Talk:James Foley (journalist)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Is there really consensus for adding the video?

Bestgore.com is well-named - the real uncensored gorish truth. When I click on the link I see a nude woman who appears to have a pipe going into her mouth and out her backside. Evidently real. Now we don't censor, and I quite liked the soft-porn clothed girl who I see lower down on the right, but I'm not sure about the girl being forced to swallow what might be a fake cock but is probably real (ad for punishtube.com). Still, maybe that's what we need to put up with since normal sites don't host this video.

But I don't see a consensus to have a link to the video. Have I missed it? Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think "adding the video" is an exaggeration. It's not like I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, claiming (after the precedent of archive.org as I mentioned above) that ISIS releases are public domain, or to Wikipedia, claiming (since half the article is about the video) that it is Fair Use. Though it may well be that would be the best thing to do. All I did was put a note in the middle of a reference that the dead link we cite has an alternative live mirror you can look at. That's just proper citation of sources. To discuss the video so much without making an effort to cite a current functioning link would be remiss. Wnt (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, if the video is being hosted on a site like that, how do we know it is authentic? Does Bestgore.com have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? I very much doubt it - it is simply acting as a file host. We don't cite documents uploaded to file sharing websites for a very good reason - we have no way to verify that they haven't been tampered with. Why should we make an exception for this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I do think it has such a reputation. I did some examination of the site previously [1]. (I see that Ianmacm, implementing his notion of BLP I suppose, just recently took out anything that might show Marek explaining his side of the story on Luka Magnotta, but I found his statements persuasive) It should be clear that there is a community there that actively looks for video fakery and finds it, repeatedly taking apart bad propaganda from Islamic groups and showing when they've copied scenes from prior natural disasters, for example. Wnt (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, you are suggesting that a website which hosts Holocaust denial material, and has been described by the Canadian police as "a racist website, inciting hate, hatred, violence – violence above and beyond anything normal" is a reliable source? Really? I'd like to see you make that argument at WP:RSN. And as for this supposed 'community', what exactly are you suggesting we should base any claims for their supposed 'reliability' on? Who are they? Where is the evidence that anyone considers them a reliable source for anything? You seem to be clutching at straws here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And you are suggesting that a website can be determined to be "unreliable" based solely on its beliefs, or more accurately speaking, based on what beliefs it will tolerate a few writers to espouse. Think about that: "How does Wikipedia determine neutral point of view? By reflecting the balance of reliable sources. What sources are reliable? The ones I agree with." Literally. (Well, I suppose there's also an element of "a neutral point of view is a police point of view" to that) Wnt (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No - I am suggesting that a website may be deemed unreliable, based on its content. Anyway, since you have offered no evidence whatsoever that this website is remotely reliable for anything, and there is nothing whatsoever to 'balance' it against, I suggest you either take it to WP:RSN, or accept that we cannot legitimately link a file of unknown veracity from a source we have no reason to trust. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"Unknown veracity"??? Thanks to all the bickering since I first added the link, I've now watched this file on Liveleak, and on GoreGrish, and on BestGore, and as a Bittorrent, and to two other sites I have in reserve, often seeing third-party media references to these sites, confirming each time that the video is precisely 4:40 long, and checking that the detail of the mock execution was the same as the others. As with our conversation here earlier, I think you are saying something that you don't believe. Wnt (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't give a rat's arse what you think about what I may or may not believe. Take it to RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If we were doing an article about Mexican drug cartels, we wouldn't have to show uncensored beheading videos to prove how brutal they are. People can go to the shock sites and get their fill of this sort of thing any day of the week. The part of "A Message To America" with the apparent dead body of Foley is tasteless and disrespectful for an external link. The rest is routine radical Islamic propaganda. I can't see anything in the video which is not already discussed in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A brutal video might be a very specialized source for a general article on Mexican drug cartels, but if we had a specific article that was essentially 50% discussion of a particular video, absolutely we should link it in that article.

As for "respect", I don't feel like I'm the one disrespecting Foley. I mean, watch his video [2] with the discolored corpses of the dead children and infants being dragged around. You think he would want to be remembered as the person who proved that you really can stand up at a press conference and get something censored off the Internet? I'm not the only one saying that, either. I think the kind of journalist he was, someone who stood next to the rebels with the RPGs watching bombs fall nearby, would want us to scrutinize that video, tear it apart, understand what really happened, and let nobody tell us what we're allowed to think about. Wnt (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Are we wikipedia or wikileaks? Do we reflect what reliable sources do, or do we do the opposite? At the moment most news agencies and mainline video feeds are not broadcasting this, so why should we publish terrorist propaganda. Martin451 19:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Because they're in the business of providing mass infotainment tailored to appeal to the desires of their sponsors, and we are in the practice of writing a comprehensive encyclopedia that aspires to share the sum of all human knowledge. See the difference? Wnt (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure most of us can see the difference between providing encyclopaedic content and regurgitating raw propaganda. Assuming that this file even is the raw propaganda that it is claimed to be - something we cannot possibly ascertain... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda is "information that is not impartial and used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented." True, ISIS does do that. The question is, do we? If not, we should not act as if our role is to "protect" the reader from the document we are discussing, but to provide resources for him to react to it more knowledgeably. Wnt (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Our role is to create and maintain an encyclopaedia - not to act as a venue for the dissemination of terrorist propaganda. That is our only role. If you want to assist ISIS in their objectives by encouraging people to watch their videos, you will have to find somewhere else to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Is there really consensus for adding the video?" Based on comments by @Dougweller:, @AndyTheGrump:, @Ianmacm:, @Martinevans123:, @MrX:, @Martin451:, @TLSuda:, @Demiurge1000: and Green Cardamom .. if not outright rejection, there is at least questioning if it's the right decision (if I misrepresented please remove your name). There doesn't appear to be a consensus for adding a link to the video. Given the WP:BLP nature of this article, the controversial nature of the video, it should be handled with care by first establishing consensus for inclusion. -- GreenC 21:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Undecided. But I think the discussion at WP:CQ should certainly be allowed to run its course first. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I very much agree with Wnt, the rush to Self-Censorship is Kindergarden and in itself part of the Propaganda (or better part of the Counterpropaganda, in that case). Is there a site with the precise text of the video? Sophie --91.10.26.4 (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder if I have the same dilemma as people in Iraq. How do you impose democracy and civil liberties if a majority, or even half, of the people are misguided against them? I can cite @0x0077BE:, @Int21h:, @Worldedixor:, now @91.10.26.4:; I don't know where @Martinevans123: or @GangofOne: stand. We talk about rules and WP:NOTCENSORED and I can chase my tail refuting half a dozen bogus arguments that I don't even think the people saying them believe, but in the end it comes down to a raw battle of numbers, supplemented by arguments over what no consensus means. The problem for you is, once you establish that the editors can and will push out what they don't like as a matter of "respect", you can no longer distance yourselves from anything. I mean, I want Images of Muhammad to exist on Wikipedia because we oppose censorship; but when you get away with discarding what offends you, what that article really means isn't that we're against censorship, but only that we think Muslims are less than people, a little like how Martin451 discounted the North Koreans above saying that even a comparison between them and Britain was offensive. Some countries and socioeconomic groups have the right to make laws and define "good taste" in order to hone their spin from day to day, and others are supposed to just lie back and accept being offended. And the question is, how long do you think that's really going to hold before more of the basic fabric of collegiality and free inquiry that we expected to hold on an encyclopedia (like not being influenced by acts of terrorism) fall apart? You are abandoning the peace of universal inclusionism and scholarly citation for an endless war that throws away and destroys all our content. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has never supported 'universal inclusionism', and hopefully never will. If you want to contribute to a website that consists of everything that ever got onto the web, feel free to do so, elsewhere. Meanwhile, the rest of us will concentrate on building an encyclopaedia - something that requires editorial judgement, rather than vacuous sloganising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pinged in this message, but I'm not sure I actually support the addition of a link to the video here. I think some of the arguments put forth for removing the video - that it's distributed as a torrent, that there's some interpretation of UK law that says you can't view or distribute it, etc, - are not valid, but I wouldn't go so far as to make a positive argument in favor of its inclusion. I'm ambivalent on that point. Certainly I think WP:NOTCENSORED fairly strongly indicates that its inclusion is not disallowed, but I'm not sure a link to the video necessarily improves the encyclopedic content here, and from an aesthetic standpoint it feels a bit gauche to me. That said, those are my gut feelings, and if a case can be made that it's worth including (as opposed to the case that's currently being made, which is just that we shouldn't discount its inclusion off the bat), then I'd be happy to support it (Well, not happy, since I don't think anything related to a man being senselessly murdered would make me happy, but what happened happened, so I should say that I would have no qualms about its inclusion.). 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I've never found "universal inclusionism" particularly peaceful. But then I have been known to have problems with the display of ink blots. If I find out where I stand on this video, I'll let you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not about "everything that ever got onto the web". It's about uncensored, unbiased compendium of available human knowledge. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is neither to disseminate radical Islamic propaganda... nor "Anglo-Saxon" propaganda. As I suppose you, who are wrting here, are predominantly Brits and Americans, please, be aware of your surroundings/responsibility. en:WP is filled with preposterously biased articles, I often couldn't help but smirk.(Aldous Huxley: The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human.) --79.223.11.1 (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Other people are human. Including the family of James Foley, who have made it perfectly clear that they have no wish to see these images endlessly echoed across the media. [3] Of course, I don't expect contributors who whine about 'censorship' whenever they are on the losing side of a debate about the difference between an encyclopaedia and a dustbin to take any notice of that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Would we want to include, if we could, voice extracts at News International phone hacking scandal, to illustrate more fully the crimes committed? How would the parents of Milly Dowler feel about that? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Hacked phone messages would be subject to the speaker's copyright. As private messages they would largely be non-notable, or at least, not the focus of much discussion in the article. Sure, we presently mention Paul McCartney singing "We Can Work It Out" to his girlfriend during a tiff, which you have to admit, is just adorable, but alas, we lack the rights. And again, a high-level article (as in the previous comparison to Mexican drug cartels) has less reason to use very specific incidents - we really would need an article about a particular hacking of a particular phone call whose particulars were the object of widespread discussion in order to have a situation comparable to this one. Wnt (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You may fairly regard my example as impractical, for sound policy reasons. But I drew it, not on practical terms, but as an illustration of the likely effect on the family of the deceased. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Well, no need to use a hypothetical example; here's James Foley's graphic video from Aleppo. How do you think the mothers of those dead little children feel watching them being dragged around? Do you think that as the bombs were falling all around he was asking them for permission to show the footage?

I should add that regarding the phone-hacking scandal I don't know much about it and I can't go through 300 references any time soon, but for instance in Donald Sterling we link to a TMZ audio recording whose legality has been questioned, without regard to the damage it causes his reputation, because -- it's the news. Our job is to cover what is known, not decide which parts look good and cover up the rest. Wnt (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

So it's a case of quid pro quo. Foley gets his video comeuppance? Where at Wikipoedia is that Aleppo footage used exactly? (And I'm not too worried about sullying the reputation of Jihadi John). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Not at all. I don't object to his work there; I merely stress that he did not follow your rules. We presently have an external link to the GlobalPost's collection of James Foley's articles at the bottom of the page - the link I gave is one of the first few on the list (there are other graphic links there with graphic images, but I haven't gone through them all). I don't think he'd want his name remembered for censoring the Internet - for showing that the Streisand effect has been repealed and now a "Foley effect" is in play, that anybody with enough juice in elite circles can stand up at a press conference and get something so censored that people can't find it even in the encyclopedia. I don't think he'd want to be remembered when the next knife-wielding maniac comes out saying that an Innocence of Muslims type film has to be censored worldwide or he's going to kill his jump-suited hostage, knowing that it really is possible for the corporate internet-media-intelligence agency conglomerate to grant that request. Wnt (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

An interesting scenario. Maybe that nice Mr Obama and has pal Mr Cameron are in charge of the world's press? (or just the good bits). 13:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Your last comment seems to stray truly into forum territory, but since you asked I'll give David Cameron (not Obama) this kind of credit, since he has set up an "optional" censorship system for all British households.[4][5][6] Given that "1 in 4 Brits are now terrorists" for watching the video, I remain interested to see whether the companies will respond by helpfully making their block on extremist material mandatory, or by using their system to report viewers in real time or send them "warnings". Of course, for the hundreds of journalists investigated for hacking, whose files are in police custody and who might be prone to future charges if they stand out the wrong way, Cameron can deliver his orders from the mercy seat and I suppose they'd better obey. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sincere apologies for "straying truly into forum territory". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If anyone doubts these exist, see [7] - an "Open letter to journalists" from the head of Hostage UK. "It is now one week since images of James Foleyﾒs murder in Syria were uploaded to YouTube, and the video began to be disseminated on social media. News organisations have, quite rightly, declined to show video footage out of respect for James and his family, and because there can be no public interest case for it being broadcast."For the families of hostages ﾖ no matter where in the world they are being held ﾖ seeing this photo whenever they turn on their computers, open a newspaper or switch on the TV is deeply upsetting. It raises fears that are unimaginable for anyone who has not been through this experience." ". At Hostage UK, the organisation of which Iﾒm a trustee, we have worked hard to help families understand this, but it does not stop them worrying that they might be seeing a new trend among kidnappers. Every time they see this image, their fears surface again." Read the whole letter. The video is a propaganda video designed to do just that. Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

After beeing accused as "gratuitous", "anonymousity" and "unsigned commentary" and for the second time >>Image:Nguyen.jpg|right|thumb|450px| "All are equal, but some are more equal than others" - Showing American's beheading is to brutal, showing Vietnamese's execution is acceptable. Sophie --79.223.11.1 (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)<< beeing deleted by AndyTheGrump -- I know, as an IP the fundamental principle "Asume goog faith" does not apply :-( -- But I am making a well-intentioned effort to help. So please, give some thought to the question: What would have been James Foley's reaction? Would he have clamored for self-censorship and media blackout? As a war correspondent, photo journalist, cameraman?

• http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/08/22/james-foley-video-grim-but-owe-him-bear-witness/wWG9Jkprv49QJbA28BG8wM/story.html "James Foley didn’t hide from that unvarnished truth. The rest of us shouldn’t either":

Quote:"Would that have been Foley’s reaction? Would he have clamored for self-censorship and a media blackout? Or would he have wanted decent people everywhere to know — and, yes, to see — the crimes being committed by the ruthlessly indecent killers calling themselves the Islamic State?

The intrepid and compassionate reporter from New Hampshire didn’t travel to Syria to sanitize and downplay the horror occurring there. He went to document and expose it. The 4-minute, 40-second video that records the last moments of Foley’s life may be slick jihadist propaganda designed to intimidate ISIS’s enemies and recruit more zealots to its cause. But it is also a key piece of the news story that Foley risked everything to pursue. That story cost him his life. The least we can do is bear witness to the courage and dignity with which he met his awful end.

Anyone with a heart understands why Foley’s anguished loved ones would want his murderers’ gloating depravity to be suppressed. When The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Pearl was beheaded by Al Qaeda in 2002, his family issued a similar plea. “We should remove all terrorist-produced murder scenes from our Web sites and agree to suppress such scenes in the future,” urged Daniel’s father, the scientist Judea Pearl, in a published essay.

But we will never prevail over an enemy as barbaric and totalitarian as the Islamic State if we avert our gaze from what it does to those it vanquishes. There are times when it is necessary to see... James Foley didn’t hide from that unvarnished truth. The rest of us shouldn’t either."

This discussion is utterly ridiculous, childisch, infantile, immature. But now, even the discussion is censored! Sophie --79.223.11.1 (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I very much doubt anyone is interested in receiving lectures on what is 'immature' from someone who uses a photograph of an execution to score a cheap point in a debate. It has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion, and per WP:NOTFORUM, I removed it. If you want a soapbox, find one somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is worth asking: where does all this censorship activism come from, on Wikipedia or elsewhere? I mean, Americans had more reason to hate Osama bin Laden, yet Wikisource has a large collection of his works, and our articles freely cite his videos. News outlets would feature them and they were widely available for download. Even beheading videos from ISI itself were pretty freely distributed when we were actually at war in Iraq, and Wikipedia rightfully carried them, e.g. at Nick Berg. The censorship now is not even nominally targeted at the tastelessness of the video, but at potentially any coverage of ISIS that... what? How much material do you people have to suppress now? Wnt (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And yet again, you resort to whining about so-called 'censorship', rather than explaining why an encyclopaedia needs to provide direct links to terrorist propaganda - against the express wishes of the family of the victim. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links, and neither is it a platform for your ridiculous tinfoil-hattery about 'suppression' by 'you people' (nice turn of phrase that - does that include everyone who disagrees with you, or just those you are implying are involved in some sort of conspiracy?). Censorship is something governments do. Editorial judgement and common decency are however our concern. That you appear to lack both doesn't make your arguments more convincing - merely more repetitive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Many things that is, but an answer --- no. Wnt (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Censorship" is a pejorative term, it's insulting really and I would suggest you stop that line of thinking which is bad faith. I don't think anyone here believes they are "censoring" anything. Also technically only governments can censor. Rather we are making a decision what to include based on guidelines and policy. If you can find a legitimate source for that video (YouTube was one) it could be linked. Also we are describing clearly where and how to find the video, so your arguments here seem to be more about banging the ideological drum than any practical concern about people viewing the video. Honestly your arguments are getting tiresome and bordering on tenacious. -- GreenC 14:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ummmmmm... You're the same guy who two days ago posted a section telling me that supposedly sharing, watching, maybe referencing the video was some kind of terror crime, and also a terrible violation of ISIS' property rights in law, giving those as your reasons for why it had to be deleted. Anyway... Wnt (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

End of major combat operations?

The tenor of this debate seems to be getting ever nastier, and I think we have resolved that this is an argument over "taste" rather than law or policy. So far the intensity of the debate has not carried over to the actual editing, where Green Cardamom's edit at least allows the reader to know it's on Bestgore.com and The Pirate Bay, where finding it is not actually difficult. I would be willing to pause for a couple of months at this point provided we leave that information intact (assuming it remains true). Hopefully by then Foley's body will be recovered by investigators, and we will learn his cause of death; as I personally suspect it was not by beheading, I think the emotional reaction will be very different then. Wnt (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that, we cannot edit on the basis of your personal supsicions? Nor anyone else's, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I was merely explaining my motivation; as I was not proposing a change, clearly this wasn't to be reflected in the article content. Wnt (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The current article contains a link to LiveLeak, which appears to now be hosting the video again - though how long the link will remain valid is of course open to question, given that the material had already been removed once. Given Wnt's comments here, and the evident lack of consensus for any inclusion of the link, I will remove it. And no, this argument isn't about 'taste' (though that is of course a valid concern), it is about the purpose of an encyclopaedia - which isn't to provide a platform for individuals to engage in a personal campaign against so-called 'censorship'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it belongs at David Cameron as a timely warning to voters? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Andy, before others started complaining my edit consisted of adding one link to a source, which is scarcely a "campaign"; the rest was only my refusal to join in a campaign that has been extensively described in the news. But I will let you take the dead link if you want it - technically, it is useful to document the removal, but that's fairly obscure. I take it you never clicked the red "continue" button, because it doesn't and gives a notice the video was removed. Wnt (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(I'd agree that the removal of the video from mainsteam media, and the timing, is a relevant topic for the article). Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

At some point (already) the article will have a WEIGHT issue and we are really writing and article on the Killing of James Foley with a background section on who James Foley was. -- GreenC 15:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There is some truth to that, and indeed I delayed adding that content until I sort out what to do. The push for censorship has generally targeted all ISIS publications, so it is possible that this is better tackled in a broader context, and in an article specifically about the blackout. I would need to research it further to be sure though; there's actually a lot of material out about it already. Wnt (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Waterboarding

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/captives-held-by-islamic-state-were-waterboarded/2014/08/28/2b4e1962-2ec9-11e4-9b98-848790384093_story.html?hpid=z1

"James Foley was among the four who were waterboarded several times by Islamic State militants who appeared to model the technique on the CIA’s use of waterboarding" --91.10.28.1 (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Jihadi John

We have an article on Jihadi John. While it's true the rapper is the prime suspect he is not the only suspect and per BLP need to be careful about overly associating the rapper as being Jihadi John at this point in the investigation. -- GreenC 21:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree. I did not find the name of the source originally provided to support that para, "hearsaycentral.com", very reassuring. And the source appeared to be alleging that The Guardian had reported a clear identification, which it had not. Martinevans123 (talk)

The IP re-added hearsaycentral.com this time to the info about Higgins, which The Guardian also has nothing to say. Looks like an attempt to add hearsaycentral.com to the article for whatever reason perhaps promotional. -- GreenC 00:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

IS VS ISIS VS ISIL

Some recent edits now are referring to IS, however at the time the events occurred they were called ISIS. The articles that are used in the references also refer to ISIS, and not IS. I think it might help to refer to organization's name with what its name was at the time the events occurred. Perhaps have a section about its name and name change and why. I am new at this, and don't feel comfortable tackling this, but I think it is confusing, and would be beneficial and educational.

The main article is of course called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant‎ and several discussions have failed to agree on a change. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the article that is being used as the reference, uses the terminology ISIS, but it is OK to use IS instead because it is pointing to the ISIL wikipedia page? I am just trying to understand the process, I have no strong opinion, but was personally confused about what the difference was, and think other people who aren't familiar may also be. Also, there was failure to agree on the change, but somebody changed it overnight. Thank you for your time.

ISIS and ISIL means the same, ″Islamic State of Iraq in the Levant″ (ISIL) or ″the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria″, or ″the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria″ or ″the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (all shortened to ISIS). Lost in transliteration... ;-) The name was changed to IS in June 2014. --91.10.26.4 (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Over here in Germany, our Media just calls them "IS" 95.89.51.108 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Kidnapping and Death Section - Getting a little big

I think the section in question is becoming a little long winded and tedious to read. I suggest we divide it into two sections, 'Kidnapping' and 'Death' as a start and proceed to better organize and add subsections where required.Myopia123 (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Killing of James Foley

We need an article on the Killing of James Foley.--91.10.13.207 (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly true. Almost nothing has been said about the killing's impact on American popular and political perceptions towards ISIL, which is probably going to be the most significant historical aspect. It would still be under BLP re: pictures, videos and fringe theories. -- GreenC 17:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible combine James Foley and Steve Sotloff, since the two are very similar and related. I don't think you can discuss one without discussing the other.Myopia123 (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

All of the recent beheading are related and thus 2014 ISIS beheading incidents, though it seems to function as a navigation aide mostly and not coherent topic. Possible to expand the Foley and Sotloff sections of that article, building on the larger themes. -- GreenC 17:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There is also the section at Jihadi John on James Foley's killing. -- GreenC 23:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Any objections to changing the name of this article to "The kidnapping and death of James Foley" ?

The article content has reached the point where it is not changing much, and is about his kidnapping and death. Other events in his life are not mentioned. If I changed the name of the article would there be any complaints? Geo8rge (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest changing the name of this article to "James Foley (photo-journalist)".

Perhaps we could also move the "James Foley" to "James Foley (film director)".

Then we could set the "James Foley" page to be the disambiguation page.
Aberdeen01 (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I started it at this title because I initially saw reports about him using his full name and thought using that would be better than a career disambiguation, but I have no problem with using one if that's what users want. I don't know enough about the director Foley to know if that page should be moved. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Others at Category:American photojournalists use this format. The director is hatnoted. — Wyliepedia 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this person noteworthy for reasons other than being beheaded by ISIS? If not the article should be titled "The beheading of journalist James Foley". Geo8rge (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

He was previously held prisoner in Libya, which is not enough to establish independent notability, but may be enough extra to make this article about the person, rather than the event. If the article were about "The beheading of ..." or "The death of ..." then that material might not be in the scope of the title. Martin451 22:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Webby Award nominee, [8], key player in Globalpost's Overseas Press Club award for Best Online Coverage of Breaking News.[9], adds a bit of notability. Martin451 23:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If he were not beheaded would anyone have bothered to create a WP page for him? Are there WP pages for people with similar noteworthyness but who were not murdered in a lurid manner? Is there any of his photo journalism online, I don't see any of his work online? The article is mostly about his kidnapping and murder so the article should be titled "The kidnapping and beheading of journalist James Foley". Geo8rge (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Place of death

Should Raqqa really be listed as Foley's place of death? It's just 1 person's guess about where Foley died. It could be correct or incorrect. IMO, the place of death should be listed as the Syro-Arabian desert, like it is w/Steven Sotloff. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and changed this to Syro-Arabian desert. The geolocation [10] is one person's educated guess and should not be seen as definitive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The analysis is completely open online and if you look at it there seems to be little doubt, so calling it an "educated guess" is not really, more than that. And Higgins isn't just some guy he is a well respected analysis (he started as a blogger, but his work has been cited by the highest authorities in the UK government and elsewhere, he has a reputation for discovering things). We do have editorial oversight in determining the reliability of something, and for the location of death in an info box it doesn't seem particularly egregious. If you want to say "proximate" in front of the location to show it's not official. If there are competing or differing locations than we should say something like "location disputed". Also Syro-Arabian desert is not known either, just an educated guess, at least Higgins provides clear lines of evidence. -- GreenC 14:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comparison with Bowe Bergdahl

So regarding the edit of mine that was reverted, basically the Foley Family compared the Bowe Bergdahl thing to Foley's death. It's a pretty strong criticism to make of the administration and if their comments were enough to get a response from the white house, then it seems pretty significant to me [11]. There are other sources which compare the two directly without really discussing Foley's family at all, but I was not sure of the quality of those sources, such as [12]Myopia123 (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a comparison made between the two regarding America's hostage non-negotion policy. It was removed here.~Technophant (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that we need a reliable source that quotes experts on foreign policy or terrorism, that makes that comparison, and describes this murder as having a "major impact" on a policy debate. It is completely understandable that the Foley family have raw feelings about the matter. But they are not policy experts, and it is original research as I see it to describe a "major impact" based on this particular source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The piece by Joshua Keating is well-written, and makes some good points, in my personal opinion. But it does not support the claim that the Bergdahl/Foley comparison has made a "major impact" on how the Obama administration or anyone else (other than us Wikipedia editors) view this issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hm, "well-written"? It's a two-sentence stub.--91.10.13.207 (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The piece by Joshua Keating that I mentioned is seven paragraphs long. I was not referring to the brief Wikipedia article about him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, not so sure about the sources but another opinion piece pointing out difference between Obama's handling of Bergdahl and Foley & Sotloff [13], [14]Myopia123 (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead section and Tandrum's reverts

User:Tandrum has every day for the past 8 days reverted the lead section to his desired wording. Each time reverting previous editors, but only once a day to avoid problems with 1RR. I'm concerned about this seeming long-term ownership over the wording of the lead section, which has become somewhat controversial with 8 reverts so far. Here is the history of Tandrum's edits to the lead section:

• [15] (August 28)
• [16] (August 27)
• [17] (August 26)
• [18] (August 25)
• [19] (August 24) "the first confirmed American citizen to be martyred in the name of the Islamic State"
• [20] (August 23)
• [21] (August 22)
• [22] (August 21)

I'm concerned about these edits for a number of reasons

• 1. On August 24, Tandrum used the phrase "to be martyred" which is POV language. It has since been removed but I would like to understand why Tandrum chose to characterize James Foley as being a "martyr".
• 2. Tandrum calls it the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" but there is no consensus for that name, our article is called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. In fact they where originally called "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", but they have stopped using that name. They seem to call themselves "The Islamic State" now, but consensus has not yet been achieved to change the article to that name.
• 3. Tandrum says ISIS is called other names only in "Western Media sources", suggesting ISIS is the correct name according to non-Western sources. This is of course highly controversial, unsourced and again suggests someone editing from an Islamic POV (though I don't think it's even accurate).
• 4. Tandrum's wording in this sentence is long and cumbersome:

"Foley is reportedly confirmed to be the first victim, with American citizenship of the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and Syria caliphate movement, with its roots in al-Qaeda, also referred to as the The Islamic State, IS, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIS/ISIL in Western media sources."

I thought the wording before Tandrum's most recent revert,[23] was clear and concise for a lead section. It said simply

"He is the first confirmed American citizen killed by the Islamic State (IS), a militant group formed in April 2013, growing out of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)."

That's all we need for a Foley biography. If any ambiguities need to be resolved it can be done in the article body but the lead section of James Foley isn't a place to go into detail about who and what ISIS is, how they are named, etc... I did not write the above suggested wording it was done by an IP. -- GreenC 15:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I took out the "martyred" once ([24]). It could be true, though ISIS is getting a reputation for killing Christians even after they "convert" in desperation, but it doesn't seem neutral. Besides, alas, in modern usage the new reader might think that meant he was a terrorist who blew himself up and then have to go back and read it all from the beginning. Wnt (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Shahid would be the most expected meaning. I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Tandrum here. Okay so obviously my once a day edits weren't heeded in the way that I thought they would be. I just assumed that my edits would be noted and incorporated by succeeding editors, but they weren't. But instead they were just disregarded and instead succeeding editors would just add trivial info and/or degrade the lead paragraph which is typical of someone who has died and wasnt known in American mass media. First thing, anyone familiar with Islamic/Arabic culture is aware of the obsession with martyrdom, like saints in medival christianity. Foley wasn't killed for sport or for science, he was killed for religious or political reasons. Second, I call it the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" because they operate predominately in Iraq and Syria, it's referred to by a multitude of other names in western media, not only in, I'm sure the entity is called other names in non-western media but cannot be formally translated. "The Islamic State" is too ambiguous. Third, the statement " "He is the first confirmed American citizen killed by the Islamic State (IS), a militant group formed in April 2013, growing out of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)." " is burdensome because everything in Iraq is informal, any formal declaration is usually by western media and was the entity started by or inspired by Al-Qaeda. Does anyone know of any Iraqi insurgents that they can contact to clarify these details? So who's likely to read an article on James Foley? Someone likely in middle America, so it is essential that we be concise and relevantly informative. And if its important to know, I am a white 25 year old male who lives in southern Ontario, raised protestant and did one year in university. Thanks. Tandrum (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

How would you clarify that it's a case of religious murder and not religious suicide? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question Martinevans123, What is the word for killing someone just because their beliefs offend your own religious beliefs, assuming that's why Foley was beheaded? If Foley was practising a faith other than Sunni Islam, then he would be technically martyred. Tandrum (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Tandrum, these are the actual times:

• [25] (12:05 28 August 2014‎ )
• [26] (14:35 27 August 2014 )
• [27] (14:40 August 26)
• [28] (09:36 August 25)
• [29] (13:53 August 24) "the first confirmed American citizen to be martyred in the name of the Islamic State"
• [30] (08:45 August 23)
• [31] (07:20 August 22)
• [32] (05:22 August 21)

Do you realise it is 1RR per 24 hours and not per day? Dougweller (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Last time I checked, wasn't it 24 hours in a day? And why do you point out the times? Thanks. Tandrum (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, that's pretty clearly one a day in my book. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean Martinevans123 - do you mean it is one a day but at times 2 in 24 hours? Because that's what the times say. 13:53 to 9:36 is less than 20 hours apart. We treat 3RR the same way - 3RR in 24 hours, not in one day. And anyone who did the same revert every 24 hours would still be at risk of a block. Dougweller (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I mean each of the edits in the list has got a different date next to it. I'm sure you are quite right technically. But the amount of disruption/frustration caused is about the same either way, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Tandrum, there is no consensus to use ISIS or Islamic State. The consensus is to use ISIL. Extensive discussion on ISIL talk page. This may change since Islamic State is fast becoming "most common usage", but for the moment ISIL is the best we have achieved, for consensus purposes. We shouldn't be overly political correct, saying things like "in Western media" (unsourced statement), just state the facts in the sources simply and qualify them later in the article body if needed. Tandrum your wording has been consistently reverted or changed day after day by many different people. The best thing is to keep it as short and simple as possible and not try to be overly complex. This is a biography of Foley, all we are trying to say is "he was the first killed" and "by ISIL". All the other stuff about ISIL being "self-declared", having lots of different names, a "Caliphate", "Western media" perceptions, etc.. is fairly irrelevant to Foley's lead section. -- GreenC 17:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I found some of the additional verbiage information helpful/informative. I have no opinion regarding the term martyr, but I did appreciate the wording of is, with reference to its former names and sometimes still used names of isis and isil.50.105.220.36 (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead section of James Foley's biography isn't the right place to have a historical overview of ISIL's naming history, origins, Western perceptions, concept of being self-declared (vs. declared by someone else?), etc... expand on it in the main body of the article. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is a summary of what is in the article - at that moment this fact isn't even discussed in the article at all. But keep in mind this is an article about James Foley not ISIL. -- GreenC 20:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Presently the ISIS article uses that abbreviation throughout, even though it is presently redirecting to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and the disambiguation page ISIS claims that it is "Islamic State" now. We should try to synchronize things so that the abbreviations used match the current consensus at the article, but they're not making that easy! Wnt (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The talk page at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a slag heap of RM no-consensus. It sounds like you support "Islamic State" and would encourage participating. There are some who don't want the name because they think it gives legitimacy as a real state. But titles are not endorsements (eg. all the micro-nation article names). -- GreenC 01:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't have any opinion on the issue, beyond that this page should follow that one (and that one needs to lead). Wnt (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Tandrum used not only POV-language, but also made mistakes: "In 2009, he became an embedded journalist with USAID-funded development projects in Iraq". The American government – in the form of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) - funds "development projects" and not embedded journalism. 2009 Foley was working on "projects" with USAID. Than in 2010 he applied for embed-journalist. From January 2011 on he was working on embed-journalism with Stars and Stripes. --91.10.13.207 (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

So, does that mean Foley was working in the military, being paid by the military? If so, that means technically he was a combatant. Tandrum (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Tandrum here you ago again.[33] Your edits are POV, OR and inaccurate. There is no evidence of other American citizens being killed prior to Foley, despite your attempts to make it seem that way. All things on Wikipedia are "Reportedly", we only say that if there is some reason to suspect there is more to the story. All Americans are citizens - combatants or otherwise - there's no need to make that distinction if none exists - your creating further doubts about other Americans being killed with no evidence to support it. And "officially executed on ideology of ISIL" makes little grammatically much less to get into that level of detail in the lead section. Please, use the lead to tell basic facts and expand on those facts in the body of the article. -- GreenC 16:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"There is no evidence of other American citizens being killed prior to Foley" Um, you do know there are foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria, many with citizenship from western nations? "All Americans are citizens" You do know it is possible to live in America and not be a citizen? ""officially executed on ideology of ISIL"" means he was killed on purpose, not accidentally and the organization condones the murder, not regretting it in the slightest sense. Thanks. Tandrum (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Either stick to what the source says or don't add it. If you think you have a case then get consensus for it. Start an RfC. You've been reverted 'nine times on this issue by multiple people. -- GreenC 01:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Editor Andrews Darlene1

Indefinitely blocked now as a sockpuppet of User:Russavia. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Authenticity

I think there should be a section of the article dealing with the authenticity. In particular focusing on the authenticity of:

• whether the man speaking is indeed James Foley
• whether the captives are indeed ISIS ( aka IS)
• whether the man is indeed killed

Aberdeen01 (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"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". Why are you somehow IMPOSING that there should not be any discussion about the authenticity of this video? since it is claimed that this is an ISIS video, what has such discussion to do with "conspiracy" or "CIA"?

The fact is that this "beheading video" does not show any beheading. There are some 3/4 seconds of actions faded out in black where there is no drop of blood to be seen. The knife held by the "terrorist" looks like a toy. The audio video quality is simply amazing, and first in history, the victim is even miked! Why shouldn't be a discussion on these elements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.172.102 (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources which claim that the video was faked or Foley is still alive(contrary to the opinion of the vast majority of the world) please offer them; your opinion is not a reliable source. This is not the forum to perform original research and judge the video ourselves; we write about what can be sourced. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well let's start with this one: http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/563629/20140822/james-foley-beheading-video.htm#.U_fem7GTDK0 rising doubts on possible staging of this video, the anomalous victim reactions, the knife used. I introduce the section Authenticity on the main article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.86.119 (talk)

I don't see anywhere in that source where someone is saying the video is totally faked and that Foley is still alive, nor do they state the video is somehow not authentic, just that portions were staged and scripted(which makes sense given what Foley stated and that the video serves purposes for ISIS). That might warrant a mention, but nowhere in that source is a claim made that the video is not real. 331dot (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 331dot. In this page http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11047420/Video-clues-that-could-unmask-James-Foleys-murderer.html, they specifically discuss that Foley read a prepared statement because "Mr Alvarez said people who have been trained in how to behave if they are held hostage are taught not to cause any problems for their captors, and Mr Foley “would not have wanted to create more trouble than he was in”. He added: “For that reason I don’t think he would have necessarily known he was about to be killed. He has an upright posture and seems to be carrying himself with pride and dignity.""Myopia123 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Madam, Sir, nobody has stated that "video is totally faked and that Foley is still alive". Instead, the mentioned article reports doubts on possible staging of this video, the anomalous victim reactions and the knife used. Let me report as well that Italian newspaper "Il Secolo XIX" published the article "Il giornalista decapitato, un video pieno di dubbi" (Beheaded journalist, a video rising many doubts) http://www.ilsecoloxix.it/p/mondo/2014/08/20/AR5KpAjB-video_giornalista_decapitato.shtml ; in this article there are clear statements doubting the authenticity of the video and that FBI is making a more extensive investigation but "several American newspapers are not really highlighting this fact". In answer to Myopia123 statements, the victim was very aware about his destiny since the very beginning of his video declaration "I call on my friends, family and loved ones to rise up against my real killers, the US Government. For what will happen to me is only a result of their complacency and criminality".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.86.119 (talk)

If one doubts the authenticity of the video, I'm not really sure what other conclusion could be drawn other than believing Foley was not executed and is still alive. Regarding Foley's statement, he still might not have known he was going to be killed at that moment, but possibly at an unspecified time in the future. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sir/Madam, we are not here to make assumptions or extrapolations right? just report factual elements mentioned into reputable sources.--81.244.86.119 (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one doing that, but we also must give proper weight to fringe theories or other theories not generally accepted; and I think a lengthy paragraph gives too much weight to this issue, which isn't even really an issue, given the nature of the video(used for either propaganda or to send a prepared message). 331dot (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I now see that the paragraph was removed, and should remain removed. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

These are not "fringe theories" but statements from reputable sources. Why do you want to have this hidden on the article, are you somehow trying to provide a biased view? --81.244.86.119 (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You have given one source(which barely says what you want it to say) which does not measure up against the opinion of the rest of the world. No government official, agency, or news organization has made any other statements saying the video is not real. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all I have provided 2 sources, International Business Times of Australia and Secolo XIX. The "opinion of the world" in 1500 was that planet earth was a plate and we know today how true this was. Why are you insisting to silent these reputable sources, is it maybe inconvenient to you?--81.244.86.119 (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the power to silence anyone, nor do I wish to,(you are free to read whatever you wish, but that doesn't mean it can be posted here) but one or two sources does not stack up to what everyone else is saying. As such, it is a fringe theory. If that changes, then fine- but it hasn't yet. It took many years for the world being round to no longer be considered a fringe theory, as it was back then. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Madam, Sir, we are not here to decide for our readers. There are legit sources out there who have made statements, I am not saying they are right anyhow they propose a relevant perspective on this article. What is your exact issue and why do you want to hide this? It took many years for the world being round to no longer be considered a fringe theory exactly because people were hiding the interesting perspectives from reputable sources (like astronomers); aren't you doing the same here? --81.244.86.119 (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I am convinced that the question of authenticity has been settled and requires no further debate, especially that which inolves inferring mountains of information from every tiny detail. You will all have to continue this debate without me. Myopia123 (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

thumb|12th-century depiction of a spherical Earth with the four seasons in "Liber Divinorum Operum"

Please, nobody is is claiming that it is a fake vid! Here: http://www.ilsecoloxix.it/p/mondo/2014/08/20/AR5KpAjB-video_giornalista_decapitato.shtml they are simply asking why the actual moment of the decapitation is not shown. The video editors unterstood that, as a piece of propaganda, it had to be edited to make it less like a snuff movie, and therefore far more useful and disseminatable. And... since Pythagoras (6th century BC) we, the well-educated people -- in Occident and Ancient Near East -- do not have the concept of a flat eartth ;-) --91.10.32.234 (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"Why the actual moment of decapitation is not shown?". That is a question that you would have to go to Syria to get answered. Can anybody elaborate on Wikipedia guidelines regarding this? I think if we start putting that kind of analysis in the article, it will turn into an Op-Ed. According to my understanding, we are supposed to write the facts and the fact is that the video (apparently) does not show the actual moment of decapitation. Is there any need for us to start speculating as to why that is the case?Myopia123 (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Or you go to Langley! "Why the actual moment of decapitation is not shown?" is only a question in that italian news page. What do you want to say with Op-Ed? Fact is that the actual moment of decapitation is not shown, chillingly, the video’s producers appear to have learned this production technique from the makers of successful horror movies, who have for years worked on the basis that the most terrifying violence is often that which is hinted at - but not actually shown. I suppose you do not understand Italian and you didn't watch the video. --91.10.32.234 (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay dude, first of all, calm down and stop with the personal attacks. What I mean with Op-Ed is that Wikipedia is we are not here to do or promote original research. See WP:FORUM and WP:NOR. You obviously have some questions that you wants answered but this is not the place for that. I am pretty sure if we start making links between horror movie productions techniques and this video, it would fall with Original Research, which is against Wikipedia guidelines. I am going to leave it up to more experienced editors to tell you exactly what the policies of Wikipedia are regarding this but please calm down and keep it civil.Myopia123 (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm no dude, I'm a girl. I have no questions and I do not want to promote original research. But I very much agree, you should leave it up to editors who can read, meaning comprehensive reading. At least in English. --91.10.32.234 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

"Personally, I am convinced that the question of authenticity has been settled": this is your own personal view. The two mentioned national newspapers are reporting a different perspective, why are you willing to hide this? we are not talking about "original research", why do you call it this way? --81.244.86.119 (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked 81.244.86.119 for breaking the 1RR restriction, clearly edit warring and adding badly sourced material to a BLP article. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sir, thanks for having been so kind to block me for ONLY 12 hours. You talk about "edit warring": I had a debate with user 331dot who first wrote "If you have reliable sources which claim that the video was faked or Foley is still alive (contrary to the opinion of the vast majority of the world) please offer them; your opinion is not a reliable source. This is not the forum to perform original research and judge the video ourselves; we write about what can be sourced" and then when I came back with references to articles from 2 national newspapers (one from Australia and the other Italy) he removed them? this is unfair behavior and total inconsistency. You mention as well that I might have added "badly sourced material": is this what you call articles from national newspapers from Australia and Italy?--81.244.86.119 (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

First, the Italian paper is mentioned as a local one, not a national one (here at least) We not only write about what is sourced, we write about things giving them the proper weight especially if they are a minority view. Not everything that is written down or said is valid content; it also matter how many people or sources are making a claim. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Secolo XIX is nation-wide available and it's a newspaper with over 100 years of history. It looks like you are seeking details for silencing views which clearly you do not like. You asked for reliable sources, I gave them. These two newspapers are not a "minority view", they are at the moment the only ones who actually went beyond mainstream media agencies standpoint, which gets propagated indefinitely without actually checking contents, and looked in the only factual element here which is that video. I propose we introduce a section in the article titled "Video authenticity" and we treat all supporting and challenging elements into this section. Do you have any objection?--81.244.86.119 (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

How is that different than what you have tried to do already? Repackaging the same idea doesn't help get it done. I've said what should happen to get this alleged questioning of the authenticity posted. If that doesn't satisfy you, you are free to work for changes in Wikipedia policy to allow what you want to do. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that an open encyclopedia should, in case there is a issue not settled (as in this case since it's very recent and the only factual element available is that video), report available views so that readers make their own opinion; you appear to want to hide views and so decide for readers. It seems we are not getting out of here. What is the process for getting third parties involved in the discussion and mediate here? can you or somebody else help launching this process please?--81.244.86.119 (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to hide views, I want to post views with the proper weight and ensure they are not fringe theories. Something posted in two newspapers (which doesn't even really say what you want it to say) does not stack up against a view held by the vast majority of the world. I'm sure plenty of people are visiting this page to comment(two others have agreed with me on this page) if they choose to; however you can make a request for comment. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You do not want to hide views but that's what you are actually doing. If you feel that I misinterpreted those article and think that my description can be improved, please review. It's not about me here but about giving a fair view on reality. Let me inform you that there are massive debates on the internet about the authenticity of this video and soon or late this story will explode. What you call fringe theory is what today is put into question from two newspapers, the other media (what you call the vast majority of the world) are simply replicating news without questioning their content. A lie repeated one million times remains a lie. I have seen the video, I know what I am talking about. Can you please rise the request for comment? I went to the page and actually don't know what to do. Thanks.--81.244.86.119 (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I await the "explosion" that you claim is coming; when it does you might have something(but I'm not holding my breath) but until it does I maintain my opinion. The articles do not question the authenticity of the video or Foley's death but simply state that parts were recreated likely for propaganda purposes. This is not the forum to impugn the credibility of the worldwide media and government officials. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You asked at the beginning of the trail for reliable sources and I brought them. Now you wait for an explosion and possibly when that will be there you will look for other excuses for silencing views. Delaying tactics. Again if you feel that the description of the articles is not adequate, please review. I am not impugning the credibility of worldwide media, I am just telling that newspapers who are questioning the mainstream view (large in terms of parrot-like re-tweets) are worth mentioning for allowing reader's opinion to be well-balanced.--81.244.86.119 (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not silencing anyone, but just because something is written down somewhere does not mean that it can be posted here. As I said, once the view that the video is not authentic(which, again, is not what the two sources you posted claim) gains acceptance in more and more reliable sources (more than two), I will post it myself. Two sources (one of which I cannot read being in a foreign language) is not enough for such a fringe view, nor is unspecified discussion on the Internet. As I said, you are free to work to change Wikipedia policy in this area if that doesn't satisfy you. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You are attempting to silence views and hide them to readers. This "something" is not written "somewhere" but on two reputable newspapers. Why should sources become "more than two" to gain a mentioning in the article? The fact that you can't read Italian is your personal limit which should not prevent Wikipedia from getting closer to truth; here is not about you (or me). Btw you could use Google translate to at least grab what the Italian article is about.--81.244.86.119 (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The prevalence of a view in sources indicates whether or not it is a fringe view and being given proper weight.(Have you reviewed those pages?) No government official, impartial analysts, or news source other than those two has stated the (contrary to the rest of the world) view that the video is faked. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me just tell you the following: the National Security Council has stated that video is authentic but DID NOT specified upon WHICH CRITERIA: it's unclear whether they mean that they believe that the depicted victim is Foley or they believe that an actual beheading took place or anything else. The 2 sources I mentioned went into FACTUAL judgements about some aspects of the video. This is a fundamental difference.--81.244.86.119 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A judgement is not factual, it is an opinion. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant to tell that IBT Australia and Secolo XIX went into concrete elements to build a judgement. NSC is just telling video is "authentic" without specifying WHAT exactly is authentic, according to which criteria and how they came to this conclusion. I am expecting other editors' view as it is by now abundantly clear that you want to hide some reputable views.--81.244.86.119 (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I again ask if you have reviewed any of the pages I have suggested. Myopia123 also suggests some below. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Authenticity of video

Per request, I have started this RfC; please review the above and comment if desired. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot. I appreciate! --81.244.86.119 (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as the FBI, US Security Council, Foley's employer(Global Post), a former ISIS hostage and the victim's parents all have confirmed the authenticity of the video, I think that dispute is settled. As far as questions regarding 'Why was the actual decapitation not shown?' and 'It seems stage-managed' etc., I don't think it is our responsibility to conduct this research/analysis UNLESS these are questions that have been answered in a reputed, verifiable source.Myopia123 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Madam, Sir: the sources you report may have recognized Foley as the actual victim; they CANNOT have made any judgement whether Foley has been actually beheaded nor killed since this is not shown in the video. Let me remind that this video is totally atypical versus former beheading video's which were showing the actual beheading with lots of blood, were recorded amateurishly from a single camera and featuring several people around the victim. Here we have a professional video, with HD video and amazing audio quality (victim even wearing a microphone), dynamic titles like in best movies, victim not showing any particular feeling while reading his script about his death, a "terrorist" showing a toy knife and cutting some 5/6 times in the victim throat WITHOUT ANY VISIBLE BLOOD (this alone tells without doubt that this video is a manipulation) and then video fades to black instead of showing actual beheading of the victim. The reported articles from the 2 newspapers are somehow opening to the possibility that these video's might not be authentic. Do you see any valid reason to hide these sources? BTW, did you see the video yourself?--81.244.86.119 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So you won't believe Foley is dead until you see footage of his head being lopped off? All your sources prove is that terrorists are getting better at producing propaganda videos; it doesn't prove that the video is faked or that Foley isn't anything other than dead. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not questioning whether Foley is dead or alive but that he might not have been killed as SUGGESTED in that video. A terrorists video is not a reputable source, although considered "authentic" (whatever this may mean) by other reputable sources.--81.244.86.119 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources mentioned by 81.244.86.119 are not very good weighed against the extraordinary claims being made. -- GreenC 19:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No claim, I am just asking to report the articles of these sources since they include interesting perspective on the matter.--81.244.86.119 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

->"Madam, Sir: the sources you report may have recognized Foley as the actual victim; they CANNOT have made any judgement whether Foley has been actually beheaded nor killed since this is not shown in the video." Decapitated head shown. Confirmed by authorities mentioned above.-->"Let me remind that this.........Do you see any valid reason to hide these sources?" I understand that you have two sources who are OPEN to the possibility that they might not be authentic. Until they have some confirmed FACT to report and not only what possibilities they are open to, I do not see the value in adding them. If the community has more faith in the reliability of the sources mentioned above(FBI, etc.) then that is the end of that.---> "BTW, did you see the video yourself?" Irrelevant. I do not intend to see it.Myopia123 (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Pity you do not intend to see it as you might well have noticed that decapitated head is a panned STILL picture, which might have been easily photoshopped. Manipulating a video is a different matter, so if intention was to rise fear and anger among American citizens why they did not show the beheading video? Differently from any other beheading video out there, we have NO beheading scene here but just few frames fading to black. The "Secolo XIX" article mentions a number of elements that rise some doubts about the authenticity of this video. I still do not see a valid reason for hiding these factual elements and preferring the National Security Agency statement that this video is "authentic", without telling upon WHICH CRITERIA.--81.244.86.119 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no further point in going around in circles with you; you have your beliefs, and I have mine, and we also have Wikipedia policies which I have made clear. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It was the National Security Council, not the National Security Agency. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it was the NSC and not NSA. The king is naked and you don't want to tell. Although you claim to be acting according to Wikipedia policies, your attitude does not help to reflect even the available views on reliable sources. I am expecting other editor views since yours and Myopia are clearly willing to hide things under the excuse these are "fringe" (but at least provide factual elements) against NSC expressing a judgement without specifying criteria, object and its rational.--81.244.86.119 (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The NSC is a governmental body; you have not cited a governmental body, official, or other sources(aside from one or two) who make similar claims. You can believe whatever you wish about me; I know what I am doing, am comfortable with my motives, and believe both policies and the community will support the page as it is now. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there are several concepts which need to be studied by 81.244.86.119. WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:CONDUCT and WP:NPOV to start off with. Ultimately, while Wikipedia is far from a scholarly journal, it still has standards and policies and they are there for a reason. I think 331dot, myself and other editors have been very patient and inclusive, all the while adhering to the policies while I find you have been rather accusatory. If this content is something you feel about THAT strongly, I suggest you try Wikipedia:Mediation.Myopia123 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Good day my friends. Surprise surprise: [34][35] [36][37] [38] [39][40][41] [42] [43] [44] I think it is quite time we introduce a section "Video authenticity", do you have any objection?--81.244.86.119 (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No one was saying you were wrong. I suggest you just be patient in the future. And I don't think that a well staged video means that the beheading didn't happen. Also this video shows that there are two Jihadi John[45].Myopia123 (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

All that was sought was credible evidence. That said, I object to calling any section "authenticity" as that suggests the video isn't what it appears to be or that Foley is alive. Just because the video was planned in advance and of good quality doesn't mean it was a total setup. We certainly should mention that we don't know exactly when he died and expert commentary on the video is fine too, but it should be done in the right context. I suggest that everyone would benefit if a draft was submitted on this page for review. 331dot (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. What is the specific question you want editors responding to the RfC bot notice to answer? SW3 5DL (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment was sought about posting fringe theories about the video being faked or recreated(such as it being a false flag operation or other conspiracy) or otherwise questioning the "authenticity" of the video. As more sources now discuss elements of the video(such as not knowing when exactly it was made) I think the RfC can be closed. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Posting fringe theories is disrespectful to the family of James Foley and counter productive to Wikipedia. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• First: The video is authentic. Second... To the IP editor from the top of this thread: Your argument is completely without merit. As someone who has made a living verifying the authenticity of numerous videos and photographs purporting to show crimes of varying sorts, I can assure you with absolute confidence that you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. You have seen too many hollywood movies, and not enough real-life violence to have a reasonable basis for any comparison. I mean no offense by this, though I cannot in all honestly beg forgiveness for my harsh tone, as I believe it is completely warranted. Your questions as to the authenticity of this video are meritless and smack of conspiracy theorizing. If you want a (completely free) professional analysis of the video, I will happily provide one, along with credentials to establish my expertise, provided you can garner enough support to warrant taking such a step. Until then, suffice it to say that the video is authentic and your criticisms of it's production are ignorant and irrelevant. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• DFTT. Writegeist (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Hold on here, the motto for wikipedia used to be "verifbility, not truth". I don't think we should try to find out what's true here, just report on what reliable sources have said and let the readers determine for themselves what's true. There's a lot of irregularities with the video. The UK Telegraph reported Foley murder video 'may have been staged'. There's also a video on YouTube HOW They FAKED the James Foley Beheading Video which has links to the full, more graphic explanation of why this appears to be faked (and how it could have been done) on archive.org. I think for now at least the irregularities noted in the Telegraph article should be mentioned.~Technophant (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The current policy (WP:V) states: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."~Technophant (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"Verifiability not truth" is the reason there should not be a discussion of the authenticity of the video in the article. WP policies are intended to work together to achieve a good result, not for one to overrule the other based on one's personal preference. In this case, the fact that sources exist which question the authenticity is irrelevant, unless those sources are reliable. The youtube source you provided describes itself as:

One-Stop shopping for all of your Barack Hussein Obama information needs. Entertaining, informative, and well researched. Feel free to embed and link everywhere. Pick up the convenient tools right here to disseminate the necessary information before it is too late. My thanks to all of you.

In addition, that channel's uploads consist almost entirely (if not entirely, I did not see every video) of right-wing conspiracy theories. That is not a reliable source, by any measure. (Edit: I just watched the video linked to by the youtube description. The very first claim and still of the execution video presented demonstrates a level of ignorance of human anatomy that is inexcusable in anyone who has ever even seen another human being.)

The news article you presented, although from a more or less reliable source, also raises questions. The conclusion of the article is:

However the company, which requested anonymity, did not reach a definitive answer.

This was after claiming that an anonymous expert had declared it to be staged. The refusal to name either the quoted "expert" or the company responsible for the purported analysis is highly troubling. The refusal to establish the credentials of either (beyond the unverifiable claim that the company has "worked for police forces across Britain") is even more troubling.

It could be true that the video was staged. The lack of blood is not (despite the claims of the IP editor and the unnamed 'expert' in your article) however, evidence of this. One would imagine that this group, which has been known to have beheaded hundreds of people, would know what a real beheading would look like. None of that matters, however.

What matters is that the sources calling the video fake are not reliable. Until notable, reliable sources appear questioning it's authenticity, this article should assume it's authenticity. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

AC360 - Diane Foley interview

For those of you who watched or recorded CNN's AC360 this evening there's over 10 minutes of interview and discussion between Anderson Cooper and James Foley's mother, Diane. She is very brave and well-spoken. It would be best to find a written transcript of this rather than just inserting quotes from the TV interview, or if there's a full video link that would work too. I have it saved on my Tivo so if it's not included in a few days I can get some of this in.~Technophant (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This video? 94.253.156.137 (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)