Talk:James Foley (journalist)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Any discussion of bandaging?

While I was looking for HTML links, I ran across a really bad conspiracy theory video at archive.org that I think is totally wrong... except for one scene at 4:30 where the author points out what he thinks is some kind of magic-trick appliance under the orange jumpsuit of the corpse, covering the area between the shoulder blades. I had also thought it seemed like there was too much bulk and lumpiness under there somehow, but my thinking is if they shot him while he was trying to escape they'd have had to bandage him up to avoid ruining the illusion of a live beheading. I know it's a long shot, but in all the skeptical analysis coming out, has anyone seen RS commentary regarding something like this this? Wnt (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt: I know this is a little bit of a late response, and we're venturing into forum-type discussion here, but in response to the question you raised, I felt the need to let you know that that lumpiness is Foley's shoulder blades.

When a person dies, their body relaxes completely, something you don't see in living people, because it can often be uncomfortable. Given the way he was laying, were he alive and possessed of his head, his arms would be raised slightly to take the strain off of his shoulders and wrists. The fact that he was dead and decapitated meant that his arms came to rest as low as his positioning and restraints would allow. This resulted in his shoulder blades being slightly more prominent than they would be were he alive. If you search for other bodies of execution style murder victims, you will find that in photos where the victim is laying face down, the shoulder blades are almost always visible, even when they otherwise wouldn't be.

Also, ask yourself this. If they had the capabilities to produce a rubber head, what would prevent them from creating a rubber cast of a body? Why would they need a live stand-in? I've also seen claims about the ears on the head not being done right (They can duplicate a face perfectly, but can't figure out how to make an ear?) and claims about a supposed lack of hair on Foley's arms and legs (because they assumed we can't tell the difference?) being evidence of a forgery. None of it stands up to a critical evaluation, and indeed, follows the same path as every other conspiracy theory: Everything is evidence of either the forgery, or a coverup of the forgery.

EDIT I just checked out the video, and I love the opening. "Internet explorer froze up, therefore conspiracy! Oh look, Chrome works..." LOL MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Live video of Obama statement on Foley execution

[1] -- GreenC 16:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed dead by the President of the United State and the video is accurate as it appears. Please ignore sources saying otherwise. -- GreenC 16:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

speculation, wp:blp, wp:notaforum

Yes, only pay attention to authorities that lied to the public to start a war in the first place. That makes so much sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎188.220.31.204 (talk) You are free to disbelieve President Obama, but the fact remains that he said it. We deal in verifiability not truth. 331dot (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC) For your information:September Dossier — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎188.220.31.204 (talk) I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove. As I stated, you can believe what you wish, but that does not change the fact that the statement was made. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC) I'm not debating the fact that Obama has stated that he can confiem the death of Mr Foley is dead which is both tragic and a shame. Did Obama also state as quoted by Green Cardamom that the "video is as accurate as it appears"?188.220.31.204 (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Green Cardamon was not quoting the President, nor was he saying such a statement should be on this page; he was stating his opinion. Feel free to disagree. Or, if you know of reliable sources that have impugned the credibility or accuracy of the video, please offer them. That said, the National Security Council (answerable to the President) has found the video to be accurate. 331dot (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Do the CIA or similar intelligence organisations count as reliable sources?188.220.31.204 (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC) On the question if the video is real yes they are reliable, since they report to the NSC. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM, this is not a soapbox to attack the credibility of the United States government intelligence community in general. -- GreenC 01:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to try to figure out what is the date, time, and url for the Obama press conference clip that was included in the video~Technophant (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that right?

The references #38 is strange " magnet: openbittorrent.com%3a80&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.publicbt.com% open.demonii.com%3a1337 " What is that? --91.10.14.54 (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

91.10.14.54 - I just noticed that you posted a mangled version of the link. The one I cited was magnet:?xt=urn:btih:VFFKTDZLZIZYDUVOOMFS5MJD2JCNC4IR&dn=James%20Foley%20beheaded%20journalist.mp4&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.publicbt.com%3a80&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.istole.it%3a6969&tr=udp%3a%2f%2fopen.demonii.com%3a1337 - without the initial MD5 hash (the VFFK...) part you couldn't possibly access a torrent. So far as I know that would have happened on your end, probably when you copied the link. Wnt (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted it from the article and more or less trashed it here so no one tries it, leaving enough to possibly figure out what it is. I'll look now to see how it got there. I wouldn't consider it a revert if someone else had done it as it could be a risk and quite clearly wasn't YouTube or a media site. Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm the one who added it; it's an ordinary magnet link of the video (see Bittorrent). Some of the other citations have been unstable, and I think that magnet links are pretty routine nowadays. Wnt (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is unsuitable per WP:ELNO#8.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. That policy is off the deep end. According to that you're supposed to link Portable Document Format every time you post a PDF!!! Anyway, it says "Try to avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software, or an add-on to a browser. It is always preferred to link to a page rendered in normal HTML that contains embedded links to the rich media." If you can suggest a stable HTML replacement I'll agree it is preferable. Meanwhile, I'll see about linking Bittorrent clients... and PDF! Wnt (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that's a crazy policy. I also don't enable javascript by default, so maybe we should only link to sites that degrade naturally? Conceptually, it seems very similar to requiring that all citation sources be available online and not behind a paywall. Sure it's preferable to go with stuff you can access with a stripped down standard browser, but that's not always possible. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::No, Wnt, we should not use torrent links. They aren't necessarily stable and they clearly worry editors. And it needs an external application most won't have. Please remove it. Linking plain pdfs is no problem but the ref should say it is a pdf. Dougweller (talk)

Although I know what a torrent is, a lot of people would say "WTF?!" It is not something for everybody, and a long way from being as common as PDF. Anyway, what is in the document, I haven't downloaded it?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Bittorrents are a major fraction of all web traffic in the world. There are multiple competing free clients. What more can you ask for before you'd accept that it is standard software --- that it be owned by some company that can run a PR campaign? Seriously. Oh, and it's simply the video we were discussing. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Linking to the video will be problematic due to Copyright issues. Unless it's embedded in a reliable source news article. -- GreenC 17:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that ISIS encouraged public distribution of the video. Multiple sites made decisions about it without citing copyright. The Times of London preview page that I cite contains a still scene from the alleged beheading without citing permission for it. The speech by Obama is a U.S. government work. Sure, it's possible that ISIS actually robbed their camera operator by failing to pay for permission to redistribute, but how can anyone judge that from afar for any organization's publications? I can't see any plausible copyright issue here. Wnt (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Forget copyright. If this is a torrent of the video, then clicking on that link will download it, it will also upload it to others. In the UK this is illegal under anti-terrorism legislation [2]The force said in a statement: "The MPS counter-terrorism command (SO15) is investigating the contents of the video that was posted online in relation to the alleged murder of James Foley. We would like to remind the public that viewing, downloading or disseminating extremist material within the UK may constitute an offence under terrorism legislation."

In the US where wikipedia is based, you have your own Patriot Act which includes Providing material support for terrorism. Having this link on wikipedia could count as material support, as it is a link to a terrorist video. Martin451 22:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That is a seriously overwrought claim, at least in the U.S., and imputes crimes to multiple sites named in the press which, regardless of their decisions about "taste" in this case, continue to disseminate video freely of other ISIS materials. For example, "Clanging of the Swords", a much more disturbing film of ISIS' drive-by tactics and summary executions at checkpoints, remains available on LiveLeak. The idea that allowing other people to view the atrocities committed by ISIS is "material support" for them is utterly ridiculous. Now I can't be responsible for any crazy laws in other countries; after all, there are many in which even basic sexual illustrations might be contraband.

Since you're speaking of an issue of motive, I should mention what I'm thinking here even though as WP:OR I know I can't say it in the article. I think this video is a cheap magic trick, where a rehearsed speech given at one of a few prerecorded mock executions was spliced onto a scene of Foley decapitated after he died some other way, such as by a health problem or while attempting to escape. So I think we need to balance the tastelessness of showing a photo of the corpse against the far greater impact that failure to discuss the video has on our culture and foreign policy. By not calling ISIS out on their little magic trick, we have encouraged a dialog that says "Oh my goodness, we must not help the thousands of women and children stranded on a mountaintop waiting to be butchered, lest we annoy the great and powerful ISIS!" When in reality I think Foley was already dead when those airstrikes were authorized. Even a real threat of a hostage being executed should not stop us from narrowly scoped action to prevent a crime against humanity in progress, let alone tricks, but how do we keep from being fooled if we aren't free to examine and share the evidence while composing an encyclopedia? We don't neutralize ISIS propaganda by ignoring it; we neutralize it by understanding it. Wnt (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We are not here to call out ISIS, to neutralise their propaganda, we are here to document it in a neutral manner. Yes the video is reportedly questionable and ISIS are committing genocide. But providing a link that is difficult to find, where people will break the law in many countries just by clicking on it, is a seriously questionable act. Martin451 23:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The idea that simply clicking on a link in many countries is illegal is rather more questionable, I would say. I see no reason or precedent for us to automatically take up their censorship - which they haven't even stated unambiguously "This is banned in Britain" but left as "under investigation" - nor for us to abandon our role in linking readers to the actual source material being discussed in the article when we can do so. This is simply common sense: the entire story of this article grew out of that video; without it we wouldn't even know Foley was dead. How could we have a proper article without it? Wnt (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I should add that on reexamining that article and text, I realize that it is so non-specific that I can't even say that the Met said this, though I could report the Guardian drew that conclusion. They literally say that they are investigating the video in relation to the murder, which is what Scotland Yard ought to do, no argument from anybody. And then "remind the public that viewing, downloading or disseminating extremist material within the UK may constitute an offence", which is a very non-specific statement. Lacking in that quote, at least, is any assertion that the video constitutes banned extremist material. Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't, but the quote doesn't speak to it. Which means that if we respond by removing this video, you're saying that anything Britain potentially might regard as extremist material, from the personal websites of American Nazi BLPs to the Westboro Baptist Church website, all of it needs to go. Well that's a lot to give up over a vague wave of the hand. Wnt (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between downloading a questionable video, and redistributing that video. Torrents by their very nature automatically redistribute. If person choosing to view extremist material is a whole different ball game to distributing it, and the latter will create a whole mess of trouble. Martin451 00:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That might be true if this were child porn, but if you look at the quote above, it said that viewing, downloading, or disseminating might be an offence in the UK - if this is "extremist material". In the U.S., as I said, I don't see how it could be illegal. I mean, I've seen decapitation videos coming out of Iraq for more than ten years now, and our sites always disseminate them. Wnt (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I should add that after looking briefly into the articles about material support for terrorism in the U.S., it's relatively clear that, however monstrously vague the law may be, it still refers to people found by a jury to be acting under the direction of the terrorist group. [3] So if ISIS e-mails you a video and asks you to put it on Wikipedia, don't do it. But our purpose is very clearly independent - not even "independent advocacy" of the terrorist action, which is supposed to be permitted but free speech activists believe could be wrongly punished - but rather, independent understanding for an encyclopedia article. So, though I'm not a lawyer, I can't plausibly see this argument applying. Wnt (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there's nothing inherently criminal (at least in the US) about this, but there's still the copyright issue. I don't think you can infer a license from the fact that they seem to want it distributed widely. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone clarify what the default action is for downloaded BitTorrent files? Does BitTorrent default to making them uploadable? If so, it seems to me that there is no way we should ever be including such links, as users may not realise that BitTorrent is using their bandwidth for uploading - I've had several conversations with people who have installed BitTorrent, and it seemed evident that they simply didn't understand how it worked, and the consequences of allowing it to upload files. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Bittorrent is a protocol, not a program, so it's not valid to generalize overall. Nonetheless I think that uploading while downloading is very commonly the default. That said, I don't see the relevance. Wnt (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The default on clients I have used is to upload automatically. The one I currently have does not appear to have the option to turn off uploading, although it can be set at 1kB/s. Martin451 00:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case, we shouldn't link BitTorrent files. We have no business encouraging readers to install software that uses their bandwidth without informed consent - which is what this would amount to given the clear lack of understanding amongst many people as to how peer-to-peer file sharing works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The clients do not in any way conceal when they are uploading the content. You wait (and sometimes you do wait) for the download, and you see the upload statistics right next to it. I don't think deception is an issue. Wnt (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I said nothing whatsoever about 'deception'. My point was that people downloading the file may not realise they are also uploading it - and using their own bandwidth to do so. As for what the client shows, we shouldn't assume that our readers are sufficiently technically literate to understand such things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I see no great harm and some potential benefit in noting the doubts as to the document's legality in Britain in the citation, so I've added a note to that effect. Wnt (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. When I asked Wnt if the link was for a PDF document, he answered yes. But it seems this is actually the video of the murder. If so, why are we using that as source anyway? - MrX 00:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no explanation for my confusion there. I went to write what format it was and read off the wrong line... I was making a lot of quick edits. I've fixed that in the article now. Wnt (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I should add that actually (as viewing the file will show) it isn't video of the murder. There are a few apparent cuts with the knife before it goes black, but there is reason to think they are a staged scene. Wnt (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Another issue with this link is that it isn't a link to a specific source at all - the downloaded file could be coming from anywhere. What guarantees are there that a downloaded file hasn't been tampered with? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, I saw the same video on LiveLeak before they decided to 'stop spreading propaganda'. And transcripts are distributed on the web. Looking forward, the "VFFK" thing in the link above is an actual checksum, so it will always remain the same document. Wnt (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this the original video release by ISIL, or has it been edited by a third party. If the latter, is that third party a reputable news organization?- MrX 01:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a sources that said the video went to black as released by ISIL. It is a big point in the stories today that question whether the scene was staged, [4] because of course if ISIL had released any version where you could see the beheading we would have no issue. As a 'reputable [but unnamed] global security firm' said they thought it was staged, commenting only on the bloodless cutting we see in this version, it would appear any other version is, to say the least, not readily available. Wnt (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Checksums are never infallible - as a matter of simple logic, a checksum smaller than the original file cannot be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Technically correct, but faking a defect-free video with a certain altered appearance with the same checksum would be no easy task. The technology is widely used. Wnt (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that the video wasn't tampered with by whoever it was uploaded it in the first place, and generated the checksum? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

How do you know it was? Int21h (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Trying to create a collision attack for two MPEG video files that are over 100MB in size would likely be impossible. I'm not sure how to calculate the odds of this, but I'm sure it's over 10^23.~Technophant (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Proof he was murdered?

I wonder how WP can state for a fact that he was murdered by beheading. Where is the proof? Was a body recovered? I don't like conspiracy theories either, but truth is the first casualty of war, and we have seen this over and over with Govt making up lies to get people to go to war. Remember the babies in the incubators in Kuwait, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Those were all lies, too. WP should not just take the US govt stance as factual without independent verification. This not buying into any conspiracy theories per se, its just being objective with what is claimed and what is proven. See this video: http://www.popularresistance.org/questions-about-the-james-foley-death-video/ 24.5.69.164 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

WP is not stating anything "for a fact". It's reporting a newspaper article in The Daily Telegraph, which in turn describes a forensic analysis report, by an unnamed company, reported by The Times, which concluded "No one is disputing that at some point an execution occurred." If you choose to disbelieve any part of this chain of reporting, that's your choice. But the analysis has been widely supported and reported across the media. This is hardly another case of Blair's Dodgy Dossier. I'm not sure anyone is claiming that this video alone is an excuse, or even a reason, to wage war. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone tried to collapse this section, but neglected to put a bottom on the box. Besides, this absolutely is valid article discussion, not "forum chat". I added a reference yesterday saying that the body had not been recovered as of August 22 (by saying that a fellow hostage had called on their captors to release it). However, it would not be a bad idea to have a more updated reference.

As for this being a run-up to war, that needs better sources. We have some sources about the overall fishiness of this video, but that doesn't mean it is fake in entirely - to the contrary, the source I cited believed he was really dead. There's a conspiracy here alright - the conspiracy of fanatics who kidnapped Foley. Wnt (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And of course, the War on Terror began some time ago, didn't it? The execution of Foley may simply help to re-direct or re-focus it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Admininstrators - request that this section be collapsed. Fringe/forum. Thanks.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

IBTimes

If IBTimes is the only source for something, I don't think it should be used. If there are other reliable sources, we should use them. IMHO of course. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know much about IBT, are they known unreliable? -- GreenC 14:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

International Business Times - the few discussions at RSN have been divided. But if any news source is the only source we should be chary about it. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not seeing IBT in this article, but the one in Jihadi John appears to be an "exclusive" using unnamed sources who spoke with IBT. Not sure how to deal with exclusives since they would be the only source by design. -- GreenC 16:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No, they are NOT reliable. In fact, many self-published "scholars" (anyone can post there and anyone can make claims about their credentials) have tried to use their own non-peer-reviewed postings there as RS for other Wiki articles and have been reverted.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Death vs murder

I reversed a change that was recently made for a section that was titled Death, and then changed to Murder. I changed it back to Death. The word death was used as opposed to the word murder, because the word death is neutral and factual. "Murder" was thought to have more information implied, such as being found guilty of committing the crime, If somebody can link to where this was discussed, please feel free to chime in. I know it was discussed on one of the talk pages regarding this subject.MeropeRiddle (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I made a change recently made for a section that was titled Death, and then changed to Murder, and then to Death. I changed it back to Beheading.

The word Beheading was used as opposed to the word Death, because the word Beheading is neutral and factual. "Death" was thought to have more information implied, such as someone beheaded being dead. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: I was specifically referring to this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Foley_(journalist)&diff=626196260&oldid=626182326 Previous to that, it said "Death" and it was changed without consensus, so I put it back to what it was. Prior to that it was titled "Kidnapping and death." That got split up into 2 different sections: "Kidn apping in Syria" and "Death." Prior to that it was "Life and death." The Steven Sotloff article also has a section titled, "Kidnapping and death." It isn't called, "Kidnapping and beheading." That information is directly addressed in the infobox, and the consensus was to use the word "decapitation."MeropeRiddle (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Beheading is what we use to describe the video. See beheading video. It is more descriptive than "death". And more factual. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok 68.21.196.154 (talk) 00:44, 22 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)

Yes, and on the following day there was more of the interview played which is mostly captured here. She gives extensive details about the hostage negotiations and previously unreleased information about his rescue mission that be incorporated into a section about this aspect of his kidnapping.~Technophant (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

All of the videos are put together on this allthingsandersoncooper.com page. There's a response to Diane Foley's interview from the White House here and the transcripts of both interviews are here and here.~Technophant (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)