Talk:Killings of Nick Spanos and Stephen Melrose

Murder
Two lawyers were attacked by a masked gang with AK47s and deliberately shot to death in a Dutch market town. On what planet would a premeditated killing like this NOT be murder? Not Earth, that's for sure. Spanos and Melrose were murdered, i.e. They were killed deliberately, with premeditation and without legal sanction. The fact that PIRA claim (very dubiously, in my opinion) they were "mistaken" for British soldiers is irrelevant, because guess what? Killing soldiers in those circumstances is murder too. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, your opinion is obvious, and understandable. The problem is that nobody was ever found guilty of murder over the incident. Wikipedia cannot make up stuff. We put as much detail as we sensibly can in the article, and let readers make up their own minds, just as you have. It won't help promote your views if Wikipedia, an entity that MUST remain impartial, becomes partial on issues like this. It will then be seen as non-neutral on a multitude of matters. So, if you think the evidence makes it obvious that it's murder, it actually helps your argument if Wikipedia gives all the evidence, and doesn't say murder. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually Harte was found guilty of murder, but sadly freed on appeal. Not that I'd put this in the article because it's clearly OR, but the wave of murders across Europe in 1989-1990 stopped as soon as Harte, Hick, Hughes and McGuire were arrested. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So, nobody found guilty of murder. Are any of the alleged perpetrators still alive. If so, Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons applies. We cannot say "murder". Even if none are alive, it's not a good idea. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no outstanding allegations against anyone. However I don't see what the issue is with calling this murder. There isn't any set of laws anywhere under which it was a legal act, and it was premeditated, so it's murder. If that hurts anyone's feelings, tough. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll say it once more, in very simple terms. Calling it murder breaches WP:BLP and WP:OR. If you don't like that, tough. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh don't be silly. How does it breach WP:BLP? Just in case this escaped your notice, Spanos and Melrose aren't living. They are dead, because persons unknown murdered them. And as their deaths were the subject of a murder investigation, and those suspected of being the killers were charged with murder, it's hardly WP:OR either, is it? --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is becoming very frustrating. It's almost as if you're obsessed with a particular POV here and aren't actually trying to understand what I write, or Wikipedia's policies. The alleged killers are still alive. They are named in the article. They are the "living people" the policy WP:BLP applies to here. They have not been found guilty of murder, so we simply cannot call it murder here, no matter what you think of them. You calling it murder, when the law does no and cannot, is your own interpretation, or original research, completely unacceptable here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The four individuals you mean are not the alleged killers. Three were acquitted of the murders; the one who was convicted was later cleared on appeal. They are innocent and I have no reason to believe they would have any objection at all to the killings being referred to as murder. Why should they; they weren't responsible. As for your claim that the law didn't call it murder, that's just wrong. The investigation was a murder investigation. The charges against the suspects were murder charges. I can produce plenty of RS for that. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's far less controversial using the word killing, rather than murder. It doesn't excuse any killers, whoever they were. I question your motives here. Why do you want to call it murder? (And please don't answer the question I haven't asked - "Why CAN you call it murder?") HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to call it murder because it's more descriptive and conveys additional information. Controversy isn't an issue here; factual accuracy is. "Killing" can be applied to many circumstances, whereas "murder" makes it clear that they were killed deliberately, with premeditation and without legal justification. As I've already said, the legal systems of several countries were quite clear that it was murder. To dispute this it would seem that you'd need to show a lack or premeditation - and I really doubt they'd taken their Kalashnikovs out for dinner and just opened fire on impulse - or that there is a legal justification for shooting Australian tourists on a Dutch street. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's pure OR. You're not listening. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the OR? This was a planned attack. It was not an accident. It was not a spur of the moment decision. The PIRA gang were there to shoot people. They shot people. How is this OR? --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many murders which have not been followed by convictions for various reasons. That doesn't change the fact that the killings were murder. It's not libellous to say that they were murdered, because we're not stating that specific people killed them. Jim Michael (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I moved this page over 25 hours after this comment of mine above, which hasn't been replied to. However, it's been reverted as undicussed & controversial. Killing(s) of is usually used in our titles when the fatal incidents weren't murder, such as Killing of Tim McLean (perp acquitted due to being insane), Killing of David Wilkie (ruled to be manslaughter) & Killing of Harambe (decedent not human). The lack of convictions doesn't make a murder not a murder, nor make us classify it as such. For example Murder of Catherine Cesnik, Murder of Tupac Shakur, Tynong North and Frankston Murders - not killing(s). Any claim that the Netherlands in 1990 was in a 'war situation' is obviously untrue to the point of being ridiculous. The double killing would still have been murder even if the 2 civilians who spoke with Australian accents had really been off-duty British soldiers. In addition, mistaken identity doesn't mean it wasn't murder - many people have been murdered due to having been mistaken for other people or for people from a particular demographic or organisation that they didn't actually belong to. Murder in the name of a political goal is murder nonetheless. The murder of Lee Rigby was indisputably murder, despite him having actually been an off-duty British soldier & his killers having had a political motive. Jim Michael (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The section titled "August 2010" is unhelpful, unsourced,...
... and not encyclopaedic.

It tells us that members of the family of one the deceased are unhappy. Completely understandable, but it doesn't belong. (Very odd title too.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The title is indeed odd and could be improved. I think the section in general is useful though, in that it conveys information about the attitude to the murders shown by prominent politicians. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. And please stop calling the incidents murders. You can breach WP:BLP on an article's Talk page. And Wikipedia can be sued. You clearly have very strong emotional feelings about these incidents. That's not a good position to be in when editing a Wikipedia article. Do try to step back and take a completely objective view. This is not a tabloid newspaper. It's a global encyclopaedia, and we must maintain the highest possible standards of writing, sourcing and objectivity. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The killings of Melrose, Spanos, Hazell and Nivruti Islania were definitely murders. In my opinion (and that of the legal systems of the UK, Germany and Holland) the killings of Mick Islania and Mike Dillon-Lee were murders too, but never mind. Who's going to sue Wikipedia for calling them murders? The scumbags who did it? I'd just love to see them try it. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You may want to study WP:NPOV too. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no POV involved in calling these killings murder. An armed gang opened fire on a group of tourists with automatic weapons. There is no legal system anywhere under which that is not murder. Similarly, Nivruta Islania - a 6 month old baby - was deliberately shot at close range with an automatic weapon. How could that not be murder? Heidi Hazell was sitting in her car when someone walked up to her and deliberately fired half a magazine into her face and chest. How could that not be murder? There is no POV involved here. Murder is a word witha clear definition - a premeditated unlawful killing. There is no POV in saying so. It's clear-cut. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are legal systems that do just what you deny. They are those involved with war. Now, without getting involved in the legalities of any IRA activities, nor defending any of its behaviour, the fact that the A in IRA stands for Army means a lot. To those involved, they were fighting a war. Please step back for a while (we have no deadline) and think carefully about the policies I've referred to. They do matter. HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. The Laws of Armed Conflict have a description for the indiscriminate killing of civilians; it's War Crime. To be an army it's not enough to just call yourselves one; you also need to obey the rules of war. That means a) no carrying weapons unless wearing an identifiable uniform or distinguishing mark and b) no random killings of civilians. Under the Geneva Conventions, in wartime, what was done to Spanos, Melrose, Hazell and Nivruti Islania was - wait for it - murder! The killings of Mick Islania and Mike Dillon-Lee wouldn't necessarily have been murder if committed in a war but, due to the killers' failure to wear distinguishing marks, would still have been a war crime and murder would certainly have been a possible charge. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Missed my point completely. You're really not very good at rational, calm discussion. You are simply ignoring Wikipedia policy to push a POV here. And there is no need. HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What POV? I really don't see one. It could be said that calling the killing of a British soldier "murder" would be POV - although I would argue that this depends on the circumstances - but these were two guys out for dinner with their wife and girlfriend who, for no reason whatsoever, suddenly got gunned down by trigger-happy psychos. It could certainly be argued that some people think randomly mowing down tourists isn't a crime, but I think we'd be straying far into WP:UNDUE there. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Getting back to my main point, this content is simply not significant enough to include in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is it less significant than PIRA's frankly bizarre claim that they thought the victims were British soldiers? --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

A summary note to FergusM1970
I am not here to debate or even discuss the circumstances of the deaths of Nick Spanos and Stephen Melrose. My opinion on that incident is irrelevant. So is yours. What is critical is that content of articles here is encyclopaedic, and adheres to Wikipedia policies.

You seem desperate to mould those policies to what you want the article to say. That's both inappropriate, for obvious reasons, unnecessary and foolish. It's unnecessary because the facts should be allowed to speak for themselves. They obviously have for you. It's foolish because if you create an article that has an obvious POV in its approach, which would be the result if you had it all your way, it actually damages its credibility. People come here to read objective, encyclopaedic articles, not tabloid opinion pieces.

It's not worth you replying to this. There's no point trying to tell me how evil the killers were. That's not what we do on article Talk pages. It's not worth trying to tell me that your proposed approach fits Wikipedia policies. It doesn't.

As I said above, step back for a while. Maybe a couple of weeks. There is no deadline. Let other editors see these discussions and comment. Maybe they will agree more with you than with me. Look at some other articles. You're a good writer. That's a rare skill and one very much in demand on Wikipedia. Apply your skills elsewhere. Good luck. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. You make some interesting points that I will definitely take into account. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

FergusM1970 adding unsourced info
User:FergusM1970 has added some unsourced info to the article and misrepresented what the sources say.


 * You wrote that Corporal Islania and Major Dillon-Lee were unarmed. The sources don't say whether they were armed or not.
 * Before your edits, the article said that gunmen opened-fire on the car of Corporal Islania as he and his family sat in it. This is what the sources say. You changed that to say the gunmen "opened-fire on the Islania family". This implies that the gunmen aimed at, and tried to kill, every member of the family. Where is the source for this?
 * Before your edits, the article said that "Islania's wife was unhurt". Again, this is what the sources say. You changed that to "the attackers missed his wife". This implies that the gunmen aimed at, and tried to kill, Islania's wife. Where is the source for this?

Please find reliable sources for this info ASAP or it will be removed. ~Asarlaí 18:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Islania family were off duty and at a fast food restaurant. BFG personnel do not, and did not, carry weapons off duty. Same goes for Maj Dillon-Lee; he was returning from a social even when he and his wife were attacked, and officers don't carry weapons to a Mess dinner. The attack on the Islanias was on the family, not the car. If PIRA had wanted to shoot the car they could have done so while it was parked up at night and left themselves with less "regretting" to do. As Nivruti Islania was being held in her mother's lap when she was killed it is clear that Smita Islania was also engaged by the gunmen. How is any of this POV? It looks like some edits are aimed at hiding the fact that this particular PIRA campaign included several indiscriminate attacks against civilians rather than, as has been claimed, targeting only military facilities and personnel. Anyone who could have looked at Heidi Hazell from three feet away and thought she was a soldier would have been either too blind to shoot her or too stupid to operate an AK.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I am disturbed by the bad faith shown by FergusM1970 in continuing to push an obvious POV despite being advised that this does not conform to policy. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've undone the above edits by FergusM1970 and added quotes from the sources so that everyone can see exactly what they say. If FergusM1970 continues to misrepresent the sources or add unsourced info it should be brought to the admins. ~Asarlaí 02:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What about the POV of those trying to conceal PIRA's actions?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of any such behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Asarlai is repeatedly inserting the (unsourced) claim that the PIRA campaign targeted military bases and personnel. Spanos and Melrose were tourists and had a car with British, not BFG, number plates. Only a fool would have thought they were soldiers. Heidi Hazell looked about as military as a panda does. I have no words for the stupidity of anyone who thought she was a soldier, especially when seen from a distance of three feet (the range she was shot from.) To claim that this campaign only targeted the British military is clear POV pushing, because it is blindingly obvious that civilians were also being targeted. It's fine for Wikipedia to include PIRA's claims that these were accidents, but there's no reason to take them seriously.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say "only". (I was going to write that in big bold capitals, because I'm getting a little impatient with your approach here, and you're starting to look a little foolish, but thought better of it. Please make impartiality your first goal. As I said above, just stating the facts without added colour should tell the story you want told quite adequately.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that, but that's the impression it gives. How about, as a compromise, saying that they targeted military bases and personnel as well as civilians?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What do the sources say? That's really all we can use here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the sources say that someone walked up to Heidi Hazell's car and fired 14 shots through the window into her face. Sounds like targeting a civilian to me. Similarly, Spanos and Melrose were civilians and were targeted and plenty of sources say that. Sure, PIRA say those were mistakes, but then they would say that and I don't think they're exactly a reliable source.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is no source that explicitly says that they targeted civilians, we cannot say that in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a source that explicitly says they were targeting military bases and personnel either. That's why I put a "citation needed" tag on it, which someone removed.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I also changed (again) the location of the attack on the Islanias to Wildenrath. One of the sources says, explicitly, that it happened in Wildenrath and it did. Another says it happened near RAF Wildenrath, which isn't wrong as such, but it happened near lots of places whereas it only happened in Wildenrath, specifically at the Schnelly beside Willi Otten's petrol station (now Sander's Aral.) Am I being over-sensitive in objecting to the article saying that the attack was on the Islania's car rather than them? It seems an odd thing to insist on and an overly legalistic interpretation of the sources. It's obvious that the target was the Islanias, otherwise why wait until they came out of the Schnelly and got back into the car before opening fire on it? --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 05:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

FergusM1970 - please have a break. Your POV is obvious. It shouldn't be. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What are the POV problems with my recent edits? I've been trying to confine myself to adding verifiable facts.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 06:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One can very selectively use verifiable facts to push a POV. That's what you're doing. You don't seem to realise that such an approach is simply wrong on Wikipedia, for all sorts of reasons. I have lost respect for you and see no point in further discussion at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How am I POV-pushing? For example I added the fact that Nivruti Islania was shot once through the head. That doesn't make PIRA look very good, but this doesn't mean I'm POV-pushing; it means that "operations" which end up with babies being killed with a single bullet to the head don't look good. It's really quite simple; in the Islania, Roermond and Hazell cases the facts have an anti-PIRA bias.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Since my last edit, FergusM1970 has continued to misrepresent sources.
 * He used this source to say that "the Islania family had just returned to the car" when the shooting happened. The source actually says that Corporal Islania had just returned to the car.
 * The article notes that the car license plates may have led to these people being targeted. He used this source to imply that no British military personnel in Germany at that time had cars with these license plates. The source says no such thing.
 * Also, the IRA didn't claim that Hazell "looked like a soldier". It claimed they believed she was a member of the British military. Not every member of the British military is a fighting soldier or a man; for example see the Women's Royal Army Corps. ~Asarlaí 14:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The entire Islania family were in the Schnelly and had returned to the car. However the source is a bit ambiguous, so I'm not too bothered - just as long as nobody pretends that the PIRA gang really didn't know Nivruti and Smita were in the car too.
 * Regarding BFG licence plates, the source says that it is an offence for any car owned by a soldier in BFG not to have them. Every privately owned car in BFG has BFG plates. The rule is - and was - strictly enforced, and also self-policed. If your car is BFG registered you get tax-free fuel; if it's UK registered you don't. Guess what? Nobody has a UK registered car. Spanos and Melrose, OTOH, did. At the time BFG plates were white on black/white on black, whereas UK plates were as they are now - black on white/black on yellow. Whatever the Dutch police - bless 'em - thought, PIRA didn't think that was a BFG car.
 * Heidi Hazell could not have been mistaken for a member of the British military. No, not even the WRAC.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Killings of Nick Spanos and Stephen Melrose. 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/20121228041045/http://www.operationbanner.com/roh/default.asp?MonthAsNumber=10 to http://operationbanner.com/roh/default.asp?MonthAsNumber=10

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) 08:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The IRA wrongly assumed the Australian civilians were British soldiers because.....?
Was it simply because - as the article states - at the time they happened to be in a city which many British servicemen visited & were using a car with British plates? That would have been true of thousands of people every year, most of whom weren't in the British Armed Forces. What made them wrongly assume any military connection? Were the killings planned & the victims being followed? Did the IRA not hear the two men's Australian accents, disproving their false assumption? Explaining this would help improve this article. Jim Michael (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2019 (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) 02:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Killings of Nick Spanos and Stephen Melrose → Murders of Nick Spanos and Stephen Melrose – As I've mentioned above, these shootings were undoubtedly murders. Jim Michael (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Murder of Osama Bin Laden is a redlink (as I'm sure are countless other similar articles), yet the perpetrators had zero legal right (in the country the killings took place in) to carry out the act. Try moving Death of Osama bin Laden and see how far you get. I find it truly bizarre that the argument is being made the the Netherlands were not part of the war zone, given the same editor is busy arguing the exact opposite at Talk:The Troubles/Archive 3 and has said "ref clearly states: Since 1979, the IRA has mounted attacks in Belgium, the Netherlands & West Germany". The extent of a war zone is decided by the participants, who in this case had clearly extended it to continental Europe. "many people have been murdered due to having been mistaken for other people or for people from a particular demographic or organisation that they didn't actually belong to" - indeed, there's a whole article just covering one such incident that can be found at Bloody Sunday (1972). I assume Jim Michael is therefore in favour of that article, and any other where the RUC and/or British Army killed unarmed civilians, clearly and unambiguously being titled "Murder of" or having the killings described as "murder" in the text? FDW777 (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Likening killing one of the worst terrorists in the history of the world to killing civilians who were on holiday is both unreasonable & ridiculous.
 * I stated the undisputed fact that the IRA carried out attacks in Belgium, the Netherlands & Germany. That does not, as you claim, mean that any part of those countries was a war zone in the late 20th c., nor that I'm claiming that they were. Based on that logic, dozens of countries would be classified as war zones because Islamist terrorists have carried out attacks there in recent years. Including Army in their name doesn't mean that the IRA was a legitimate military force (the same applies to other terrorist groups involved in the Troubles who used names to make themselves sound legitimate).
 * You're going off-topic in regard to this RM by bringing up Bloody Sunday, but seeing as you have, I'll reply to that. I don't see evidence that the victims of that mass shooting were mistaken for being different individuals or from a different demographic. It is well-known & accepted that they were protesters. Your implication that I habitually side with security forces even in cases of their wrongdoing is provably false, as is your implication that I would never regard any unlawful killings by them as murder. I added murder cats to Bloody Sunday (1972). Jim Michael (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is neither unreasonable nor ridiculous. The incident happened in Pakistan, therefore Pakistani law would apply. Pakistani law doesn't allow people from foreign countries to just swan into the country heavily armed and start shooting people, even if they are Osama Bin Laden.
 * The standard justification for Bloody Sunday is that the Paras believed, or claimed, they were firing at bombers and gunmen, when in fact they were proven to be nothing of the sort. I don't believe there's much of a leap in understanding involved to see the parallels here. FDW777 (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OBL was the head of a terrorist organisation. He chose to put himself well outside the law. Spanos & Melrose did no such thing. Pakistan isn't trying to prosecute anyone involved in the killing. To compare the world's worst terrorist at the time to 2 civilians, with no criminal or political links, is ridiculous. There was plenty of justification for killing OBL; none for killing Spanos & Melrose.
 * The claimed justification was that the protesters were more violent than they actually were. They were throwing stones rather than firing guns. Spanos & Melrose weren't doing anything wrong & weren't parties to any conflict. Jim Michael (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. These were absolutely murders in the opinion of anyone without a political axe to grind, just as are any terrorist killings. Note that the IRA, which claimed responsibility, is recognised as a terrorist organisation rather than a legitimate armed force almost everywhere. They would have been murders even if the victims really were British soldiers; the fact they weren't just reinforces that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * One side in a civil war, insurgency or other armed conflict often tries to criminalise their opponents. For Wikipedia to take their side and present their view as fact is inherently non-neutral. FDW777 (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Terrorists are terrorists. The IRA are recognised as terrorists pretty much everywhere outside Wikipedia. It would be POV not to recognise them as terrorists on Wikipedia. And terrorists commit murders, not killings. Next you'll be suggesting that IS doesn't murder people because they are legitimately fighting for religious freedom! Or is it only Irish terrorists who aren't actually terrorists? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In many conflicts, one or more sides often choose to commit what they know are serious violent crimes. Having a political motive doesn't make their actions less criminal. Even legitimate combatants are bound by laws. Deliberately targeting civilians is illegal, even if the attackers falsely claim that shops, pubs, train stations etc. are legitimate targets due to being economic targets.
 * FDW, you're trying to minimise this double murder by claiming it wasn't murder & we shouldn't regard it as such. It seems that you're implying that these 2 civilians were part of collateral damage in a legitimate cause. I've read & edited many articles involving various types of terrorism: Islamist, far-right, far-left, Kurdish, Tamil, Palestinian etc. I've never encountered you at any of those articles - only those relating to the Troubles. Therefore your implication that you're siding with what you see as the disadvantaged, oppressed side in such situations in general isn't feasible. You've shown no indication of supporting the Kurds, Tamils or Palestinians in their armed attacks against the more powerful Turkey, Sri Lanka or Israel & their civilians respectively - only Irish republicans against Brits & those apparently mistaken for Brits. It's difficult to take a single-purpose account seriously when they imply that they have a broad world viewpoint in relation to armed conflicts when they're clearly intent on only pushing one side in one conflict. Jim Michael (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * - notifying all the people involved in the discussion leading up up to this. FDW777 (talk) 09:15, 29 October 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.