Talk:Corporals killings

message: WP:NPOV mandates journalistic sensationalism should not be presented as fact, as was happening in this article.
* - "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"
* - "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"
* - "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)
replies: text: This "tortured" nonsense is POV wording for "stripped, beaten and shot", so "tortured" is inherently POV and weasel wording. BigDuncTalk 12:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tortured is fully sourced from two sources.  You are synthasising.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All I am doing is attributing what happened to the description, nothing more. I am not removing "tortured" after all, just attributing it properly BigDuncTalk 13:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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. BigDuncTalk 16:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: POV attributed

message: 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)
thread_title: Intro

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Why not use the NPOV IRA member?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Volunteer vs Militant

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "British media" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. JonChappleTalk 13:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You could have siad that without being so condesending. Ceoil (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. A simple "We can't add it because it's copyrighted" or link to the relevant policy would have done. JonChappleTalk 11:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. JonChappleTalk 20:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry too and no worries Hackney, your right. Ceoil (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would a link to a YouTube clip be warranted or is that bad taste? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 JacobiteThe '45 03:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Suggested Resolution

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Definition of "Summary Execution"

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unofficial theories section

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: On or off-duty?