or supported by written sources, then it has to go. Rockpock  e  t  00:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there's even an element of synthesis within the same source, after another quick check. For example the article said "The bombing has been described as a key turning point in The Troubles, because of the extreme and provocative nature of the attack". I've heard it say "turning point on the long road to peace" (and a similar line, possibly "turning point in the Troubles"), and it also says "the target could hardly have been more provocative". However these quotes are isolated from each other, many minutes apart in fact, so linking the wording together with a "because" (ignoring the possible lack of sourcing for "extreme") is in itself synthesis, despite it being the same source. Unless the original source has made a cause-effect link, isolated quotes shouldn't be linked like that in my opinion. 15 cans of Stella  303  01:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair point and in the body we should be avoiding that sort of unsupported cause-and effect language. Though we have to balance that with the fact that the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Lets ask ourselves: if it was generally considered a "turning point" then we should explain why that was; what made this particular incident tip a balance? I'm guessing the reason was due to the rather provocative nature of bombing a war dead memorial. So yes, we have to be careful about implying cause-and-effect from a single source that does not make that direct connection, but at the same time, we need to summarize. I have no idea, personally, but would you say that this "turning point" claim is something that is widely accepted and thus should be noted in the lead? If so, how would you propose we justify that claim. Rockpock  e  t  19:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Category addition
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)
 * Been discussed before, see 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 K  303  15:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I requested more evidence in a related rfc here.  Blue Rasberry  18:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday (1972) is in 2 'Massacre' categories. Are we attaching a greater value to lives from one community? Any unbiased reader of this article would accept that the murder of innocents is a massacre. MJB (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

A contemporary debate in the Dáil Éireann described it as a massacre, MJB (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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 K  303  13:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it a 'non-starter'? It is an entirely logical position as many arguments develop through analogy. It is very relevant that a comparable incident has been attributed a privileged status denied this bombing.MJB (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 K  303  15:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

Requested move 23 October 2019

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Remembrance Day bombing → Enniskillen bombing – The current title is wrong; it didn't happen on Remembrance Day, which is always 11 Nov. Also, it doesn't say where it happened. The location of a bombing is far more important to the title than the day of the year it happened on, even if it did happen on RD, which it didn't. Jim Michael (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This is absolutely the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that Enniskillen bombing appears to get about twice the number of results on Google as Remembrance Day bombing (and many of the latter results are actually "Enniskillen Remembrance Day bombing" in any case). The "Remembrance Day" v "Remembrance Sunday" argument on which some editors seem to be focused is no more than a distraction from the real issue, which is that "Enniskillen bombing" is a lot more common than either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposers point regarding it not being on "Remembrance Day" as it is always on the 11th is partially incorrect. As is the tradition, Remembrance Sunday (also referred to as Remembrance Day) is held at 11am on the second Sunday in November (the Sunday nearest to 11 November, Armistice Day, the anniversary of the end of hostilities in the First World War in 1918). If you want to be pedantic, the name should be changed to Remembrance Sunday bombing. References on Google Books to "Remembrance Sunday bombing" got 1,780 hits, "Enniskillen bombing" got 2,990 and "Remembrance Day bombing" got 4,920. As per WP:COMMONNAME, I conclude the name should remain as is. UaMaol (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The above statement is factually incorrect: Remembrance Day and Remembrance Sunday are not the same. The former is always on 11 November, the latter is always on the nearest Sunday. PC78 (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and it isn't a pedantic point. We shouldn't have an incorrect title, even if it is more commonly used. Jim Michael (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You say my statement is incorrect but then the basis for your refutation is contained in my original statement. Surely enough that would make your own statement incorrect, would it not?
 * All one needs to do a few searches on Google News to find countless reports of commemorations where "Remembrance Sunday" is referred to "Remembrance Day." To save accusations of denial of the existence of such, I shall list a few for you:


 * BBC, stating: "The two year restoration project, funded by the War Memorials Trust and the Co-operative Society Community Fund, was completed on Wednesday, in time for Remembrance Day on Sunday." Armistice Day was on a Friday in 2011.
 * International Business Times, states puts in its lead that Remembrance Day is on Sunday 8 November, 2015. In the quoted letter by the British solider (a sergeant) who lost his legs that the article is about states himself, "For me, that is what Re­­­mem­­­­brance Day is about and it is why people should pay their respects on Sunday."
 * Wales Online, state that in 2013, Remembrance Day was on a Sunday, although the person they are referring to is later quoted in referring to "Remembrance Sunday", adding to the confusion.
 * Armagh i, listing of Remembrance Sunday events in Armagh in 2017, stating: The annual Remembrance Day parades and services will be held across County Armagh and beyond next Sunday, November 12.
 * The Chronicle Advertiser, whilst it does mention "Remembrance Sunday" and "Remembrance Day" as separate things, in its event listing for Derbyshire there are six instances of "Remembrance Day" in 2013 was being held on Sunday 6th.
 * In this one form the Bournemouth Echo, "Remembrance day" in 2016 is said to be on Sunday 13th.
 * The East London Advertiser says: "The East End will see a number of services and processions to mark Remembrance Day on Sunday" in 2014, referring to the 9th.
 * The Dorset Echo, in its lead it states: "To mark Remembrance Day on Sunday, November 13" in 2016.
 * Evening Chronicle exclusively states six times in its events listing "Remembrance Day - Sunday November 13" in 2016, whereas the 11th they refer to by its correct name, "Armistice Day"
 * Of foreign media:


 * Hello Magazine state in their lead: "Prince Harry travelled back to Afghanistan to commemorate Remembrance Day on Sunday" in 2014.
 * Vanity Fair state in their lead: "On Sunday, Prince Charles took over the duties of his mother, Queen Elizabeth, for London’s annual Royal Remembrance Day" and then in a caption, "Kate Middleton and Sophie, Countess of Wessex, at Royal Remembrance Day on Sunday." in 2017.
 * Billboard, "The clip was released ahead of the U.K.'s Remembrance Day on Sunday, also known as Poppy Day, which honors WWI vets.] Billboard, in the lead state: "[sic]The clip was released ahead of the U.K.'s Remembrance Day on Sunday, also known as Poppy Day, which honors WWI vets''" in 2014.
 * Independent Online, state rather confusingly "He said several of the plaques were bent and could not be installed on the wall ahead of Remembrance Day on Sunday. It is an annual event to mark the end of World War 1 on November 11... Johan Kruger, of the SA Legions, said the Remembrance Day commemoration would continue as planned on Sunday." in 2017.
 * As you can see, it is rather clear that I am correct in my point regarding terminology. The term "Remembrance Day" in common usage, can refer to both Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day. It is very possible that these news outlets are confused but the fact that in the space of five minutes I found 13 news articles which back me up can only confirm my exact point. In English, as like any language, lexical definition is highly subjective and what terms the man on the Clapham Omnibus may use to describe xyz, may differ widely from any dictionary, text, tradition or even of another passenger on the very same service. Due to to such, the current name is both incorrect and also correct at the same time. Therefore as WP:COMMONNAME is a thing, I invoke it again to retain the current name as per my original point along with the evidence I present aloft. UaMaol (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is certainly true that Remembrance Day is often used to refer to Remembrance Sunday. However, I still maintain that this bombing is more commonly referred to as the Enniskillen bombing (or frequently just as "Enniskillen" when the context is clear). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. I think that Jim Michael's point is key here. The bombing didn't take place on Remembrance Day, therefore Remembrance Day bombing is factually incorrect: we should not use it, even though (as UaMaol says) it is more commonly used. Piedmont (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not completely true, as per my reply above. Not only is there widespread preference of Remembrance Day bombing, there is also a trend of referring to Remembrance Sunday as Remembrance Day, which is shown to be rather common in the UK and likely elsewhere also. Therefore it would be wrong to say that the current title is "factually incorrect" as it can be easily argued that lexically it is very much correct. UaMaol (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think a lexical argument is valid here. It is true that the usage of words changes over time, and that has to be accepted - the obvious example is 'gay', which a hundred years ago simply meant 'happy'. But sometimes, it doesn't matter how many people believe something to be correct: it may simply not be a matter of opinion. If a majority believed that Elvis is alive and well and living on the moon, that would not make it true. That Remembrance Day does not equal Remembrance Sunday (and this is VERY clear to me - the significance of the 11th minute of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month was drilled into me as a child) falls into this category, in my view. Piedmont (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The common name is Remembrance Day bombing. The support arguments above are basically that it should be called something else, but it isn't, and Wikipedia is not the place to correct this. Andrewa (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Some media sources incorrectly using Remembrance Day doesn't mean that we should.
 * The large majority of our articles about bombings (& other types of attack) have the location in the title. Calling this Remembrance Day bombing or Remembrance Sunday bombing doesn't do that. Jim Michael (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Some media sources incorrectly using Remembrance Day doesn't mean that we should... If these media sources were making up the name in a vacuum that would be a line call (we'd need to ask, why are they making up that name?). But they aren't. They're just reflecting common usage. And our policy is to follow common usage, which is why our practice is to look for reliable sources and follow their usage. Your desire to fix this is commendable. But our policy is, Wikipedia doesn't fix such things. If we tried to we'd be on a very slippery slope towards reflecting the opinions of our editors rather than the knowledge of humanity.
 * The large majority of our articles about bombings (& other types of attack) have the location in the title... But that's because either the common name includes the location, or the title would be ambiguous without the location, or both. Neither applies here. Andrewa (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2019 (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.