Talk:Corporals killings

POV attributed

WP:NPOV mandates journalistic sensationalism should not be presented as fact, as was happening in this article.

• [1] - "Corporal Wood and Cpl. David Howes (both members of the SAS) were dragged from their car, stripped, beaten and shot by members of a Roman Catholic funeral procession Saturday in Belfast, Northern Ireland" - no mention of "torture"
• [2] - "The men were dragged from the car and taken to a nearby sports ground where they were stripped and beaten. They were then taken to wasteground by Murphy and Maguire and shot repeatedly - no mention of "torture"
• [3] - "who took part in the torture and shooting" - aha, the first mention of torture. Now read further on in the same article and see what the torture consisted of - "The men were bundled into a nearby sports ground, where they were stripped to their underwear and beaten. Murphy and Maguire then took them to wasteground, where they were shot repeatedly by two gunmen" - so it's the exact same as the other sources; stripped, beaten and shot.

Just one newspaper has decided to call the events "torture" but according to policy that doesn't make it a fact. Opinions attributed to the people that hold them, as policy mandates. Freegan 02:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Untrue: "The soldiers were beaten, tortured and eventually shot when they drove into the path of a republican funeral in Belfast in March 1988.". they were reportedly tortured.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This "tortured" nonsense is POV wording for "stripped, beaten and shot", so "tortured" is inherently POV and weasel wording. BigDunc^Talk 12:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tortured is fully sourced from two sources. You are synthasising.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

All I am doing is attributing what happened to the description, nothing more. I am not removing "tortured" after all, just attributing it properly BigDunc^Talk 13:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You are adding scare quotes and attempting to dilute the sentense. You are in WP terms adding weasel words.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded the attribution and removed the scare quote (since it is a single word, we don't have to worry about quoting for copyright purposes). Attribution is always a good thing, but since we are not attributing everything else that was reported by the news media, we have to be careful that in doing so we are not giving the impression we are casting doubt on its veracity. Rockpocket 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tortured is weasel wording. All sources agree stripped, beaten and shot. Those are the facts. Some sources describe that as tortured, some do not. If they were tortured, state how. This is not an outlet for British media propaganda to be presented. The facts are stripped, beaten and shot, tortured is journalistic embellishment. BigDunc^Talk 16:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Its clearly not the most strictly defined term, but then again, neither is the word "beaten". If multiple independent sources say they were tortured then there is no reason that cannot be used here, if properly attributed. The fact that some media source do not use that term does not make it inappropriate when others do. You could argue that this page is not the place for IRA propaganda to be presented, yet we still quote their rather laughable version of events. And rightly so. Rockpocket 17:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My edit, and Rockpocket's are essentially the same. Why Dunc haven't you been edit warring with him?Traditional unionist (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since apparently according to TU the word "tortured" doesn't need attributing despite it being opinion, there's no longer any objections to "sectarian" being stated as fact about the Orange Order? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that supposed to help anything? Is there a RS to say they wern't tortured?Traditional unionist (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Come guys, I thought this had been resolved? "Torture" is a pretty evocative word, so lets source it to who used it. If there is a particular problem with collectively referring to the BBC and The Independent as "British news sources" (which they are, of course) then lets just say, "According to the BBC and The Independent..." No big deal, surely? Rockpocket 17:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The needless verbosity is designed to undermine the sources. "Has been described as" makes more sense.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It was sorted, until an editor decided to breach NPOV. Then an IP editor with previous questionable edits and attacks on editors stalked me to this article, then TU joined in the edit war and breached NPOV. Domer48 (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As I noted, I saw no evidence of any consensus that British sources had to be so identified. That said, I had no involvement with any subsequent 'edit wars' and no interest in getting so involved. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There you go again throwing around the accusations. This is why you are very often a part of the problem.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So, being stripped and beaten is not torture? That is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.0.48 (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Intro

I replaced the reference used which related to the aquital of one of those found guilty of murder.--Padraig (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer vs Militant

I changed the term "IRA volunteer" to "IRA militant", and this was reverted. I was a little surprised that this was controversial, so I'll explain my reasoning. "Volunteer" is the term the IRA use to describe themselves. The law, and the British government describe them as terrorists, murderers etc. As such, I would have thought that the neutral term in this case would be militant or some equivalent, which describes their use of violence without passing judgment on the legitimacy, and without using the organisation's own internal terminology. As it stands the article uses IRA terms and this seems to be in breach of NPOV. HMS Vanguard (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Volunteer is the correct and accurate term used by neutral sources. O Fenian (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there somewhere that this was discussed or decided upon? It doesn't seem reasonable to me. HMS Vanguard (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "Volunteers" is what the IRA called themselves, just as "soldiers" is what the British called themselves. Many Irish would consider the British terrorists and murderers. If militant is truly the neutral term, then you should also change any mention of British soldiers to British militants. If that's really what you want to do, then I'd support it. If you just want to chip away at the IRA's standing, then I'll have to pass. Sas556 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The term "soldier" is also a neutral, descriptive term. If the IRA belonged to a recognised state, its members should be described as soldiers in an encyclopedia. Hence, a member of Hezbollah would be a "militant" while an Iranian army adviser would be a "soldier". HMS Vanguard (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not use the NPOV IRA member?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

IRA member is far more NPOV. The British Army is the recognised armed forces of a sovereign state, its soldiers can be called soldiers as that is what they are de facto and de jure. The IRA is not recognised as the army of a soveriegn state, and they are militants. Volunteer as a NPOV term is highly dubious in regards to the PIRA (as opposed to the original IRA) and depends on the author of the source and their sympathies. Member is far more neutral for a paramilitary terrorist organisation. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume you have no objection to using "member" to refer to people in the British Army then? Volunteer is the correct term for IRA soldiers, although we can always use soldier if you prefer? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read my previous comment? The British Army is an actual army, the IRA is not - what world recognition do they have as an army? Paramilitary would be a more accurate description for members of the IRA (and UVF etc.) however member is far more neutral and has less political and honourific baggage. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A discussion on the use of Volunteer vs "member" is taking place at WP Ireland. JonChapple^Talk 08:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that POV pushing should be avoided. It is quite apparent from reading the article, for example, that earlier editor(s) inserted "Corporal" at every available opportunity not to improve the article's brevity or readability, but in order to hammer into the reader's head the idea that this incident was some sort of military battle as opposed to a lynching. Part and parcel of this is presenting the IRA men in a light consistent with this particular POV as opposed to, say, as members of some sort of armed gang. So how can POV pushing be avoided here? I would suggest a general avoidance of substituting the terminology used in the sources cited. If the cited source mostly describes either side as just "men", for example, another term should not be used unless a supporting argument is provided.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Cherry picking

I see no reason why one statement should have quotes cherry picked from it in a misleading way, and equally no reason why both statements need to be included in full. Please discuss proposed changes rather than continuing to edit war. O Fenian (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The IRA issued a statement claiming they were SAS. It's WP:NOTABLE because the SAS was especially hated at this time and notability is is "reason" for inclusion. You evidently don't think there is any way for the article to refer to this fact without either being prohibitively lengthy or being "misleading". It would be most accurate for the article to state flatly that the IRA FALSELY accused the two men of being SAS (not that even that would warrant execution, without even a show trial, as opposed to being taken as POWs in manner consistent with IRA claims that there was a war going on) but just having the IRA's accusation alone in the article would at least allow readers to discover the truth if they were inclined to dwell on it. At present the fact is just being suppressed, with the excuse that it can't be included without including extra, non-notable stuff ("cherry picking"). If you were really interested in discussing as opposed to edit warring, I would think you would identify what, exactly, is "misleading" about noting that the IRA claimed they were SAS because just repeating "misleading" without argument or a citation of Wiki policies does not amount to discussion.Bdell555 (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that the guideline you keep linking to is of little to no relevance on article content. The statement you have added adds nothing that is not in the other statement, and leaves out crucial information that is in the other statement. That they were allegedly SAS is irrelevant, considering they had fired shots at unarmed funeralgoers, were ascertained to be soldiers from the occupying army (regardless of what regiment), they were a legitimate target, SAS or not. O Fenian (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

O Fenian terms such as "occupying army" should be avoided as they a clear POV terms that have no backing in the real-world. How can an army be an occupying force in its own country? Mabuska ^(talk) 14:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What "crucial information" would that be? The IRA claim that "at no time did our Volunteers physically attack the soldiers"? The 2003 book Sinn Fein: A Hundred Turbulent Years indicates that "false" would be a better descriptor of that particular bit of information than "crucial". Professor Declan Kiberd describes this book as "[a]n analytical and narrative masterpiece.... [author] Brian Feeney has managed to recount the roller-coaster history of Sinn Féin in a balanced and extremely vivid manner." Most importantly here, the one IRA statement that this book cites is the statement where the IRA asserts that they are SAS. For what it is worth, most WP:RS indicate that Wood and Howes fired a warning shot, as opposed to firing at funeralgoers as you claim. Your choice of the word "legitimate" implies applying some sort of rule of law, which is ironic given that most neutral observers (I am Canadian) consider this incident as an example of anything but. The word for the type of "target" already disarmed, beaten men present for a bullet is "easy". An editor consensus in favour of a biased article shouldn't be that difficult for you to find, given that republicans are the majority in Ireland and likely in America too. I would rather suggest that what Wiki should reflect is the consensus of historians and reliable sources. On this point, I remind you that Feeney's 464 page history saw nothing in your preferred IRA statement that merited inclusion, while holding it necessary to note the statement where the IRA claimed they were SAS. Having said that, I don't object to including both statements because, unlike you, I am not inclined to suppress or delete any facts someone wants included.Bdell555 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to edit war to your preferred version which I have said is unacceptable, it is achieving nothing? I suggest you propose a change that takes my concerns into account, assuming you have an interest in finding consensus. O Fenian (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Republicans were not the majority in NI at the time. Ceoil (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

They still aren't a majority in NI present. If thats judged on political party support, you'd need to add in the fact about half the unionist electorate never vote. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that the latest edit was designed to satisfy your demand that only one IRA statement be included without "cherry picking" but you reverted that too. I cannot agree with your implication here that you own the article, and other articles you consider relevant to Irish republicanism, such that what you, alone, consider "unacceptable" is final. You have not responded to any of the points I made above, so I assume that nothing further can be done here without your edit warring.Bdell555 (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So you think you can make any changes you like regardless of the objections of other editors, and you claim other people think they own articles? And you keep making the same edit regardless of being reverted the first time and think other people are edit warring?

I repeat my suggestion from the second sentence in my last post, since I see little worth discussing in anything else you have written. O Fenian (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you would know what edit warring is, since you are currently under a block for edit warring, and have been reprimanded by an administrator as well for falsely characterizing a content dispute as an incidence of vandalism. You've made your point in any case, which is that your determination to have the article read your way is greater than my determination to have it read my way.Bdell555 (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment on content not editors please. Bringing up an editors history is a form of an ad hominem attack, and even though the block logs are true - bringing them up in a dicussion on content can only serve as an attempt to discredit an editor for one's own gain. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than a cohierant argument, thats a good ploy. Ceoil (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Bdell555 has provided a good solid arguement for their change, whereas O Fenian has provided nothing but blank arguements of edit-warring and voicing they have concerns which they won't elaborate on or provide anything to back up other than that they find it unacceptable. When Bdell555 has provided a response and asks questions of O Fenian - they are ignored. Bdell555 responses fully quantify his additions into the article, and if this was taken to a content dispute resolution, it would probably find in his favour going by both editors responses at the moment.

If its reliably and verifiably sourced, adds neutrality to the article where there is possibly bias, or adds in conflicting accounts of events that highlight the uncertainty of claims made at the time of the incident - then what right does blank empty arguements have to oppose it?

Just realised this isn't a recent discussion, but a response is still qualified i think, though i'll make it small as the discussion is dead at the moment. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Image needed

An image is needed for the lead. Preferably a photograph of the street in which the killings took place.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"British media"

We should all know better than to edit-war, especially those editors here longer than others. My last edit was more or less simply to get you all here to do the mature thing and talk about it.

Jonchapple has a genuine concern which i agree with - the statement that is being argued over does seem to give an impression of weasel and impartial partisan wording. There is no real need to have "British media" stated, just having BBC and The Independant listed, with both wikilinked, more than suffices.

The justitication's given for the reverts by ONiH and Domer48 are in my eyes quite poor. Surely removing the phrase is less POV pushing than trying to imply a partisan treatment by stating "British media"? In the interests of impartial tone, would that not be the best thing to do?

As i know what the obvious answer will be, outside opinion i think on the matter will probably need to be sought either by RfC or other content dispute resolution methods to see whether it does give out an impression of implying biased media treatment or not. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Would a link to a YouTube clip be warranted or is that bad taste?

The well-known footage of the event is available on YouTube (just search for "Corporals killings"). Since it shows the attack on the car and its occupants quite clearly would it be justified to have a link to it in an external links section? I hesitate to put it in myself. What do people think? --bodnotbod (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too sure, it might be justified, but a warning would have to be provided alongside the link. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a link as the video is far more illustrative than this mere collection of words, but probably best to include some kind of warning, per Mabuska. JonChapple^Talk 13:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Would be in favour the addition of the link, widely broadcast at the time. But with a warning yes, its disturbing viewing. Ceoil (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't include links to copyright violations, and that cannot be discarded simply because people here decide they want the link. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You could have siad that without being so condesending. Ceoil (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct. A simple "We can't add it because it's copyrighted" or link to the relevant policy would have done. JonChapple^Talk 11:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm always correct, my British friend. But looking back I always found One Night In Hackney to be a fairly spot on editor and tearse comments are allowed from time to time. As he says we can't have the link, so thats that. Ceoil (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of curioussty since i've never come across the idea of links to video files before, and thus no clue as to the exact policies on them, what is the exact policy on them? Is it the same as with images used on Wikipedia in that they need appropriate classification and copyright information or aren't allowed full stop? If it was a BBC clip on the BBC's own YouTube page would it still be a copyright violation especially seeing as they would have put it up? Mabuska ^(talk) 20:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

From my reading of WP:YT, it would seem that if it's a BBC hosted clip, for example, like you said, it would be fine, but user-submitted ones aren't. All the Corporals killings ones I've come across have been user-uploaded. JonChapple^Talk 20:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If my comment was perceived as terse then I apologise. I was simply hoping to emphasise, particularly as I was planning to be away for several days, that my comment could not be dismissed to claim a "four versus one" consensus. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I didn't think it through when I started this. It would be a copy vio (unless uploaded by the BBC). Fair enough. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry too and no worries Hackney, your right. Ceoil (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary Execution

And the crime they were charged with was what?--Flexdream (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't ask irrelevant questions. Reference for summary execution added, good day to you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What was the crime they were specifically accused of? "Being British soldiers"? — JonC^ॐ 16:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

'Summary execution' is a specific term and I quoted the wikipedia definition. If they weren't charged with a crime they couldn't be summarily executed.--Flexdream (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

They couldn't? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 17:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No, they couldn't. An execution is a legal process carried out by a state. PIRA were not agents of a state, what with being an illegal organisation in both the UK and the Irish Republic. A summary execution is simply an execution carried out without a full trial, and if carried out by a state against captured soldiers it's a war crime. The use of "summary execution" in this article is blatantly POV.--FergusM1970 (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you try reading what a summary execution actually is? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I did. My definition comes from the very link you gave. Now stop trying to cloud the issue and answer the question that myself and Flexdream have both now asked you: what crime were Howes and Wood accused of, and what state authorised their killings?--FergusM1970 (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you'll have to say where in that article it says that only state actors can carry out a summary execution? Obviously that's ignoring the fact that the IRA are state actors, albeit an unrecognised state..... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence of summary execution - the link you cited - clearly states "Summary executions are a variety of execution." Click on execution and read the first sentence of that. As for your other absurd claim, PIRA are not state actors. They're a militant group that uses terrorism as a tactic. They are illegal in both the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Do your zip up, your bias is hanging out.--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As there seems to be a concerted effort under way by multiple editors to keep the term "summary execution" in this article, can it be protected until a resolution has been reached?--FergusM1970 (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Simply reading what a summary execution actually is should have addressed this, but it appears that insisting on inserting a personal POV is the order of the day. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you read this and this. An execution is a killing carried out by a state after a legal process. A summary execution is an execution where the victim is accused of a crime and the legal process is abbreviated or omitted, but it's still an execution and still carried out by a state. If a non-state actor deliberately kills someone without a legal process we call that murder. I note that User:One_Night_In_Hackney has now been asked three times what crimes Howes and Wood were charged with (a criteria required by the source he himself cites) and has failed to answer. The facts are quite clear: the deliberate killing of British citizens by other British citizens is not a summary execution.--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to be charged with a crime to be summarily executed. Why don't you try answering the question here? You've gone awfully quiet on that subject since it was asked, I know why already..... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? An execution is a JUDICIAL KILLING. It is ONLY carried out on those accused of a crime, and the last time I checked driving through Belfast wasn't illegal. Two sources are being discussed with regards to the planned Gibralter atrocity, by the way, and one of them is the ECHR report. It contains surveillance reports of Savage carrying out dry runs at the band assembly area, which as someone has just helpfully pointed out to me was right beside a home for the elderly.--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't use a source that someone else has just provided to support your earlier claim. So either provide the quote from the source you were talking about at the time, or I will take your refusal to do so as evidence of source fabrication and add that to the AE report. And try learning the difference between an execution and a summary execution, it isn't difficult.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I can only assume that you're being deliberately provocative here. Firstly the source I am using to support my earlier claim is the ECHR report, as I have repeatedly stated. Secondly the difference between an execution and a summary execution is that the latter does not follow a proper trial. According to the link that YOU YOURSELF provided, "A summary execution is a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime and then immediately killed". Howes and Wood were not guilty of any crime and even PIRA never claimed that they had been accused of one. Your own source doesn't support your claims, so give up.--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Resolution

Unless someone can justify using the term summary execution by showing how this incident meets Wikipedia's own definition of the term, i.e. killings carried out following an accusation of a crime by a state, I suggest that the phrase be removed and replaced by either "murdered" (which is technically correct, as Howes and Wood were killed without legal justification) or "killed" (which is also acceptable.)--FergusM1970 (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

So, your suggested resolution, which you are apparently offering with a straight face, is that the editors who have commented above in opposition to your changes, and whose comments you have steadfastly ignored, should simply back down and let you have your way. How noble of you to offer these terms. Speaking only for myself, I reject your "suggested resolution," as your arguments have been repeatedly refuted. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Where has anyone refuted the fact that Howes and Woods were not executed? That would be nowhere, right? You're blowing smoke here, in a transparent attempt to cover up the fact that the term summary execution, when applied to killings carried out by non-state actors belonging to an illegal organisation, is WRONG. My suggested resolution will remove the blatant POV which previously resided in the lede of this article. If you disagree please explain exactly why the use of the term execution is appropriate here, making sure to include the crime Wood and Howes were accused of and the state which authorised their deaths.--FergusM1970 (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't use the term "execution" here, as pointed out 18,000 times already. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

OK then. Why do you think that a summary execution is not an execution? Please, enlighten me.--FergusM1970 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "Summary Execution"

According to Wikipedia a summary execution is "a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime and then immediately killed without benefit of a full and fair trial." An execution, in turn, is "a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime." Therefore a summary execution is a subset of executions and is a process in which a person is put to death by the state as punishment for a crime without benefit of a full and fair trial. Note the terms by the state and as punishment for a crime.

Corporals Wood and Howes were not accused of any crime and were not put to death by any state; they were abducted, tortured and killed by a banned militant organisation which was classed as a terrorist group by the governments of the UK, Ireland and the USA. Therefore the use of the term "execution" to describe their deaths is wrong. It is factually inaccurate. It is untrue and it is pushing a POV. As nobody has even attempted to justify the use of the term, instead preferring to use wikilawyering to preserve the inclusion of falsehoods, I again request that action is taken to keep this terminology out of the article. The idea that the beating, stabbing and murder by a mob of two men who were quite legally driving down a street in their own country is an "execution" seems to me to fall under WP:FRINGE.--FergusM1970 (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't describe it as an "execution". It describes it, per a reliable source, as a "summary execution". As said several times already, they are different things. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

They're different things in the sense that a dog and an animal are different things: one is a subset of the other. A summary execution, per WP, is a variety of execution. Not all executions are summary, but all summary executions are executions. The second word in the phrase may give you a clue here. It's not called a summary party, is it? It's not a summary dance. It's a summary execution. That means it's a killing carried out by a state as punishment for a crime; it just misses out the fair trial bit. Stop trying to create a distinction where none exists.--FergusM1970 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you actually read the summary execution article? You see you keep banging on about Wikipedia's definition, but you seem to be ignoring that article for some reason. Not that Wikipedia itself is a reliable source obviously, but there's plenty of other sources stating non-state actors have committed summary executions, not that I'm necessarily agreeing with the non-state actor label I hasten to add. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it and it doesn't contain anything that justifies the term in this article. Can you please explain exactly why you think "summarily executed" - which, by implying a judicial sanction for the killings, is blatantly POV - is more appropriate than "killed"?--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet again the inaccurate and POV term "summary execution" has been reinserted in the article. Either justify this wording or stop it.--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

I have now submitted a request for dispute resolution [[4]]. Please do not reinsert the disputed wording until this has been worked through.--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Your wording is being disputed, and you are the one who keeps reinserting it despite discussion. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." The sentence "The non-uniformed soldiers were summarily executed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), after they drove into the funeral procession of an IRA volunteer.[2][3]" Is correctly sourced, and the onus is on you to provide alternative sources to disputed this. The disputed term is linked to a wiki article, but wiki is not being used as a source! In fact, wiki cannot be used as a source. So the fact that your argument is with the link, I'd be happy to remove it, though I can't see the problem. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The change to "summarily executed" is relatively new, stemming from this edit in March of this year. Prior to that the stable version of the article for years simply stated that they were "killed" by the IRA which seems much better to me. It's clear that several editors (me, Fergus, Flexdream, Heimstern, My very best wishes and EdJohnston) are concerned that the summarily executed wording is not the best way to meet our WP:NPOV policy, making it problematic.

Searching reliable sources, there are relatively few which use the summarily executed wording, preferring "killed", "shot dead" or "murdered." As "murdered" is obviously out that leaves us with either killed or shot dead. Shot dead would be the most descriptive and is used in the following sources, to name a few: Provos by Peter Taylor, Armed Struggle: The History of the Ira - Page 257 by Richard English, War photography: realism in the British press - Page 122 by John Taylor or Brian Feeney's History of Sinn Fein and the IRA (P352) Valenciano (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Domer is being partial in referring to what the sources say. The Independent source says 'murdered'. Domer has chosen only to cite the source which supports their POV. --Flexdream (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone who has been summarily executed has been killed by definition, the former is simply a more descriptive term giving more information to the reader. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what additional information does "summarily executed" give to the reader that "killed" doesn't? If you explain this perhaps it will provide a basis for a more productive discussion, which I would suggest should take place at the dispute resolution request for this article.--FergusM1970 (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Except this wasn't a summary execution. The victims were accused of no crime and were killed by an illegal organisation. An execution is a judicial killing. The term is POV and wrong. What part of this can't you grasp?--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, read the summary execution article. Then read the reliable source. The fact you still continue to make comments such as "An execution is a judicial killing" seem to totally ignore the glaringly obvious fact that a summary execution isn't a judicial killing.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A summary execution is still an execution. It is punishment for a crime. That's the glaringly obvious fact and it's you who is ignoring it.--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I remember seeing this vile act on the television at the time. The men were murdered by low lifes; simple as that. Can't we word it to that effect? 86.23.124.57 (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

86.23.124.57 You really need to create and use a wikipedia account to take part in the discussion. See [[5]]--Flexdream (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually that is a block evading edit warrior who I've blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Realistically is his behaviour any worse than that of User:One_Night_In_Hackney, who's gaming 1RR to keep POV wording in an article?--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The dispute resolution request is now open and further discussion should take place there.--FergusM1970 (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"killed" is more neutral and not the same as the IRA's POV "executed" terminology. For the IRA it was an execution and they are quoted within the article using this term so it's put into its POV context. In the lede we should strive for a more neutral tone that does not use a groups own POV terminology and killed is that tone. Unless we want to use "murdered" - and we all know what shithole that'll take the discussion into. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Also to quote Valenciano as i feel their comment has been on purposely overlooked:

The change to "summarily executed" is relatively new, stemming from this edit in March of this year. Prior to that the stable version of the article for years simply stated that they were "killed" by the IRA which seems much better to me. It's clear that several editors (me, Fergus, Flexdream, Heimstern, My very best wishes and EdJohnston) are concerned that the summarily executed wording is not the best way to meet our WP:NPOV policy, making it problematic.

Searching reliable sources, there are relatively few which use the summarily executed wording, preferring "killed", "shot dead" or "murdered." As "murdered" is obviously out that leaves us with either killed or shot dead. Shot dead would be the most descriptive and is used in the following sources, to name a few: Provos by Peter Taylor, Armed Struggle: The History of the Ira - Page 257 by Richard English, War photography: realism in the British press - Page 122 by John Taylor or Brian Feeney's History of Sinn Fein and the IRA (P352) Valenciano (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

In response to this from Domer48:

Your wording is being disputed, and you are the one who keeps reinserting it despite discussion. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." The sentence "The non-uniformed soldiers were summarily executed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), after they drove into the funeral procession of an IRA volunteer.[2][3]" Is correctly sourced

Are you saying that being summarily executed doesn't equate to being killed? For as far as anyone else is concerned being executed equates to being killed. Have you ever seen someone who was executed walk across the street the next day? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Mabuska, on the mediation talk page I've asked for those who object to "killed" to lay out their objections. So far nobody has done so, or attempted to explain why "summarily executed" is better.--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 21:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a typical tactic to try to smoother out the discussion by making it look like a dead duck. Preserverence and patience and if needs be AN/I reports for failure to participate in dispute resolution whilst continually enforcing opposition to a change. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Request

I have now submitted a request for mediation on this issue. It can be found here.--FergusM1970 (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Unofficial theories section

Surely this has to have some sources. Compared to the rest of the article the lack of citations is noticeable. I make no comment on whether the information is true or not but to an outsider it looks out of place compared to the rest of the article because of this. Tigerman2005 (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a piece of unsubstantiated OR and without sources even more so. I've removed it in its entirety as it adds little to the article and the lack of verifiability. If the editor who added it disagrees then they can provide sources for scrutiny next time. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corporals killings. 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/20070809062425/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article2819591.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article2819591.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

On or off-duty?

Were Wood & Howes on active duty at the time, carrying out reconnaissance, surveillance etc. - or were they using their free time to drive around Belfast? The article is vague & ambiguous in this regard - describing them as being undercover, but also saying that they drove to the funeral by mistake. Jim Michael (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

No they were Royal Signals soldiers attached to a survelance unit, have made a small edit to clarify that. DangerousBrian (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)