Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:29, 7 August 2012

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 Misplaced Pages. 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.--FergusM1970 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:

1. You don't understand what a summary execution is
2. Despite repeated requests to find out what a summary execution is, you haven't
3. 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 K₃₀₃ 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 K₃₀₃ 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 K₃₀₃ 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 K₃₀₃ 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 K₃₀₃ 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 K₃₀₃ 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 K₃₀₃ 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 Misplaced Pages'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 , 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 K₃₀₃ 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 K₃₀₃ 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 K₃₀₃ 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 K₃₀₃ 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 K₃₀₃ 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 K₃₀₃ 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 K₃₀₃ 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 K₃₀₃ 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 K₃₀₃ 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 K₃₀₃ 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.--FergusM1970 08:23, 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?--Domer48_'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? --Domer48_'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 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)

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? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)