Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:15, 2 August 2012

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Northern Ireland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Belfast Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belfast, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the City of Belfast, Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.BelfastWikipedia:WikiProject BelfastTemplate:WikiProject BelfastBelfast-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV attributed

WP:NPOV mandates journalistic sensationalism should not be presented as fact, as was happening in this article.

• - "Corporal Wood and Cpl. David Howes (both members of the SAS) were dragged from their car, stripped, beaten and shot by members of a Roman Catholic funeral procession Saturday in Belfast, Northern Ireland" - no mention of "torture"
• - "The men were dragged from the car and taken to a nearby sports ground where they were stripped and beaten. They were then taken to wasteground by Murphy and Maguire and shot repeatedly - no mention of "torture"
• - "who took part in the torture and shooting" - aha, the first mention of torture. Now read further on in the same article and see what the torture consisted of - "The men were bundled into a nearby sports ground, where they were stripped to their underwear and beaten. Murphy and Maguire then took them to wasteground, where they were shot repeatedly by two gunmen" - so it's the exact same as the other sources; stripped, beaten and shot.

Just one newspaper has decided to call the events "torture" but according to policy that doesn't make it a fact. Opinions attributed to the people that hold them, as policy mandates. Freegan 02:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Untrue: "The soldiers were beaten, tortured and eventually shot when they drove into the path of a republican funeral in Belfast in March 1988.". they were reportedly tortured.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This "tortured" nonsense is POV wording for "stripped, beaten and shot", so "tortured" is inherently POV and weasel wording. BigDunc 12:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tortured is fully sourced from two sources. You are synthasising.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

All I am doing is attributing what happened to the description, nothing more. I am not removing "tortured" after all, just attributing it properly BigDunc 13:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You are adding scare quotes and attempting to dilute the sentense. You are in WP terms adding weasel words.Traditional unionist (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded the attribution and removed the scare quote (since it is a single word, we don't have to worry about quoting for copyright purposes). Attribution is always a good thing, but since we are not attributing everything else that was reported by the news media, we have to be careful that in doing so we are not giving the impression we are casting doubt on its veracity. Rockpocket 16:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tortured is weasel wording. All sources agree stripped, beaten and shot. Those are the facts. Some sources describe that as tortured, some do not. If they were tortured, state how. This is not an outlet for British media propaganda to be presented. The facts are stripped, beaten and shot, tortured is journalistic embellishment. BigDunc 16:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Its clearly not the most strictly defined term, but then again, neither is the word "beaten". If multiple independent sources say they were tortured then there is no reason that cannot be used here, if properly attributed. The fact that some media source do not use that term does not make it inappropriate when others do. You could argue that this page is not the place for IRA propaganda to be presented, yet we still quote their rather laughable version of events. And rightly so. Rockpocket 17:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My edit, and Rockpocket's are essentially the same. Why Dunc haven't you been edit warring with him?Traditional unionist (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since apparently according to TU the word "tortured" doesn't need attributing despite it being opinion, there's no longer any objections to "sectarian" being stated as fact about the Orange Order? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that supposed to help anything? Is there a RS to say they wern't tortured?Traditional unionist (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Come guys, I thought this had been resolved? "Torture" is a pretty evocative word, so lets source it to who used it. If there is a particular problem with collectively referring to the BBC and The Independent as "British news sources" (which they are, of course) then lets just say, "According to the BBC and The Independent..." No big deal, surely? Rockpocket 17:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The needless verbosity is designed to undermine the sources. "Has been described as" makes more sense.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It was sorted, until an editor decided to breach NPOV. Then an IP editor with previous questionable edits and attacks on editors stalked me to this article, then TU joined in the edit war and breached NPOV. Domer48 (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As I noted, I saw no evidence of any consensus that British sources had to be so identified. That said, I had no involvement with any subsequent 'edit wars' and no interest in getting so involved. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There you go again throwing around the accusations. This is why you are very often a part of the problem.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So, being stripped and beaten is not torture? That is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.0.48 (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Intro

I replaced the reference used which related to the aquital of one of those found guilty of murder.--Padraig (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer vs Militant

I changed the term "IRA volunteer" to "IRA militant", and this was reverted. I was a little surprised that this was controversial, so I'll explain my reasoning. "Volunteer" is the term the IRA use to describe themselves. The law, and the British government describe them as terrorists, murderers etc. As such, I would have thought that the neutral term in this case would be militant or some equivalent, which describes their use of violence without passing judgment on the legitimacy, and without using the organisation's own internal terminology. As it stands the article uses IRA terms and this seems to be in breach of NPOV. HMS Vanguard (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Is there somewhere that this was discussed or decided upon? It doesn't seem reasonable to me. HMS Vanguard (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "Volunteers" is what the IRA called themselves, just as "soldiers" is what the British called themselves. Many Irish would consider the British terrorists and murderers. If militant is truly the neutral term, then you should also change any mention of British soldiers to British militants. If that's really what you want to do, then I'd support it. If you just want to chip away at the IRA's standing, then I'll have to pass. Sas556 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The term "soldier" is also a neutral, descriptive term. If the IRA belonged to a recognised state, its members should be described as soldiers in an encyclopedia. Hence, a member of Hezbollah would be a "militant" while an Iranian army adviser would be a "soldier". HMS Vanguard (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not use the NPOV IRA member?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

IRA member is far more NPOV. The British Army is the recognised armed forces of a sovereign state, its soldiers can be called soldiers as that is what they are de facto and de jure. The IRA is not recognised as the army of a soveriegn state, and they are militants. Volunteer as a NPOV term is highly dubious in regards to the PIRA (as opposed to the original IRA) and depends on the author of the source and their sympathies. Member is far more neutral for a paramilitary terrorist organisation. Mabuska 14:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume you have no objection to using "member" to refer to people in the British Army then? Volunteer is the correct term for IRA soldiers, although we can always use soldier if you prefer? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read my previous comment? The British Army is an actual army, the IRA is not - what world recognition do they have as an army? Paramilitary would be a more accurate description for members of the IRA (and UVF etc.) however member is far more neutral and has less political and honourific baggage. Mabuska 20:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A discussion on the use of Volunteer vs "member" is taking place at WP Ireland. JonChapple 08:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that POV pushing should be avoided. It is quite apparent from reading the article, for example, that earlier editor(s) inserted "Corporal" at every available opportunity not to improve the article's brevity or readability, but in order to hammer into the reader's head the idea that this incident was some sort of military battle as opposed to a lynching. Part and parcel of this is presenting the IRA men in a light consistent with this particular POV as opposed to, say, as members of some sort of armed gang. So how can POV pushing be avoided here? I would suggest a general avoidance of substituting the terminology used in the sources cited. If the cited source mostly describes either side as just "men", for example, another term should not be used unless a supporting argument is provided.--Brian Dell (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Cherry picking

I see no reason why one statement should have quotes cherry picked from it in a misleading way, and equally no reason why both statements need to be included in full. Please discuss proposed changes rather than continuing to edit war. O Fenian (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The IRA issued a statement claiming they were SAS. It's WP:NOTABLE because the SAS was especially hated at this time and notability is is "reason" for inclusion. You evidently don't think there is any way for the article to refer to this fact without either being prohibitively lengthy or being "misleading". It would be most accurate for the article to state flatly that the IRA FALSELY accused the two men of being SAS (not that even that would warrant execution, without even a show trial, as opposed to being taken as POWs in manner consistent with IRA claims that there was a war going on) but just having the IRA's accusation alone in the article would at least allow readers to discover the truth if they were inclined to dwell on it. At present the fact is just being suppressed, with the excuse that it can't be included without including extra, non-notable stuff ("cherry picking"). If you were really interested in discussing as opposed to edit warring, I would think you would identify what, exactly, is "misleading" about noting that the IRA claimed they were SAS because just repeating "misleading" without argument or a citation of Wiki policies does not amount to discussion.Bdell555 (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that the guideline you keep linking to is of little to no relevance on article content. The statement you have added adds nothing that is not in the other statement, and leaves out crucial information that is in the other statement. That they were allegedly SAS is irrelevant, considering they had fired shots at unarmed funeralgoers, were ascertained to be soldiers from the occupying army (regardless of what regiment), they were a legitimate target, SAS or not. O Fenian (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

O Fenian terms such as "occupying army" should be avoided as they a clear POV terms that have no backing in the real-world. How can an army be an occupying force in its own country? Mabuska 14:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What "crucial information" would that be? The IRA claim that "at no time did our Volunteers physically attack the soldiers"? The 2003 book Sinn Fein: A Hundred Turbulent Years indicates that "false" would be a better descriptor of that particular bit of information than "crucial". Professor Declan Kiberd describes this book as "n analytical and narrative masterpiece.... Brian Feeney has managed to recount the roller-coaster history of Sinn Féin in a balanced and extremely vivid manner." Most importantly here, the one IRA statement that this book cites is the statement where the IRA asserts that they are SAS. For what it is worth, most WP:RS indicate that Wood and Howes fired a warning shot, as opposed to firing at funeralgoers as you claim. Your choice of the word "legitimate" implies applying some sort of rule of law, which is ironic given that most neutral observers (I am Canadian) consider this incident as an example of anything but. The word for the type of "target" already disarmed, beaten men present for a bullet is "easy". An editor consensus in favour of a biased article shouldn't be that difficult for you to find, given that republicans are the majority in Ireland and likely in America too. I would rather suggest that what Wiki should reflect is the consensus of historians and reliable sources. On this point, I remind you that Feeney's 464 page history saw nothing in your preferred IRA statement that merited inclusion, while holding it necessary to note the statement where the IRA claimed they were SAS. Having said that, I don't object to including both statements because, unlike you, I am not inclined to suppress or delete any facts someone wants included.Bdell555 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you continuing to edit war to your preferred version which I have said is unacceptable, it is achieving nothing? I suggest you propose a change that takes my concerns into account, assuming you have an interest in finding consensus. O Fenian (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Republicans were not the majority in NI at the time. Ceoil (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

They still aren't a majority in NI present. If thats judged on political party support, you'd need to add in the fact about half the unionist electorate never vote. Mabuska 14:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that the latest edit was designed to satisfy your demand that only one IRA statement be included without "cherry picking" but you reverted that too. I cannot agree with your implication here that you own the article, and other articles you consider relevant to Irish republicanism, such that what you, alone, consider "unacceptable" is final. You have not responded to any of the points I made above, so I assume that nothing further can be done here without your edit warring.Bdell555 (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So you think you can make any changes you like regardless of the objections of other editors, and you claim other people think they own articles? And you keep making the same edit regardless of being reverted the first time and think other people are edit warring?

I repeat my suggestion from the second sentence in my last post, since I see little worth discussing in anything else you have written. O Fenian (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you would know what edit warring is, since you are currently under a block for edit warring, and have been reprimanded by an administrator as well for falsely characterizing a content dispute as an incidence of vandalism. You've made your point in any case, which is that your determination to have the article read your way is greater than my determination to have it read my way.Bdell555 (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment on content not editors please. Bringing up an editors history is a form of an ad hominem attack, and even though the block logs are true - bringing them up in a dicussion on content can only serve as an attempt to discredit an editor for one's own gain. Mabuska 15:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Rather than a cohierant argument, thats a good ploy. Ceoil (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Bdell555 has provided a good solid arguement for their change, whereas O Fenian has provided nothing but blank arguements of edit-warring and voicing they have concerns which they won't elaborate on or provide anything to back up other than that they find it unacceptable. When Bdell555 has provided a response and asks questions of O Fenian - they are ignored. Bdell555 responses fully quantify his additions into the article, and if this was taken to a content dispute resolution, it would probably find in his favour going by both editors responses at the moment.

If its reliably and verifiably sourced, adds neutrality to the article where there is possibly bias, or adds in conflicting accounts of events that highlight the uncertainty of claims made at the time of the incident - then what right does blank empty arguements have to oppose it?

Just realised this isn't a recent discussion, but a response is still qualified i think, though i'll make it small as the discussion is dead at the moment. Mabuska 15:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Image needed

An image is needed for the lead. Preferably a photograph of the street in which the killings took place.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"British media"

We should all know better than to edit-war, especially those editors here longer than others. My last edit was more or less simply to get you all here to do the mature thing and talk about it.

Jonchapple has a genuine concern which i agree with - the statement that is being argued over does seem to give an impression of weasel and impartial partisan wording. There is no real need to have "British media" stated, just having BBC and The Independant listed, with both wikilinked, more than suffices.

The justitication's given for the reverts by ONiH and Domer48 are in my eyes quite poor. Surely removing the phrase is less POV pushing than trying to imply a partisan treatment by stating "British media"? In the interests of impartial tone, would that not be the best thing to do?

As i know what the obvious answer will be, outside opinion i think on the matter will probably need to be sought either by RfC or other content dispute resolution methods to see whether it does give out an impression of implying biased media treatment or not. Mabuska 20:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Would a link to a YouTube clip be warranted or is that bad taste?

The well-known footage of the event is available on YouTube (just search for "Corporals killings"). Since it shows the attack on the car and its occupants quite clearly would it be justified to have a link to it in an external links section? I hesitate to put it in myself. What do people think? --bodnotbod (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too sure, it might be justified, but a warning would have to be provided alongside the link. Mabuska 11:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a link as the video is far more illustrative than this mere collection of words, but probably best to include some kind of warning, per Mabuska. JonChapple 13:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Would be in favour the addition of the link, widely broadcast at the time. But with a warning yes, its disturbing viewing. Ceoil (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't include links to copyright violations, and that cannot be discarded simply because people here decide they want the link. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You could have siad that without being so condesending. Ceoil (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct. A simple "We can't add it because it's copyrighted" or link to the relevant policy would have done. JonChapple 11:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm always correct, my British friend. But looking back I always found One Night In Hackney to be a fairly spot on editor and tearse comments are allowed from time to time. As he says we can't have the link, so thats that. Ceoil (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of curioussty since i've never come across the idea of links to video files before, and thus no clue as to the exact policies on them, what is the exact policy on them? Is it the same as with images used on Misplaced Pages in that they need appropriate classification and copyright information or aren't allowed full stop? If it was a BBC clip on the BBC's own YouTube page would it still be a copyright violation especially seeing as they would have put it up? Mabuska 20:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

From my reading of WP:YT, it would seem that if it's a BBC hosted clip, for example, like you said, it would be fine, but user-submitted ones aren't. All the Corporals killings ones I've come across have been user-uploaded. JonChapple 20:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If my comment was perceived as terse then I apologise. I was simply hoping to emphasise, particularly as I was planning to be away for several days, that my comment could not be dismissed to claim a "four versus one" consensus. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I didn't think it through when I started this. It would be a copy vio (unless uploaded by the BBC). Fair enough. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry too and no worries Hackney, your right. Ceoil (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary Execution

And the crime they were charged with was what?--Flexdream (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't ask irrelevant questions. Reference for summary execution added, good day to you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Northern Ireland-related articles
• Mid-importance Northern Ireland-related articles
• All WikiProject Northern Ireland pages
• C-Class Belfast-related articles
• Mid-importance Belfast-related articles
• C-Class Ireland articles
• Mid-importance Ireland articles
• C-Class Ireland articles of Mid-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• B-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles