Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Corporals killings/Archive 1

A further caveat
Having agreed to this mediation, I want to express one further caveat: Arbcom rules were broken, and administrators failed --- nay, refused --- to act on those violations unless the content dispute was dealt with. Speaking only for myself, these facts cast a pall over any further discussion of this issue. I will hold my tongue, as it were, since the other parties involved already know my feelings on the matter. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  15:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the admins feel, as I do, that 1RR is a minor technicality that's frequently abused while NPOV is a central principle of Wikipedia. In any case this request is about the content dispute and shouldn't be sidetracked. You want the article to say "summarily executed" and this is your chance to justify it.--FergusM1970 (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that your arrogance hasn't abated one bit. Consensus is also a very important WP principle, and you never sought to achieve that.  But, no, 1RR is not a technicality, it was supposed to be a hard-and-fast rule enacted to stop edit-warring across Troubles-related articles.  It was not supposed to be negotiable.  The admins created that rule as a result of the Arbcom, then, for reasons they have not seen fit to explain, they failed to enforce the rule.  That, in my mind, makes the rule moot, and makes their authority, and any respect I had for same, suspect.  It is interesting to me, as well, and I have seen this time and time again when dealing with Unionists and Loyalists here on WP, that their own position is always felt, by them, to be NPOV, whilst it is only Provos who are biased.  From whence does this arrogance come, I wonder, and yet I feel I will never find an adequate answer. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This may be of interest.
 * 3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the  underlying principles  they express;
 * 4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

The first, second, fourth and fifth underlying principles seem relevant here. Just saying.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 02:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Alleged Inaccuracies in Request
Per the claim that this mediation request contains inaccuracies, this is a claim that goes to the heart of the content dispute. The editor in question is insisting on the use of the term "summary execution," which is used by a very small minority of sources on the incident. However he has been repeatedly asked what makes these killings executions and has failed to answer. A summary execution is a type of execution, which in turn is a judicial killing carried out as punishment for a crime. Despite being directly asked what crime the victims were accused of he has not answered, nor has he explained what additional information this terminology gives the reader that is not provided by the NPOV term "killed." His defence of the wording consists solely of repeated claims that everyone who objects to the term "summary execution" doesn't know what it means, despite having had the meaning repeatedly cited to him.--FergusM1970 (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comments yet again show the following:
 * You don't understand what a summary execution is
 * Despite repeated requests to find out what a summary execution is, you haven't
 * You don't listen to what other people are saying
 * Unless you're willing and able to address those issues, this mediation is likely to be a waste of time. 2 lines of K  303  15:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what a summary execution is, as I have repeatedly told you: It's an execution that takes place without a full and fair trial. Yet again you are repeating the same statements without justifying your preferred wording. Now, what do you think made this an execution? What crime do you think were Howes and Wood accused of? What additional information is provided by "summarily executed" that isn't provided by "killed"? What is your definition of "summary execution," and why do you believe that a summary execution is not an execution?--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, I'll give you a helping hand. You assert here "the use of this term gives an impression of legitimacy by implying that the two men were legally killed as punishment for a crime" and elsewhere it's pro-IRA POV or similar. No, it's not - "The summary execution of unarmed persons who are under the power of their adversary (including collaborators) is punishable under domestic criminal law (murder) and international law (war crime)". It doesn't imply legitimacy at all, it makes it clear that the killing was illegal. 2 lines of K  303  16:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're still missing, or ignoring, the fact that a summary execution is carried out as punishment for those who have been accused of a crime. That is not the case here: they were killed simply for being soldiers.--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So are you prepared to accept it doesn't imply legitimacy at all? 2 lines of K  303  16:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. Summary execution in itself is not necessarily illegal; it depends on the circumstances. For example firing on a deserter if it's not possible to detain him before he reaches enemy lines would be a justified summary execution. This still misses the point that the killings of Howes and Wood simply do not meet the criteria of a summary execution. PIRA themselves simply used the term "executed" which is also wrong, and didn't use the word "summary," not that I care what they think. I don't understand why you insist on this wording when it doesn't even meet the definition in the WP article which you cited as a source. How about "The two off-duty soldiers were killed by the Provisional IRA; X has described the killings as "summary executions" on the grounds that y?--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable source for your claim that would be legal? 2 lines of K  303  16:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many examples. We can start with the No Step Back order issued by Stalin, which authorised the summary execution of deserters and, specifically, the use of blocking detachments to shoot those fleeing. Note that deserters are not protected under the LOAC and are subject to national military law. It's not a capital offence in UK military law so wouldn't be justified, but many armies still have the death penalty for it. It's also legal to summarily execute those exempt from POW status, such as soldiers who engage in combat while wearing enemy uniforms or members of insurgent/resistance groups who don't wear a clearly identifiable insignia. That has obvious implications for PIRA, too.--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I start with the quote from "No Step Back" supporting your claim? As I don't see any such wording.... 2 lines of K  303  16:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly. "b) Form within the limits of each army 3 to 5 well-armed defensive squads (up to 200 persons in each), and put them directly behind unstable divisions and require them in case of panic and scattered withdrawals of elements of the divisions to shoot in place panic-mongers and cowards and thus help the honest soldiers of the division execute their duty to the Motherland;" I hope that will do, because this mediation isn't about No Step Back and we're wasting time.--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't support the claim you originally made. 2 lines of K  303  16:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. It's a law saying that deserters can be shot if they're running away. Now can we get back on topic please? I want to get this sorted out and would prefer that people don't raise irrelevant distractions. Perhaps if you just give us your definition of summary execution?--FergusM1970 (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "For example firing on a deserter if it's not possible to detain him before he reaches enemy lines would be a justified summary execution" - was what you said. Your primary source doesn't support that claim. I don't have a personal definition of summary execution, but you do and that's what causing the problems. 2 lines of K  303  17:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it supports the claim. Fleeing deserters can be shot, therefore fleeing deserters who are about to reach enemy lines can be shot. Please, stop splitting hairs and stop wasting time on irrelevancies. Now, if you don't have a definition of "summary execution," and I do have one - which just happens to coincide exactly with Wikipedia's article on the subject - why exactly are you so adamant that the wording has to stay in the article? After all, if you can't even define the term it seems odd that you think it's more suitable than either of the proposed alternatives.--FergusM1970 (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes! A reliable source for the claim is required here. No equivocation.-- Domer48 'fenian'  16:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, fascinating as this is, it's a distraction. Any comments on my suggested wording for the article?--FergusM1970 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. You have not provided a reliable source, and are being asked to do so. Please provide the source requested to support your claim.-- Domer48 'fenian'  16:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My source, using the term "murdered," is already in the article. As you know. It's reference [2], the Independent article. The vast majority of the article's other references also use the terms "killed" or "murdered," the latter also being appropriate because, as ONIH has conceded, they were illegally killed. Only one reference, which sadly doesn't seem to be available online, uses "summarily executed."--FergusM1970 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Primary issues" source requested
You have suggested that The term "summary execution"...to be a judicially sanctioned killing carried out by a state or authorised body as punishment for a crime." Now you have been asked to provide a source repeatedly to support this, and I would ask yet again. This is after all the whole premise of you request for mediation. We are not here to discuss your suggested wording. -- Domer48 'fenian'  17:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Capital punishment and summary execution both have extensive lists of RS. The latter has even been included in the article as a wikilink from the disputed wording. Now, if you are disputing that summary execution is part of an (albeit abbreviated) judicial process, what do you think it means? Because it is not a synonym for either "killing" or "murder." It has a specific meaning, which is an execution carried out without a full and fair trial. According to the Oxford Dictionary, summary means "conducted without the customary legal formalities." From the same source, execution means "the carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person." Therefore a summary execution is the carrying out of a death sentence without the customary legal formalities. Agreed?--FergusM1970 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely second this. The whole problem has arisen because FergusM1970 doesn't understand what a summary execution is, and keeps using his own garbled definition which doesn't appear to be supported by a reliable source. The comment right above shows his intent to keep using this garbled synthesised definition instead of the actual definition(s) of summary execution used by secondary sources. 2 lines of K 303  17:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then, once again, what is your definition and why do you think the wording is more suitable than simply "killed"?--FergusM1970 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a personal definition. You do. That's the root of the problem here. 2 lines of K  303  17:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't even have a definition, why are you insisting that it is better than both proposed alternatives?--FergusM1970 (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's very simple really, provide a source to support your contention outlined above by me from your statement as to the primary issue involved. What you have thus far attempted is synthesis of published material that advances a position. This is also considered to be original research. -- Domer48 'fenian'  17:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Saying that an execution is the carrying out of a death penalty, and citing the OED as a source, is OR? I don't think so.--FergusM1970 (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is when we're not talking about executions but summary executions since the two have very different definitions. I can't see why you're having such difficulty understanding that we're not interested in your personal definitions of the term or combining the definitions of two different words together to make a new definition, we're only interested in the definition of summary exeuction according to reliable secondary sources. 2 lines of K  303  17:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then give me the definition of "summary execution" you are using.--FergusM1970 (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I refer you to point #3 of my post at 15:51. 2 lines of K  303  17:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted. Now are you going to provide the definition of "summary execution" that you are using or not?--FergusM1970 (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I once again refer you to point #3 of my post at 15:51, then refer to the discussion on this very talk page. 2 lines of K  303  18:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, noted. Now, are you going to let us know what definition of "summary execution" you are using? It's unreasonable for you to insist that it's more appropriate than the suggested alternatives while refusing to say what you think it means or what additional information you think it conveys. What, exactly, is your objection to saying "killed," which is undeniably NPOV?--FergusM1970 (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'd read the discussion, you wouldn't keep asking that question since I already gave one definition from a reliable source. You'll also have to explain how it's more POV, since evidence has been provided that it actually makes clear the killings were illegal, which is the the exact opposite of what you're complaining about. 2 lines of K  303  18:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that wasn't a definition; it was an explanation of some circumstances under which summary execution is illegal. Now are you going to provide your definition or not? If not, I think that establishes that you have no grounds to state that it's better wording than the suggested alternatives.--FergusM1970 (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"a summary execution 3 (of legal proceedings) short and free from the complexities and delays of a full trial" - Collins English Dictionary --FergusM1970 (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't misquote sources, that's a definition of "summary". 2 lines of K  303  18:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's a definition of "summary excution."--FergusM1970 (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. You've attempted to use the example part of one definition of "summary" and add it to the front of a different definition of "summary" and claim that's a definition of "summary execution", as everyone can see. 2 lines of K  303  18:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So I did. I was using a different (and less well formatted) site and it didn't look that way. Anyway this is probably as good a place as any to provide the definition you are using---


 * Agree ONIH, misquoting sources is very unhelpful. FergusM1970 you yourself in your comment linked above as to the primary issue that the term is used by a number of sources, it is therefore not an issue. It is your personal point of view that it suggests legitimacy that requires you to support your opinion. -- Domer48 'fenian'  18:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources state clearly that an execution is a death sentence, a punishment for a crime. Using the term implies that PIRA had the right to punish people for crimes. They did not. When a non-state actor deliberately kills someone without trial it is not a summary execution. It is a murder. Nobody has attempted to argue that Howes and Wood were guilty, or even accused, of any crime. Therefore "summary execution" is wrong and POV, as it implies a degree of legitimacy, however contentious or slight, that the killings did not have. They were not killed because they had been accused of a crime. They were not executed.--FergusM1970 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This again is your opinion, to date your personal opinion Using the term implies that PIRA had the right to punish people for crimes...When a non-state actor deliberately kills someone without trial it is not a "summary execution". Now provide a source to support it please.-- Domer48 'fenian'  18:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Murder - 1 The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" - Oxford English Dictionary. Howes and Wood were unlawfully killed and their killings were premeditated. Now, tell me, how does "summary execution" cover that?--FergusM1970 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be because a summary execution is murder (under domestic criminal law) per the reliable source I already posted, the one you keep ignoring by your repeated asking of the question that was answered hours ago. 2 lines of K  303  20:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, no. A summary execution is murder under certain circumstances, but not automatically. Sometimes it's legal. Even when it is murder it's a distinct class of murder, just like fratricide. The terms are not equivalent, and you haven't given any explanation of why these particular killings were in fact summary executions rather than just plain old murders.--FergusM1970 (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You've yet to provide any evidence a summary execution is ever legal. Here's a clue for you, receiving a written (or indeed verbal) order to commit an illegal act is not a valid defence in law. The explanation is the reliable source (more available), the one even you acknowledge exists. 2 lines of K  303  06:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Try the Third Geneva Convention. It is legal to summarily execute those not protected by POW status, such as, ahem, guerrillas who do not bear arms openly and wear an identifying insignia. It is also legal to summarily execute troops who engage in combat while wearing enemy uniforms; this point was established at the Skorzeny trial, but of course also applies to Jim Lynagh who was wearing a British combat jacket when he died. Anyway, can you please stop the distractions and explain exactly why you think the term "summary execution" is appropriate wording for the murder of Howes and Wood? Because, you see, I've asked you this several times now and you haven't answered.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 08:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll have to provide quotes from reliable sources and the Third Geneva Convention supporting your claims, as I don't believe you based on previous experience where you provide quotes that don't support your claims. I've already answered your question, your refusal to acknowledge points made by other editors and cling to your own position despite those points is in itself disruptive. 2 lines of K  303  09:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet again you have failed to say why you think this wording is more appropriate than "killed," or what makes the killings summary executions as oppsoed to simple murders, or to provide teh definition of "summary execution" that you are using. This is why I think you're stonewalling.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 19:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong on both counts. You refuse to acknowledge that I have a) Said why this wording is appropriate and b) Provided a definition of summary execution. That's the real stonewalling here. Try reading this talk page again, thoroughly. And while you're at it I want a reply at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Corporals killings. 2 lines of K  303  19:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not said why the wording is appropriate - an execution requires that the victim be accused of a crime - and you have not provided a definition; that was a list of circumstances in which summary execution is illegal.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 19:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Primary Issues source requested #2
I think it would be helpful in finding a solution if those in favour of using the wording "summary execution" could explain how it can be applied to the killing by a banned organisation of two men lawfully going about their business in their own country, why it is preferable to the indisputably NPOV wording "killed" and what additional information they think it gives the reader over the suggested alternatives. A useful first step in this would be if they would simply provide the definition of "summary execution" that they are using, along with a reliable source.--FergusM1970 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You yourself accept that a number of sources use the term objected to by you in your outline of the primary issue involved. Therefore the term itself is not an issue. Your objection to it is. You have been asked repeatedly to support your contention and have offered nothing more than synthesis of published material that advances a position. This is also considered to be original research. The onus is on you to support your contention not on editors who like you accept that a number of sources use the term you object to. The tread above is still open, likewise you can address the issue here if you wish? -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I accepted that one source apparently uses the term, but that the overwhelming majority do not use it and instead use "killed" or "murdered." To label providing the definition of "execution" as synthesis is frankly bizarre. An execution is the carrying out of a death sentence. Howes and Wood were not sentenced to death and indeed could not have been except by their own chain of command, as the death penalty under civilian law was abolished in 1973. I note that those supporting the use of the disputed wording consistently refuse to provide their definition of it, any reason why it is preferable to the NPOV term "killed" or any explanation of what additional information it provides the reader.--FergusM1970 (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You state quite clearly that "The vast majority of sources describing this particular incident use the terms "murder" or "killing," with only a very few using "summary execution." This is clearly not the one source your apparently now suggesting. Regardless of "very few" or even just "one" it still dose not address the concerns raised here by editors, that being your refusal to support your contention outlined above a number of times. That you accept that the term is used, even by one source requires that you provide a source which challenges its use. You also claim that "The term "summary execution" has been repeatedly used to refer to the killing of two British soldiers by the Provisional IRA in 1988." Please provide the links for this repeated use?-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The basis on which I am challenging its use is very clear: it's inaccurate, because Wood and Howes were not executed. I'm not massively bothered that one source uses it, because if I dig deep enough I can find one source that says practically anything. Anyway. Wood and Howes were not "executed" because they were not sentenced to death or accused of a crime. On the other hand they were clearly "killed" and arguably "murdered" too, because there is not a single jurisdiction under which their deaths would have been lawful. By "repeated use" I refer to the fact that every attempt to change the wording in the article to something NPOV has been reverted without explanation, i.e. it has been inserted in the article repeatedly'. Now, are you going to explain why you think it's more appropriate than "killed"?--FergusM1970 (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * To any impartial observer, I've been reasonable throughout this discussion despite both the absence of a mediator and the above editors consistent stonewalling and prevarication. That they consistently revert to offering personal opinions and synthesis when asked to support their claims is probably best left to a mediator. So until then there is not much left to address? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the mediators will draw their own conclusions about who's stonewalling without it being pointed out to them. However I agree that given your refusal to explain why the wording "summary execution" is appropriate there's not much point in continuing this until a mediator gets involved. No doubt we both have better things to do until then.--FergusM1970 (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources mentioning "summarily executed" and WP:CONSENSUS
Looking at both the article itself, its talk page and the arbitration enforcement page I count at least eight editors (me, Fergus, Flexdream, JonChapple, Sonofsetanta, Heimstern, My very best wishes and EdJohnston) who 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." Indeed the only reliable source which I can find that uses it is in a book on the former Yugoslavia written by an American author who readily admits that he is not an expert in the intricacies of Northern Ireland politics, describing himself as "a central European historian whose focus on sectarian conflict centers on the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires rather than on a country [Northern Ireland] that takes pride in its historic and cultural exceptionalism."

There may be other sources which use it but they are dwarfed by the many more sources which use "killed" or "shot dead." Either would be fine per the sources. To me 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).

So here on the one hand we have a wording that many users find problematic, which is used in only one (?) reliable source, by an author unfamiliar with the conflict in question and which clearly does not have consensus while on the other hand we have the option of either using "killed" (which was the stable version of the article for many years) or "shot dead", factual terms used in many more sources by multiple authors familiar with the conflict. The solution to me seems obvious. Valenciano (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * With little looking here is Herald newspaper which uses the term. Despite your comments above, Peter Taylor uses the term executed a number of times in his Brits: The War Against the IRA. Likewise The Age newspaper uses the term executed. You say above that "there are relatively few which" which use the term, could you provide them? I have a copy of Feeney's Sinn Féin: A Hundred Turbulent Years, and it dose not as you suggest use the word "killed", it simply says "drove them off to shoot them." So what we have here is in fact a term which is supported by a number of reliable sources and some editors have a problem with that. Their rational for removing it is flawed, based as it is on their personal opinion, and who has misrepresented sources on two occasions in an attempt to support their opinions. If you don't like the sources and want the term removed, challenge its use by providing sources which challenge its use. If that's problematic, its hardly the concern of editors who do in fact support the content that they use. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  18:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at one of the sources which you have chosen to support your claim I see that the article in The Age newspaper is headed 'Outrage at Belfast Revenge Murders' and the article begins 'Horror and outrage have greeted the murder of two British soldiers ..' And you say this source supports using the term 'executed'? The term 'executed' is used by the IRA who also claim the solders were members of the SAS. --Flexdream (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you know why PIRA claimed they were SAS? It would be amusing if it wasn't so tragic. Howes had recently been posted in from Germany, which was why Wood was giving him a tour of Belfast that day. After they were abducted, stripped and robbed, two cards were found in Howes' wallet. One was a SOXMIS card, issued to all soldiers stationed in BAOR and telling them that any sighting of Soviet Military Mission cars was to be reported to Herford military extension 2222. The other was a card for a taxi company, also in Herford. The funeral "chief steward," Cleeky Clark (and if ever a man deserved his subsequent death from cancer it was him - I hope it was agonising) allegedly decided that Herford meant Hereford, where the SAS are based. As they're only 500 miles apart I suppose it's a reasonable error, assuming that you're enough of a complete grunting moron to think that the SAS carry cards marked with a large Soviet flag and that taxi companies in a town near the Welsh border print their business cards in German. The cards made no difference to the men's fate, of course, but obviously PIRA would rather claim to have killed two SAS men than a pair of frightened radio antenna repairmen who were more scared of breaking the rules of engagement than they were of a vicious mob. SAS, or even trained infantrymen, would have been out of the car and into the nice two-story house fifty feet away, where they'd have happily installed themselves in an upstairs bedroom, radioed for the Quick Reaction Force and passed the time until it arrived shooting anyone who came up the stairs. The claims that Howes and Wood were SAS is just another layer of pathetic vileness smeared on top of an already disgusting atrocity.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 01:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at another source you have chosen, Taylor uses 'executed' in quotes to show it was not a proper execution, Brits: The War Against the IRA. He does not describe it as a summary execution either. --Flexdream (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Flexdream, is that correct? Does the Taylor book not use the wording "summary execution"? Because if it doesn't then that wording has been in the article on no basis whatsoever since March, which really makes me wonder how we've ended up with this mess.--FergusM197019 March 1988. Never forget, never forgive. 08:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Taylor uses 'executed' in quotes to show it was not a proper execution..." Where dose he say that? Oh that's right, your just suggesting thats what he meant. Still waiting for the sources requested, I'll not be responding to unsupported opinions, so please support with links or sources. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  19:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article you mention uses "execution" twice, once in the context of a PIRA statement (which is obviously POV and can be dismissed out of hand) and "murders" or "murdered" about six times. It also uses "killings" and "act of savagery." For Domer to cite it as a source for using "executed," much less "summarily executed" which does not appear in it at all is very peculiar indeed.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 19:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Domer48, read what I said again. I didn't say that Feeney used the word killed, so please don't misrepresent what I said (especially in a post where you complain about people misrepresenting others!) I said he used the term "shot dead"... and the exact quote is "drove them off to shoot them dead" just as I said. As for Taylor et al, we're not discussing the use of the term "executed" we're discussing the use of the term "summarily executed", which is different, so no, neither Taylor nor The Age use or support the summarily executed wording. In fact the Age uses quite a number of terms to describe what happened: "the murder of two British soldiers..." ... "reaction to the murders" ...."Cardinal O'Fiach said the murders..." ... "after the two soldiers were killed." Not once does it use the terminology "summarily executed." So in the end, despite what was most likely an extensive search, you've managed to turn up one solitary additional source which supports your preferred wording (and have ironically enough supplied us with an additional source which supports either "killed" or "murdered") which confirms what I said about the paucity of quality sources supporting the summarily executed wording. To date we have two: a small local newspaper with a 10,000 circulation and a book by an author, who admits he's unfamiliar with the Northern Ireland conflict, in a book about Yugoslavia! We really are firmly into WP:UNDUE territory here, with editors insisting on a "summarily executed" wording used by hardly any sources, when in contrast alternative wordings are used by far more sources. Valenciano (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is the wording problematic? Perhaps because they believe the parrot-like comments of FergusM1970 that it's pro-IRA or confers legitimacy on the killings, when in fact it does the exact opposite? Consensus is based on strength of argument not counting heads, and when you are arguing that a term means the exact opposite of what it really means that doesn't strike me as a particularly strong argument. 2 lines of K  303  09:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's possible, though you'd have to ask editors like EdJohnson that, alternatively it could be that they object to it because the "summarily executed" terminology is at times controversial, which is why it's often used in parenthesis, , , something you won't find with terms like "killed" or "shot dead."


 * It's also used by politicians or groups who wish to make a point, see for example  page 110 and we shouldn't be trying to make a point here. That's possibly why very few sources use it about this specific event. I could only find one, from an author unfamiliar with the Northern Ireland conflict. I've no doubt there's a couple more knocking around but that doesn't alter the fact that the preferred terminology in the vast bulk of sources is killed or shot dead. Valenciano (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well that's why I said head counting, as it seems it's just them agreeing with the initial erroneous assertion. I'm aware the term is used to refer to IRA volunteers being killed in addition, but that is (presumably) to make the point their killings were unlawful.


 * I've still yet to hear anyone say how using "summarily executed" is republican or pro-IRA POV than "killed", since summary executions are illegal and "killed" doesn't convey that the killings were illegal? That's my basic objection to this whole thing, people have their terminology back to front. It's pro-IRA to use terminology that makes it clear the IRA killed them illegaly? Seriously? 2 lines of K  303  12:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that has been explained to you multiple times already. Use of the term "execution" clearly implies that the killings were punishment for a crime and that PIRA had the authority or right to execute people. All of these things are incorrect. Two men lawfully going about their business were abducted, beaten, stabbed and shot by members of a banned organisation. You have given no explanation at all for why these deaths should be described as executions. If you do indeed wish to make it clear that they were killed illegally there is a less ambiguous term, "murdered," which I'd be happy with as a compromise if you agree.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 20:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way, Domer48. Presently the article says that the men were attacked by "bystanders." Now, for every RS you can find that says they were "summarily executed" I'm pretty sure I can find two that say they were attacked by a "lynch mob," so should that be in the article? By the way, if you really don't like "killed" because it doesn't make it clear that the killings were illegal I'm still happy to compromise on "murdered," if that's alright by you.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 00:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Source request
"Try the Third Geneva Convention. It is legal to summarily execute those not protected by POW status, such as, ahem, guerrillas who do not bear arms openly and wear an identifying insignia" has been claimed. I very much doubt this is the case, and would request a source that unambiguously proves it. 2 lines of K 303  09:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The text of the Third Geneva Convention is available here. You will note that it forbids summary execution only when applied to prisoners of war, and provides a list of those entitled to that status. Guerillas who don't openly bear arms and wear a distinguishing insignia aren't on it.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 20:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking about. Saying that with regard to POWs "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" is prohibited is not the same thing as saying that you're legally allowed to summarily execute people who don't qualify for POW status, as you claimed. This is backed up emphatically by a secondary source (and not your interpretation of a primary source) which reads "It is also laid down in Additional Protocol I, which states that anyone who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status, and does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention, still enjoys the fundamental guarantees of Article 75 contained in Additional Protocol I. Consequently, the summary execution of spies is prohibited". There is no text whatsoever in the Third Geneva Convention that states "It is legal to summarily execute those not protected by POW status, such as, ahem, guerrillas who do not bear arms openly and wear an identifying insignia", as you falsely claimed. 2 lines of K  303  20:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A question for you. Is it legal for the US military to execute spies? Because the USA hasn't ratified Protocol I. The fact is that summary execution is not automatically illegal, and you still haven't explained why you think it's better than "killed" as regards this article.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 20:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I decline to answer off-topic questions about the US military. Since it has been proven beyond doubt that you make a number of false statements, I request a source that supports your claim that "The fact is that summary execution is not automatically illegal". Once again I have explained why, please try reading the talk page. 2 lines of K  303  20:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's OK. The answer is yes, the US military can indeed execute spies. However, the key issue remains that you haven't explained why you think Howes and Wood were executed and you haven't explained what your objection to "killed" or "murdered" is. We're trying to resolve a content dispute here, and it is clear that there is nothing like a concensus on describing the killings as executions. We can go on debating for weeks, but personally I'd rather find a solution acceptable to all sides and move on. Either "killed" or "murdered" would be acceptable to me, both are accurate descriptions of events and "killed," at least, is unarguably NPOV. What, exactly, are your specific objections to these terms?--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 21:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This unfortunately is the second time we have had a misrepresentation of a source. I have on a number of occasions provided links to both WP:SYN and WP:OR and again all that has been offered is personal opinions devoid of a WP:RS. There is not going to be any reliable source provided because the views and opinions expressed by the editor are unsupportable by any sources. We have simply had the removal of text that the editor dose not like. The text objected to is sourced by a WP:Reliable source, and no reasonable argument has been offered to support its removal. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Plenty of reliable sources for either "killed" or "murdered" have been provided for you, and the scarcity of sources for "summarily executed" shows that, as a view of the incident, it is well into the wonderful world of WP:FRINGE. Just because a very few sources describe the killings as executions doesn't mean that this minority - and frankly distasteful - view should be given equal weight to the majority one, and the article already contains the information that PIRA claim to have "executed" the men, in the form of a quote from PIRA themselves. Therefore I see no reason for it to be given such prominence in the introductory paragraph. And you still haven't explained why you think it's a better description tham "killed" is.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 19:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As per above, re: unsupported comment and opinion.-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What? It is not my "opinion" that Wood and Howes were killed. It is not "unsupported" that most RS use either "killed" or "murdered" to describe their deaths. Now, are you finally going to explain why you think the article should say "summarily executed"?--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 21:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer this please. Is the view that the torture and killing by a banned organisation, of two men going about their lawful business, counts as an "execution" a common one, or does it fall under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE?--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 21:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support your claims that "most RS use either "killed" or "murdered"" provide the reliable sources? Still waiting for someone to say how using "summarily executed" is republican or pro-IRA POV than "killed", when a summary executions is illegal and "killed" doesn't convey that the killings were illegal? That FergusM1970 clearly doesn't understand what a summary execution is, and keeps offering his own incoherent definition which has yet to be supported by a reliable source leads one to question their motives. That they have on two occasions misrepresented sources, likewise the editor above who misquoted two published sources, I too will not respond to unsupported commentary and opinion and I too will decline to answer off-topic questions.-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  22:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here,, here and here. By contrast, "summarily executed" only finds this. I think these links make the relative popularities of the terms quite plain. Now, you insist that I don't know what a summary execution is, so instead of griping about it why don't you just tell me? While you're at it you can explain why you think it's the appropriate wording for this article. If, as you say, it's to make clear that the killings were illegal then "murdered" is a lot less ambiguous. Would you be happy with "murdered," which is supported by far more RS than "summarily executed" is? If so then we've found a solution and all is well; one of us can edit the article accordingly.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 22:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As for saying that summary executions are illegal, they are illegal under most (but not all) circumstances now. That has not always been the case. Summary executions have been carried out legally for centuries on spies, terrorists, looters, deserters and other assorted miscreants. As has already been explained (and backed up by RS) an execution is the carrying out of a death sentence. Wood and Howes had not been sentenced to death, so their deaths cannot have been an execution even if a small number of sources use that wording. The only way they could have been sentenced to death in 1988 would have been if they had been court-martialled for treason, desertion or giving aid to the enemy. This was not the case, therefore they were clearly not executed.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 22:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Per my previous. As far as this link goes, here I have most of them books, now which ones support your claims? I'll use that link, because its the same link for all three. Is this yet another example of you misrepresenting? Please stop.-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  22:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It clearly isn't the same link for all three. Now, are you seriously denying that far more sources use "killed" than use "summarily executed"? Are you also denying that as an execution is the carrying out of a death penalty it is not in fact what happened to Howes and Wood? Valenciana has already provided you - twice - with evidence that the wording you insist on is used by very few sources and is hugely outnumbereed by "killed," "murdered" and "shot dead." You have ignored him. Meanwhile you refuse to comment on my suggested solution to this dispute. What, exactly, are your objections to saying that Wood and Howes were killed by PIRA?--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 23:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced commentary
Due to FergusM1970's repeated assertions of "fact" that are not supported by the sources when they are eventually provided, I will no longer be replying to any point consisting of an unsourced claim. Unless sources that prove the statement being made are provided, that is my position. 2 lines of K 303  20:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine. We've wasted too much time on side issues already.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 21:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While I can fully understand your position, the fact that the editor has on two occasions now misrepresented sources to support their argument asking that sources be provided now is possibly only inviting more of the same. As their last post above shows, they are not willing to listen. I'd be just as happy to await a mediator who could possible have better luck. The proposal below is a very clear example of simply not listening-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  21:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whereas refusing to explain why the disputed wording is more suitable than any proposed alternative is a very clear example of not being willing to discuss. At no point has anyone explained why they think Howes and Wood were executed or why they think that a term which several editors obviously object to is better than an accurate and NPOV one, namely "killed."--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 21:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Solution
As the aim of this process is to resolve a content dispute, it's probably time that a solution was proposed. It is clear that under both UK and international law Howes and Wood were murdered, but I am aware that this term may be seen as POV. Therefore I, and apparently most of the other involved editors, would accept "killed" as suitable wording. If anyone sees any reasons why this wording is not suitable could they please lay them out as a basis for further discussion?--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 21:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, while one source (an academic publication on an unrelated topic, by an author who may not be familiar with the incident) has been cited to support the use of "summarily executed," the vast majority of reliable sources use the terms "killed," "murdered" or "shot dead." To insist on the retention of the wording due to that one source seems to me like it's heading into WP:FRINGE. Shouldn't we go with the overwhelmingly more common descriptions rather than single out this one source for special prominence, without even any attempt to explain why? The fact is that the term "execution" was often used by PIRA to describe its victims, including for example the murder by IED of a 79 year old man and the abduction, torture and shooting of dozens of civilians who had legally cooperated with the police. As such its use gives a distinct impression of POV-pushing even if that is not the intention here.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 21:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't consider 'murdered' as POV. I think that term should be used. It has already been established that 'summarily executed' is seldom used in sources, compared with 'murdered'. Wikipedia should reflect sources, not select sources to make a point. 'Shot' and 'killed' are accurate. 'Murdered' is also accurate and describes the illegality of the killing. 'Summarily executed' implies there was a charge and a trial (of sorts). There is no evidence or even claim that either of these criteria was met. 'Summarily executed' is inaccurate, and thus the argument about whether 'summarily executed' is pro-IRA or anti-IRA is irrelevant. --Flexdream (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The issue seems to be that no justification has been offered for why "summarily executed" should be used, beyond the careful selection of one source out of the many. It would help if other editors explained why they want to use it, in preference to the alternatives, but so far they haven't done so.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 22:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think 'murdered' is more descriptive and equally accurate. I now think that 'shot' is best avoided as people can be 'shot' and survive, so it is not always clear that someone 'shot' has been killed. I suppose 'shot dead' would do it? --Flexdream (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Shot dead" would do, as long as it's made clear that they were also beaten and stabbed. What I'm really looking for is any argument in favour of "summarily executed," but at this stage I think it's clear we're not going to see any.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 15:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You could have 'shot dead' in the introduction, as the details about being beaten and stabbed also are covered already in the article. I also see that in the article the IRA statement is quoted with the IRA choosing to describe the deaths as an execution. --Flexdream (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That would do, although I think it would be more helpful if the introduction simply said "killed" and left the sordid details for the main body. Anyway is it OK if I move this to the discussion above, to leave this space clear for arguments in favour of "summarily executed" (if any ever turn up)?--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 16:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fergus - feel free to move my posts from here, I can see how that will make it clearer. Thanks for asking though. --Flexdream (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Arguments IN FAVOUR of changing to "Killed"
--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 23:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Factually accurate - the men were alive and are now dead due to the actions of others.
 * Indisputably NPOV - does not take sides and simply relates facts dispassionately.
 * Supported by numerous RS, for example, and.
 * Stable (and uncontroversial) version from 22 February 2006 until changed to disputed wording on 19 February 2012.

Arguments IN FAVOUR of changing to "Murdered"
--FergusM197019 March 1988. Never forget, never forgive. 02:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Addresses concerns raised by User:One_Night_In_Hackney and User:Domer48 that "Killed" does not make clear that the killings were illegal. However may not be NPOV.
 * Supported by numerous RS.
 * Consistent with the fact that several of the killers were convicted of murder.

Arguments IN FAVOUR of keeping "Summarily executed"
If anyone has any arguments in favour of "summarily executed," please describe them here.

Nothing?

Continued Point of view editing despite Mediation
How can any mediation process proceed when editors continue to make contentious edits even after a mediator has agreed to accept the case? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly I don't see what's contentious about them; they are factual, NPOV and sourced where required. Secondly this mediation is about the replacement of the disputed wording "summarily executed" with "killed," which I notice nobody has actually put forward any objections to yet.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 21:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Domer If that is what you believe, I'd have thought you'd be keener to see mediation proceed in this case. Fergus has opened mediation which is non-binding, consensual and without prejudice. They want to see discussion of issues as a way forward. I think that is the better way than refusing to participate because you don't like what is happening elsewhere. --Flexdream (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)