:::::Please do not engage in personal attacks. And your accusation makes little sense, given that "loyalists" would not consider "informing" to paint them in an unfavourable light - quite the opposite I should imagine. The impression from reading this talk page is that there is no consensus between two historians that all those killed were informers. Yet the article appears to be written from the point of view of one of those historians. Now it seems that this particular historian actually acknowledges that two of those killed were not informers. Could someone advise what the evidence is that all were informers?