Talk:James Foley (journalist)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Slander/falsehoods about Foley

speculation, WP:NOTAFORUM

"Convicted and executed as a spy and assassin"? "Pedophile"? Who keeps posting this stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.193.164 (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Vandals and trolls. WP:BDP applies, Biography of Living persons applies to the recently deceased, and those whose deaths may legitimately questioned (as in the bloomberg reference above). Martin451 16:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS or not ISIS?

Intro:

"he was abducted and later killed by a fundamentalist militia in northwestern Syria...Foley is the first American killed by ISIS militia"

I understand that - at least earlier today, fill me in - it was unsure whether it was ISIS who did it. If it was, then the intro should say:

"he was abducted and later killed by an ISIS militia in northwestern Syria...Foley is the first American killed by ISIS militia"

And if we still don't know, then all references to ISIS in the lead should be removed unless they have a "reported" or "alleged" before them. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

He was killed by ISIS this is verified by the highest level sources per the article (see footnotes). Who abducted him in 2012 is open for discussion. -- GreenC 23:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Religion RC Church

Wasn't he Roman Catholic as some site said he prayed the rosary in detention? See [1] and [2] 62.205.66.50 (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll add it as I find several newspapers mention it too.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Death confirmed

It is inapproprite to list "cause of death" as beheading. It can be listed as a means of execution or murder but the graphic nature and the description beheading is not a standard way of listing cause of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.102.58 (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Foley's family has confirmed his death. The family is the first to be notified. It would be a shame if this article became a monument to conspiracy theory and "what ifs" by the press and pundits. -- GreenC 05:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Why did the video show a still picture of the aftermath without showing the actual beheading? This is the first IS video that does not show the actual beheading which raises a reasonable doubt. Also, the alleged murderer in black spoke with a British accent which is not the norm for IS. The White House could not confirm and many news media are saying that there is a little chance that the video was fake.Worldedixor (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you have the sick need to actually view the beheading itself? (Read WP:NPA). Considering that the video was released by IS through their "official" channels, we can conclude it is authentic. Additionally, the family members of Foley have confirmed his death. IS has beheaded more than just a couple of people, it appears to be their M.O. as of late. There is no reasonable doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.183.232.24 (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly Wikipedia is not the place where people should publish there own theories, but when there is a debate we can report the debate. Are there some good reliable sources that can answer the following three questions:

* Was the American who spoke in the video James Foley?

* Was he killed?

* Was he killed by ISIS ( aka IS)?

Aberdeen01 (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Its not affirmed just yet. [3]>> What James Foley's Murder Says About Islamic State. Also the deate doesnt have to be when it was reported by videoLihaas (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on up to the minute news from NSC, video and beheading have been confirmed. [4] Worldedixor (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Crank conspiracy theorists

Right on cue and predictably with high profile events, crank theorists have shown up speculating the video is fake etc.. this is not the appropriate place to have that discussion see WP:NOTAFORUM (also known as SOAPBOXing) and WP:BLP (applies to recent deceased). There are no reliable sources that support that view and this isn't a forum to discuss or push personal opinions. Citizen journalism has its place, this is not it. -- GreenC 04:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss Wikipedia policy. Try the Village Pump.

Wikipedia should have a forum as well as a talk page in this case as the rational debate and discussion of many topics is a good thing and will help improve understanding and critical thinking. Your use of defensive language and slander shines light and gives solid foundation to these views you oppose. It reflects badly upon you.188.220.31.204 (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia(more specifically, talk pages) is not for discussing theories; we are here to write this encyclopedia, which is based on verifiability, not truth. This isn't a debate society or discussion forum. If you have reliable sources which support your views(which would differ with pretty much the entire world and even ISIS itself, who hasn't denied anything) then please offer them; otherwise, please find the proper forum for what you want to do. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC) As I said (above and below): Wikipedia needs a forum if Talk pages are not fit for purpose. You still did not answer if the CIA and other similar intelligence agencies can be relied upon as primary sources? The majority of reliable sources reprint unvarifiable information from said agencies, for example the false information used to start the ongoing war in Iraq in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.31.204 (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC) To everyone, Wikipedia is clearly WP:NOTAFORUM. This has not changed. However, since the events depicted in the video raise many questions leading that it may be staged by actors, "common sense" discussion on the Talk page as to whether or not to accept such allegedly staged event in an encyclopedia is warranted. There are many clues and inconsistences in the video to analyze. Worldedixor (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Something else to consider. According to Beheading video, there appears to be a precedent of "A hoax beheading video by Benjamin Vanderford received wide attention by the American press. The creators of the video claimed to have released the video to point out how uncritically the mainstream media would accept an anonymous video (the video turned up on U.S. media outlets immediately)." Worldedixor (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

David Cameron

British Prime Minister David Cameron cut short a holiday to hold meetings after the murder, due to a strong likelihood that the murderer was British. Can this go in the article, or is that making it more an article on the incident (execution) rather than a biography? http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/20/isis-fighter-beheaded-us-journalist-james-foley-appears-british-hammond '''tAD''' (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The murderer in question was described as having a British-sounding accent or apparently sounding British. That can and should be included if properly sourced. If it turns out that he is a British citizen, then by all means, no censorship. But I don't think it has been established yet for encyclopedic standards. Quis separabit? 01:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Voice experts and British people as a whole are agreed that the speaking voice of the masked man has a British accent. The wording in the article, "The killer spoke with a British accent" makes the generally held assumption that the masked man is speaking the words himself, not a voice-over. This is hard to prove for certain, but the video does give the impression that the masked man is the actual speaker.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP policy may apply to this article for another two years

Our BLP policy clearly states that "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." This is a particularly gruesome crime. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but "can extend" does not mean "must extend". 331dot (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP that added the defamatory content to the article, referenced in the now-collapsed section above concerning fringe/speculation. As for BLP, this clearly meets BLP for the time being. Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

can, "—six months, one year, two years" that may not be the case here, why bother posting this here as a specific topic when it is a simple suggestion? CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

$132 million is wrong

There is a HUGE difference between 3 sig-figs, as it implies that the islamist kidnapers were not 100% serious in their ransom. I'd change it myself but i think the article might be locked. Lemonsdrops (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what your saying. -- GreenC 03:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Community placed Syrian Civil War sanctions including a 1RR restriction now apply to this page

Just in case anyone misses my addition to the top of the talk page, in accordance with a July 2013 motion and community consensus on August 2013, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours when reverting logged-in users. Read the message at the top of this page for more details. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks or other sanctions (such as page or topic bans). See Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions for further details. And please note that the 1RR restriction is separate from the sanctions:

• All articles related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed, are placed under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert.
  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
  • Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Execution or Murder?

This would clearly a murder. Anyone disagree and why? Worldedixor (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you proposing some sort of change to this article? 331dot (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

yes, obviously. Since murder was reverted, I think it is best to seek consensus before reverting it tomorrow. I appreciate your asking for clarification in good faith. Worldedixor (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"This would clearly be a murder"? What are the sources saying? I think I've seen it referred to as a murder, execution and killing. All seem to have conotations that are inherently POV and i can't think of a word that is NPOV but we should try to find one. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Murder is unlawful killing. If ISIS are the legitimate government (I am not saying they are) then it is a lawful execution or killing, in their eyes. Generally for articles about incidents in the UK, a person (or people) have to be convicted before wikipedia uses the term murder. I don't know if that is the same for US articles. No-one has yet been convicted, no court has yet determined that this is murder, and so it should be executed or killed. I was thinking of bringing this to the talk page yesterday, but decided to leave it until the article cooled down a bit. Martin451 22:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Martin brought some solid arguments. Killed is as WP:NPOV as it gets. I am satisfied with it. Any other good arguments against killed? Worldedixor (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Killed seems fine to me, per Martin451's reasoning. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can argue with 'executed' or 'beheaded'. Either of those two words provide enough of the factual details without getting into legal grey areas.Myopia123 (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

'Killed' seems the most appropriate word to me. 'Executed' gives the act too much legitimacy, based on the facts as we know them. Not happy with 'Murder', because it tends to dismiss the apparent organizational structure that stands behind the decision to kill Foley; makes it sound like an individual, or small group acting alone. Foley was killed, therefore, "killed" is factual and the most neutral choice.Bennycat (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

His head was cut off ceremonially while he was restrained. That's an execution. It's more significant than merely "killed" which leaves questions of what happened. As for giving the ISIS legitimacy, we are not in the business of supporting or opposing ISIS. A search of "James Foley executed" on Google News brings up thousands of hits so it's a common phrase in cases like this. -- GreenC 04:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe we all need to look up Justifiable homicide. Homicide is defined as the act of one human killing another human. I believe the point of contention here is whether it is a Justifiable homicide, which I personally do not believe it was.

"Execution" may or may not be an accurate description of the manner in which Foley was put to death. Where the infobox is concerned, it's an irrelevant discussion. The cause of Foley's death was beheading. I have amended the infobox accordingly. Writegeist (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the best solutions are the simplest!... IMPORTANT: I started this discussion to discuss and seek consensus. For the record,Writegeist was not allowed to make its premature change single handedly before consensus. I personally support its edit, but, for objectivity, if the rest disagree with the two of us, they are invited to oppose. Whatever the consensus is, the change must follow. Worldedixor (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. Not having done my due diligence (I failed to read the edit history, and didn't read the discussion closely enough) I rashly assumed the discussion was to do with the sentence "In August 2014, Foley became the first American citizen to be formally executed in the name of the self-proclaimed ISIS movement." (Emphasis added.) So I didn't realize the discussion was about the infobox. If anyone wants to revert, please go ahead. Incidentally on the subject of "execution", "murder" and Google hits: I'm getting 24,200,000 for journalist "James Foley" murder—almost double the 12,300,000 for journalist "James Foley" execution. Which may or may not be worthy of consideration for the the sentence I've already quoted. I.e. it could read ". . . the first American citizen murdered by . . . etc." That said, "killed by" is actually true to the source, so that would be my personal preference for this sentence. Writegeist (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No apologies needed, Writegeist. Thank you for proactively reverting your revert pending consensus. I actually liked the simplicity of your edit: beheaded, end of story. However, if we must have something else, then I am also with killed not executed nor murdered. We seem to be getting closer to consensus. So, let's give it a few hours and then make the change agreed upon by consensus. Worldedixor (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to the infobox, I have to say I don't think Cause of death: Killed will fly. This concludes my contributions here, such as they are. Hope a clear consensus forms. Writegeist (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Every other article on a topic like this says beheaded or executed. The simple fact is, he was decapitated and it was an execution by ISIS. "Killed" is a more general term and isn't incorrect but misses the story. -- GreenC 13:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is no consensus on 'killed', I would go with 'beheaded', as a description of the manner of death. To me, 'executed' means the execution of an order by judicial proceeding. If there is strong consensus on 'executed', I would urge editors to document the crimes committed by Foley (according to ISIS) that led to the decision that he put to death. 'Beheaded' accurately describes the act, while leaving it to the reader's POV to decide whether the killing was an execution or murder. I think that rounds out my thinking on the subject. In good faith. Thanks.Bennycat (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS sent an email to Foley's employer with a declaration that Foley "will be executed as a DIRECT result of your transgressions towards us!". They call it and consider it an execution. -- GreenC 14:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

GreenC. I can tell you are trying to adhere to WP:NPOV, but unfortunately "executed" is a POV. I also refer you and everyone to the arguments well presented by Martin in favor of the truly NPOV "killed" with "beheaded"... Martin's logical arguments ought not be dismissed. If the article can live with one cause of death, then "beheaded" alone should suffice. I support Bennycat and the majority here. I personally will not edit this, but I invite someone in the next few hours to do the edit based on consensus. Worldedixor (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Majority Consensus Reached (changed to avoid further WP:PA): It appears that editor Writegeist has already made the change [5], a bit pre-maturely but in good faith. However, since majority consensus has been reached on two options "killed, beheaded" and/or "beheaded", there is no harm, so no foul needed. If a new majority changes the outcome of this consensus at any given time in the future, then a new change may be permitted. Meanwhile, no editor should change what Writegeist has edited, aka Beheading, without discussing it and obtaining consensus on this Talk page. Worldedixor (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

STOP SHOUTING, also that is not how Wikipedia generally works, you are not qualified to close this debate and "consensus" is never formalized in this way. Please relax, sign your post and don't act like you have any more authority than the rest of the editors here. See Wikipedia:What_is_consensus?#Not_permanent. Finally, this is not a vote, Wikipedia:What_is_consensus?#Not_a_majority_vote CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Who's shouting, wombat? You're the one shouting. Don't assume you know my intent. Why do you find it necessary to be rude here and on your user page [6]? You relax, and don't act like you have any more authority than the rest of the editors here. I certainly did NOT make the change to the article. Another good editor did it in good faith based on implied consensus. Do not imply this was a simple majority vote. This consensus was discussed following logical arguments and reasoning, and the majority of the editors happen to think along the same terms. Don't turn a friendly attempt to reach consensus to a combative WP:Battleground in 2 seconds... You have a point but this is NOT the way to address me. You can apologize and just adhere to WP:AGF. If you have a better way of reaching consensus, then, by all means, feel free to take over from here but adhere to WP:AGF and civility when you address me.Worldedixor (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Supported. Worldedixor has been nothing if not civil in an attempt to build consensus among all of those with an interest in this issue. In fact, everything has been done to ensure an inclusive venue and opportunity for talk. Proper adherence to, and reiteration of the rules should not be mistaken for 'shouting'. Bennycat (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for edit -- when did it occur?

Phil Mattingly , White House correspondent, reports being told killing probably happened months ago. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-19/islamic-extremist-video-shows-beheading-of-american.html , the video on that page. GangofOne (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think he means the attempted rescue operation, which reportedly (elsewhere) happened in early July. -- GreenC 14:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

== Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary ==

Several newspapers are now naming Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, 24, from London, as a suspect:[7], [8], [9]. The Sunday Times describes him, on its front page, as "a key suspect". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This is of more relevance at Jihadi John. It is still speculation, and even Islamists are covered by WP:BLP. Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary [10], who goes by the name of rap artist L Jinny on YouTube[11] is the son of Adel Abdel Bari, who already has an article about him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It won't be relevant at all if Jihadi John is deleted. I think there's "speculation" and "informed guesswork by the secret services". I'd be surprised if this name was simply pulled out of a hat before it was published by The Times and NYT. The biggest hurdle to inclusion of any name is (as already posted above by the anon ip): "murderer may not be the man who spoke with a British accent." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Reason for Suspicion

speculation, wp:blp, wp:notaforum

The beheading video conspicuously fades to black as soon as the man begins cutting into Foley's neck. This is the reason why there is so much suspicion around this video (and rightfully so). Here are some important comments that people who believe this video to be authentic should read and think about: "As the knife saws away over 1/2 dozen times (at least) not one drop of blood comes out of Foley's neck. It is most likely a psyop designed to drag us back over to Iraq." "What kind of terrorist fades to black when the real terror happens? It's unprecedented in the history of Islamist propaganda." Some of these issues should be inserted into the article as they cast serious doubt that Foley was actually murdered. 74.66.88.150 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC) If you want to be taken seriously you need to reveal where that quote is from! ;-) --91.10.32.234 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC) It's probably sourced from a blog or "alternative news" website. It is obviously hard to prove that Foley is dead, but the full video leaves little doubt about this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Ianmacm how exactly does the full video "leave little doubt" that Foley is deceased? The video proves nothing, all that we witness at the end is a decapitated body lying on the ground, with a head resting on their back covered in blood that could be anyone. 74.66.88.150 (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Wrong website for this discussion, please see at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion about about James Foley, whether the video is fake, conspiracy theories and other tangential topics such as the credibility of the CIA. Any such comments may be removed or refactored." Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Searching that quote I came up with [12] which quotes similar arguments. I'm not sure how good a source it is, but we're getting there. Wnt (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename to James Foley (journalist)

Foley was on assignment in Syria as a photojournalist but he was always a writer and engaged in journalism prior. It would be a mistake to call him only a photojournalist, his career was as a journalist, which included print and photography. This is not unusual for freelance journalists who are able to do multiple types of journalism. -- GreenC 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles written by James Foley at GlobalPost. Not just photojournalism. Most sources call him "journalist" from pre-2012 (pre-capture). I think the "photojournalism" became common knowledge since that's what he was doing when captured and how it was reported. -- GreenC 21:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

GreenC, although I personally would support the move to just "journalist", was there a consensus for such move? Worldedixor (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The move seems fairly uncontroversial, given the evidence of his journalism career. Don't need to start a WP:RM for every page move. If someone(s) are going to dispute it then we'll start an RM. Is that OK with you, Worldedixor? -- GreenC 02:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I prefer non-controversial speedy moves by non-admins if allowed by WP. In any case, you have shown good faith and made it clear that your are willing to seek consensus if anyone objected. Based on this, it is OK with me considering that I personally support the move. Worldedixor (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

International Business Times of Australia claims fake video

We now have a conspiracy theory in the article saying the video was staged. Sourced to a single news source, the International Business Times of Australia and unnamed "specialists".[13] It's a shame to give these kinds of inevitable conspiracy theories much credibility as they will flourish in particular in off-beat sources like IBT which are online-only and not known for their quality reporting. Not sure how to deal with it, except to reduce the amount of space due to WP:WEIGHT perhaps a sentence or two. It's a single low-quality source making some very extraordinary claims from anonymous "video experts" that no other reliable source is saying. -- GreenC 05:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This hot potato was just moved to another article Jihadi John.[14] -- GreenC 05:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The James Foley video is professionally produced, media sources are agreed on this. It is not the work of someone who only knows how to press the "record" button on a camcorder. This is pretty much how the Nick Berg and Kenneth Bigley videos were produced. This has led the usual tinfoil hatters to claim that the James Foley video is fake, but this runs into issues with WP:WEIGHT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please GreenC learn to read! There are no doubts about the authenticity! There is no conspiracy theory. It is just elaborately staged, deliberately orchestrated, a intricately designed scene, detailled planned (prearranged) put-up scene, "Inszenierung" ! --91.10.32.234 (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

See: de:Inszenierung Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Allright, then what is purpose of bringing up all of that video analysis, especially in that Australian article, which uses non-neutral words like 'Playacting' and such. Also while everyone is free to contribute to the debate, please refrain from Personal Attacks, it is against Wikipedia policy.Myopia123 (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please calm down "play-acting" is not "non-neutral". In the video the actual moment of the decapitation is not shown. The video has several "takes". Foley shows no single sign that he was terrified in the first take. Do you know the word Todesangst? All human beings fear being put to death. The death anxiety has various physiological responses. But in the first take Foley speaks remarkable calm. This led to some speculation that, after nearly two years in captivity, he had been affected by Stockholm Syndrome, the psychological condition under which hostages begin to empathise with their captors. A better explanation, however, is that Foley was instead simply unaware of how close he was to death!

In death agony ... "the knees buckle and you become like a rag doll, whereas this guy seemed to sit upright. It could be that that particular knife wasn't the one that killed him, that that was a play-acting thing," the expert told". In that take where the beheaded corpse was shown, there is a longer knife... Though we can presume the masked man in the video is the man whose voice we hear on the audio, the murderer may not be the man who spoke with a British accent... etc. ect. First there has to be analysis, than a purpose may emerge. ;-) --91.10.32.234 (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOR states clearly that this is not the place to perform analysis or any other kind of Original Research. You must find another avenue for your analysis, publish it in a verifiable source and then feel free to link it over here.Myopia123 (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The video scarcely shows anything - they start (apparently) cutting his throat and then it fades to black, returning to show a severed head. Just watching it we (as editors doing "original research") can't prove even that he was killed, since Penn & Teller could do better on each other and still take a bow afterward. So we do have to leave the interpretation to the secondary sources, even if their commentary is woefully insufficient. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance but I don't fully understand the Penn & Teller reference as I am not from the US. Could you please restate that in simpler language? Thanks.Myopia123 (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

They're stage-magicians; they recently ran a humorous segment where they pretend to show the trick of sawing a woman in half only to have an accident where she is sawn in half. In this case, their expertise would be wasted, really: we don't even see the blade draw blood, and then they switch to a scene of his severed head resting atop his body. It would, of course, be possible to fake a single fixed gory scene like that outright, though I have no idea what the motive would be. Wnt (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a "forum". I think this discussion is important to show all POV's but the discussion should be focused on debating reliable sources that support whether this video is real or fake. I invite all editors to voluntarily remove the chat and focus on providing well sourced facts. Worldedixor (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

More forensic scientists are saying that the video may have been staged and that the beheading may have taken place after the camera was cut. This leaves the possibility open that Jihadi John was not the killer. [15] Worldedixor (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this interpretation is gaining popularity; see [16]. As we move forward with this, we should avoid getting caught up in false dichotomies - as Worldedixor says, the speech scene could be staged but the beheading could be real. Actually my guess is that they made him rattle off a dozen speeches like this one ("Your defilement of the Koran was the last nail in my coffin!" "Your attack on Nigeria was the last nail in my coffin!") as insurance in case he died some other way; then, when he did die for some other reason, they cut his head off and spliced on a long intro to make us think his vague reference to air strikes was related to the recent news. Yes, I know that's OR and I don't plan to write that; I'm just saying, let's make sure we don't write any either-ors into the article unthinkingly. Wnt (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, all sources with this latest news including this one [17] are not disputing that he was beheaded. In fact this latest source also supports Wnt's theory that they made him repeat the statement several times(or took many takes if you like). The experts are simply trying to figure out the sequence of events such as Foley's Speech cuts to Jihadi John's speech cuts to (apparently) Jihadi John putting his knife near his throat cuts to beheaded corpse cuts to Steve Sotloff. Just to reiterate, it think all sources are stressing that it is not a matter of dispute that Foley was beheaded but they are analyzing the apparent 'production' of the video, for lack of a better word.Myopia123 (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, that source (like the ones I cited) ultimately traces back to a Times of London story behind a paywall. If anyone has access to http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4186089.ece - please check if there's data in there that the rehash stories are missing. Wnt (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Now, this is where the "staged video" theory gains momentum [18]. Just remember, that not one reliable source has alleged that the "actual beheading", something we all have a right to suspect, was also staged/photoshoped/faked. Worldedixor (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This link here is very close to the conclusion that there are two Jihadi Johns. They show that the man speaking and the man beheading have different heights[19].Myopia123 (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Last 'letter'

BBC has published the text of a "letter" (apparently undated) from James Foley to his family, memorized by a fellow 'IS' hostage/prisoner who was released. Sca (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Police warn sharing James Foley killing video is a crime

Police warn sharing James Foley killing video is a crime. Met says passing on clip of Isis militant murdering US journalist on social media could lead to prosecution under anti-terror laws.

In light of this I am removing the bit torrent link to the video. Not sure yet which policy it violates but it seems that even possibly violating the law would not be wise. Also, it is a Copyright video. We are not supposed to link to unauthorized copyright videos. -- GreenC 01:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you will not complain when someone takes the same action when the PRC makes a determination about our Tiananmen Square content, right? I have addressed the copyright claim above - there is no claim. Nobody in all the media discussion about this video has raised this issue. I should also note that the police statement quoted carefully avoids making any statement that they determined that video to be extremist material, nor does it explain when that law applies. Wnt (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless the video is released under a free license it is copyright, claims don't need to be explicitly made. Also YouTube has the option to upload as PD or CC and they did not do so. -- GreenC 01:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The video was for general release. I'm not trying to upload it to Commons, mind you; I just don't see any way that we could say that anyone putting this video online lacks permission when there are so many articles complaining about ISIS distributing their propaganda. Wnt (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square, much of that material is downloadable from YouTube etc. It does not expect the user to redistribute it. Martin451 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed you're not uploading to Commons. See WP:COPYLINK "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." We can reasonably assume a torrent is in violation of the owners copyright. A place to get answers on this is Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- GreenC 01:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Why can we reasonably assume that a torrent is in violation of the owner's copyright, especially in this case? A lot of open source software is distributed using torrent links (Gimp, most linux distros), and you'd expect criminals to want to use distributed technologies for this sort of thing, since it would be harder to remove the videos from the internet. I'd have to dig deeper into the precise issues here, but it's not obvious that this distribution is against the wishes of the copyright holders in this case. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not fond of the idea of Wikipedia content being censored because of a restrictive UK law. Perhaps this should be referred to WMF legal?- MrX 01:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine, get their feedback before adding it back. Start an RfC. But even basic policy says don't link to copyright material that is unauthorized by the copyright holder. -- GreenC 01:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

...material which we can't be sure hasn't been tampered with by whoever first uploaded the BitTorrent file, and which we can't actually guarentee hasn't been tampered with since... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Honestly, I felt like the beginning of this discussion was done in good faith, but here, I simply don't believe that you believe your arguments, and my revert is spent. So I will pause here. Wnt (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in contacting WMF, because I'm not advocating linking to the video download. Someone else is welcome to if they are so inclined.- MrX 01:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

it is not only UK law, it is the US Patriot Act as linked above. Most of the US media and video feeds are refusing to show this. So why the link on wikipedia. I agree a WMF legal opinion would be nice before putting back in. Martin451 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I discussed that claim in the section above. Without conceding any need for it, I'll ask how do you get an opinion from WMF legal anyway? Wnt (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe start at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- GreenC 01:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

[email protected] - MrX 01:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

UK law is no more relevant to Wikipedia than North Korean law. The Wikimedia Foundation is subject to United States federal law, Florida law, California law, and the San Francisco Municipal Codes, exclusively (with the possible exception of jurisdictions hosting Wikimedia servers). No law exists criminalizing (note: not "criminalising") distribution of such a video, including the PATRIOT Act. Being an English-language resource, I understand how people might be confused. That said, as I've tried to make clear on the Freedom of speech by country and Censorship in the United Kingdom articles, the UK does not have freedom of expression as it is known to the Wikimedia Foundation corporate bylaws and officers, and criminal speech in the UK includes "[...] incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications, glorifying terrorism, collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist, [... and] indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency [...]" (emphasis mine). The only relevant Acts of Parliament I have tracked down are the Terrorism Act 2000 and Terrorism Act 2006. Also, depending on the intent with which you are speaking and to whom you are speaking, other crimes may be applicable, such as the Public Order Act 1986 and Malicious Communications Act 1988. From what I understand of American law, "possession" would include downloading and/or viewing material on the Internet, as with child pornography, and I would assume government officials with European legal systems could also interpret it as such. Also, its pretty disingenuous to say it is "[known] or reasonably suspect" such a video is in violation of American, Syrian or ISIS copyright law (whatever that means). Per WP:NOTCENSORED, censorship is only allowed in limited circumstances, and this is not one of them. Int21h (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Int21h (talk). I was a little surprised. Has the US "somehow" passed a bill that banned the video? Even if it did, the ban would be unconstitutional and can be escalated to the Supreme Court. If it has not, UK laws only apply in the UK, and Int21h addressed that well. Worldedixor (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In the US, courts have determined that is is allowable for the police to lie. Maybe the same applies in UK? Police statements might not be suitable for Wikipedia without confirmation. This lawyer (see link following) attempted to find out WHICH law they referred to; apparently it's something the police PR department made up. http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/08/21/is-viewing-a-video-a-criminal-offence-under-terrorism-law/? GangofOne (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be more interested in the opinions of the WMF lawyers on this than on those of random contributors... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And I'd be more interested in winning the lottery. But that changes nothing. Int21h (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

WOW! No one else is permitted an opinion?... and that "... criminalizing (note: not "criminalising")..." comment takes the biscuit, or does bastardised English trump original English in Wikiland? 86.13.182.103 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, no I disagree about American police. As described in the Making false statements article and 18 U.S.C. § 1001, in the US even police cannot "[make] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation [in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully]". It is not required that such statements be made to the government, or that they be made in relation to any ongoing federal civil or criminal investigation. The phrase "within the jurisdiction" is not defined and is not really clear. But if such lies are within such jurisdiction, it is every American's duty to report them to the nearest federal judge, or other federal civil or military officer, per 18 U.S.C. § 4, or face three years in prison. Int21h (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is still WP:COPYLINK "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." And as AndyTheGrump says, we have no idea if the Bit Torrent video is authentic or tampered with. The only release by the copyright holder was on YouTube and that link no longer works. -- GreenC 04:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And of course the not-insignificant fact that accessing this video requires our readers to install file-sharing software which may well result in them uploading the video to others without realising. Not something I'd see as compliant with good practice if the file were entirely innocuous and legitimate, and given the possible legal consequences, even more questionable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, it is disingenuous to say that such a video released purposely for wide, unrestricted distribution in Syria and throughout the world is probably a copyvio. Int21h (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEVERSUE is the guideline here. OK, it is very unlikely that IS will sue over the use of this video. The problem is that the torrent version is basically primary source material where secondary analysis would be preferable. As for the legal issues, the UK authorities can set the rules on what is acceptable material on the Internet. People in the UK (and Europe as a whole) should avoid torrent or similar P2P software unless they know what they are doing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't "neversue"; this is a matter of saying a third party violated copyright when you have no reason to suspect them of doing so. If we were going to host a copy on Wikimedia Commons - which is hardly out the the realm of possibility - I'd like to have a little more confidence that the material is truly released for public distribution, though there is at least some reason to think this may be the case. (see [20], [21], in which archive.org has accepted many items as public domain. I hope these search indexes are not illegal in Britain, though you never know anymore.) But when we link to a third party as a source, we need merely ask ourselves whether we have reason to think it is a violation, not to audit the third party's licensing records. Wnt (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt: I think your comment "this is a matter of saying a third party violated copyright when you have no reason to suspect them of doing so" is spot on. Int21h (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the UK authorities cannot set the rules on what is acceptable material on the Internet, at least not any more than North Korea can. And there is nothing particularly wrong with people using Bittorrent or similar P2P software AFAIK, people in the UK and Europe included. A secondary source is preferable over a primary source, but a primary source is also acceptable. Int21h (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Good news: I found an alternative to the Bittorrent link, available from Goregrish.com. (link - the legality of this material has been questioned in Britain) The video page says it was last edited by site moderators, and it is not our role to second-guess third-party licensing decisions. Wnt (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is. There's no reason to think that the moderators of that forum care about copyright. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:COPYLINK, "It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material [...]". Nor is your subjective opinion reasonable. That Youtube is well known for hosting works in violation of copyright does not make it "reasonably suspect" that any and all works on Youtube are in violation of copyright. These excuses to censor Wikipedia have thus far been unmoving. You guys are going to have to do better than that. Int21h (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

COPYLINK says: "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Goregrish.com did not get permission for the video. The link should be removed. Int21h, the sentence you quoted is in relation to linking to a content (eg. news article) which is owned by the creator. For example, it's OK to link to this copyright video because it's owned by TCM and hosted on TCM's website. But it wouldn't be OK to link to the same video on Pirate Bay and other websites that don't have permission. -- GreenC 01:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Says who? Who says Goregrish.com and any other site on the Internet did not get permission? You? Who exactly in ISIS have you been talking to that is giving you this information? Int21h (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

COPYLINK requires only a "reasonable suspicion" of a copyright violation. It's reasonable that the video uploaded to YouTube has been redistributed without permission to various media websites like Goregrish.com, Pirate Bay and elsewhere. As happens all the time with videos like this. Goregrish.com is not a newspaper, content is the responsibility of the uploader, it's a social media website, user-generated content. -- GreenC 04:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This video looks like a press release, it acts like a press release, and it quacks like a press release, and even though Wikimedia Commons may be all stuck up about accepting press releases as submissions, that doesn't mean that every media outlet that copies something from a press release is a copyvio we can't link to. But how do I prove beyond all reasonable and unreasonable doubt that other sites carry an authorization when the YouTube page with its original annotation, which I assume indicated it was something akin to a press release, has since been suppressed? On this and other WMF projects I have actually seen much more doggedly, cynically, pointedly obnoxious applications of the principle that "anything evil is copyrighted" to suppress a document somebody doesn't like, but it never gets any less obnoxious. In general, this practice undermines Wikipedia's potential to match archive.org or other serious online libraries, making it more a place to put spin on things by concealing information than to seriously examine an issue. But yes, by and large Wikipedia is losing that focus and becoming a place where the goal is not to share the world's knowledge, but to reshape and redirect it to the service of some point of view. Sure, you would think an anti-ISIS point of view would be harmless enough, except that (as when the Weimar Republic banned Mein Kampf) there is nothing worse a free society can possibly do to respond to a fascist group than to ban people from seeing what it is like. Wnt (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well please assume good faith that I am not trying to "ban people from seeing" or "suppress a document I don't like". Impassioned ideological views aside, it's no different than pirated copies of movies. As for being a "press release"? I dunno. In any case there is plenty of information provided in the footnote for anyone to easily find and view the video. If you really want to pursue it highly recommend posting to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions which is where discussions like this are usually had and there is more expert opinion. -- GreenC 14:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you have an idea of how many articles have discussed this "blackout" campaign, and there's not a word about "copyright" in any of them. Wnt (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, to sum up where we're at now: there are assertions that anything on YouTube or similar sites are reasonably suspect to be in violation of copyright just because its YouTube or similar, and as such any and all YouTube and similar links must be removed per se. Given that there's no assertion of copyright by anyone, unlike many other obvious copyvios, that's not a reasonable suspicion and that's unreasonable. More than just "its on YouTube" is needed to remove a link. That has never been a reason to remove external links and this is no different. That North Korean or other foreign laws forbid something is also irrelevant. So I see no reason to exclude the material. That the UK government is trying to censor this video, and threaten people with violence for viewing it, is reason enough for me to suspect that editors are actively trying to censor this video, and these are mere excuses for them to do so. If someone would like to re-add, please say so here so I can back them in adding it. Int21h (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"suspect that editors are actively trying to censor this video" .. suspect you need to assume good faith or we will have a problem separate from the video. -- GreenC 16:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

From assumption on Wiktionary: "[...] supposing a thing without proof;". Proof is of an effort to censor this video is present, therefore the assumption is so longer valid (the "without proof" clause is now false). IMO censorship is usually not done out of malice, so WP:ASSUME isn't even relevant to me. And I don't care if we "have a problem" or not, whatever that means, just FYI; if what I do causes us to "have a problem", then so be it. Int21h (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've switched to http://www.bestgore.com/beheading/islamic-state-executes-journalist-james-foley/ - BestGore.com is a shock site, which is to say they have a lot of experience looking for video fakery (they even helped crack the Luka Magnotta case, though they only got punished for it). The video and a slow-motion version are linked from the main site index under "beheadings". To write for BestGore a person has to actually apply and go through some sort of process; it's not just a blog or forum. In short, though they are highly unconventional, I think we should treat them as "a sort of" news publisher with a considerable degree of technical and legal experience. Sure, they seem a bit odd, but so does citing pro-wrestling magazines or video gaming publications and people do that for Today's Featured Ad every six months or so. Wnt (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked at BestGore's extensive instructions to writers and nowhere does it discuss image copyrights or the legality of reusing videos or images. They have a section on plagiarism but it's only about the text portion, not images. For images they have a confusing disclaimer: "All images on BestGore.com are readily available in various places on the Internet and believed to be in public domain. Images posted are believed to be posted within our rights according to the U.S. Copyright Fair Use Act (title 17, U.S. Code.)" They are saying images are both PD and Fair Use? Legally impossible, PD images don't require Fair Use and other way around. Their claim that "any image found on the Internet is Public Domain".. is obviously false. And as for Fair Use, you can't display a film in its entirety and claim Fair Use. In short, like many websites, they ignore copyright by default but will take it down if requested by a rights holder. They make no special effort to secure rights, and assume that any image found on the Internet is Public Domain (impossible), or claim Fair Use, which might work in some cases but not when displaying 100% of a film. If there is disagreement about this I suggest we start a discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- GreenC 19:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not up to me to audit their procedures, so I'm not even going to look. They are close to the 10,000th most popular web site in America. When I have that much popularity, maybe I'll second guess them; the point is, they're a third party publisher, not somebody sharing a pirate video on YouTube. Wnt (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

First you make a deal over their procedures, then say it's not up to you look at their procedures. How popular they are has nothing to do with it. -- GreenC 19:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's the RS guideline. For that purpose, you consider whether a source has an editorial process -- but you don't actually look into the specifics of its decision making, because usually they don't say. Now for this, I don't need to prove its a RS, but I think it helps to show that it is a third-party publisher, not just a user site with random uploads. Wnt (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Note from original The Guardian source: "Scotland Yard has warned internet users they could be arrested under terrorism legislation if they viewed or shared the video of James Foley's murder..." Not just sharing, but simply viewing. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere above I commented on that article. I actually think the police statement was worded deliberately to avoid saying whether the video counted as "extremist material" - they put two sentences next to each other that might sound like it infers that, but avoided saying it, though the Guardian did. In any case, my reference text mentions this; is there something you see wrong with that? Wnt (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure what you mean by "your reference text". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I mean [22]. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I thought that was fair when I saw you add it. I'm just noting what the police said. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are aware the UK does not have freedom of speech. But as I alluded to earlier, since Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation have nothing to do with the UK, its irrelevant. Also note that North Korean law is equally irrelevant, just so you don't think we're particularly discriminating against the UK. I mean, its something that possibly should go into the article, but those countries (UK, North Korea, etc.) are not something that is relevant to any Wikipedia content inclusion policy or guideline. Int21h (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@INT21h, the North Korean thing is getting to be a joke now. I realise this is not a forum, but seem to have passed that long ago. The anti-terrorism legislation was passed in the UK as a direct result of, and in support of the USAs war on terror. This despite the fact we in the UK had been experiencing terrorism for decades before, much of it funded by your countrymen under the likes of NORAID et al. TO keep comparing the UK to NK is a joke, when we have been supporting the USA. Comparing the UK to North Korea is disgusting. Martin451 19:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless, now that you've started writing up your naughty and nice list, how many countries' laws (or, rather, vague threats) apply to Wikipedia? Which ones don't? We all knew U.S. law isn't optional, but now you have some decisions ahead of you. Wnt (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

... but we're still working on our own unicorn lair. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The comparison is indeed relevant: both the UK and North Korea, and their laws, are both entirely irrelevant to the inclusion of the material under discussion, as is every non-US law. Everything else you have mentioned is WP:SOAPBOX. Int21h (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Discussion started at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#James_Foley_beheading_video -- GreenC 19:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)