Talk:Jihadi John

Untitled

• Archive

Requested move 29 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Jihadi John → Mohammed Emwazi – Jihadi John was just a title given to him by the media. Now that his real identity is well known and he is dead, identifying him with his correct name is preferable than to continue calling him with a "nickname" dubbed on him by media at the time werldwayd (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the common name he is known by. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME applies here. This should have been taken on board before making the move request.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support move WP:COMMONNAME does not apply in this case. The Western press dubbed him "Jihadi John" because his real identity was a mystery. Once his real identity became known, they started calling his real name Mohammed Emwazi. People know him as Emwazi as well. See the BBC reporting his death http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35358101 Title: 'Jihadi John' death: Islamic State says Mohammed Emwazi killed. In the article: QUOTE: The group [ISIS] published an obituary for the jihadist, whose real name was Mohammed Emwazi, in its online magazine Dabiq. Emwazi appeared in beheading videos of victims including UK aid worker David Haines and taxi driver Alan Henning. It continues: Who was Mohammed Emwazi? And explains: In the eulogy, Kuwaiti-born Emwazi is referred to as Abu Muharib al-Muhajir, his nickname in the group and the details of his death confirm the US version of events. The jihadist group said Emwazi was killed on 12 November UNQUOTE. Clearly his known name is Mohammed Emwazi. So-called "Jihadi John" is a nickname and to add a nickname he never ever used himself. It was some embelished Western journalismn to make himn more "interesting" and "sensational". In any case, always the name Joihadi John came in quotations. Another of the "Beatles" squad says they refuse to be associated with such "musical" nicknames and heavily disapprove of them. Listen to his comments about nicknames like "Jihadi John, Jihadi George, Jihadi Paul, Jihadi Ringo" bla bla bla https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZHY08zJ-bM The segment is 1:45 to 3:10 in which he comments how idiotic these Western media "nicknames" were. We in Wikipedia should follow the example of BBC not some nickname. werldwayd (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support, as I mentioned above. These days, Jihadi John is rarely mentioned without reference to Mohammed Emwazi. In most reliable sources, Mohammed Emwazi is usually mentioned before Jihadi John, for example in the style of the NY Times: "The leader of the cell, Mohammed Emwazi, was called 'Jihadi John'". Compare this to someone like Carlos, whose real name is Ilich Ramírez Sánchez. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's track record on this is to stick with the real name. For example the individual known as Jihadi Jack is properly named under the article as Jack Letts. The individual known as Jihadi Jake is reflected under his real name Jake Bilardi The individual known as Jihadi Paul is reflected under his own name Aine Lesley Davis. In the same manner Jihadi John should be reflected under his name Mohammed Emwazi. werldwayd (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The "Jihadi John" nickname may be silly or tasteless to some people, but it remains the name by which he is best known.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose "Jihadi John" is the moniker that this brutal murderer was best known as, and so shall it be here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought monikers were names individuals chose for themselves to be known by. Well, this "brutal murderer" as you call him never chose this "moniker". What you saw was a nameless anonymous guy in a threatening video and some witnesses said, oh this is part of the Beatles gang (They are British you see). So the papers go, let's call Jihadi John, Jihadi Paul whatever... Now we know their names.... and we have almost consistently used their names as in the cases of Jack Letts, Jake Bilardi, Aine Lesley Davis. The same should apply to Emzawi, a brutal murderer or not. And as your motto says "Let's discuss this". werldwayd (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Nicknames or monikers are often given by other people, especially applied to criminals who try to conceal their identities. See Golden State Killer for an example of a moniker coined by an author for a murderer recently apprehended but not convicted at this time. Since you say "as you call him", let me ask you whether you have any doubt that this is an accurate description of this particular killer that summarizes what most reliable sources say about him? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
      • These "nicknames" such as Golden State Killer remain valid as long as the individual behind them is still anonymous. As soon as the culprit is caught, and his identity clarified, and he is clearly convicted as being the perpetrator dubbed Golden State Killer, you will see that Wikipedia will use the real name and make Golden State Killer just a redirect. Let's take another vivid case. Media called some culprit the Unabomber. Probably to date, he is best known as the Unabomber. But guess what is the Wikipedia article titled: Ted Kaczynski. Now many don't know him by his name Kaczynski, but we classify him under Kaczynski. This is Wikipedia policy actually time and again. So in answer to you, most reliable sources say Emzawi who was known as or nicknamed Jihadi John always putting "Jihadi John" in single or double quotations. Of course when he was still unknown, media sources did call him "Jihadi John" based on some arbitrary nickname that one source launched and the nickname stuck. Even today most people would still know him as Jihadi John, just like they know the Unabomber, but that's not the name. I am asking for consistency. Those who ask for Jihadi John, can be duly redirected to Mohammed Emwazi. werldwayd (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Better recognized as Jihad John than his real name. "Emzawi" is not recognizable to most people. Some names stick like Ted Kaczynski vs. Unibomber, others are overshadowed by their moniker because it sticks. Every case is unique and this is one case where the moniker overshadows the real name. I agree it's not always typical but that's why there are guidelines not hard rules. -- GreenC 15:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per COMMONNAME - Primarily known as Jihadi John. –Davey2010^Talk 17:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per COMMONNAME - Primarily known as Jihadi John.BabbaQ (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Updated link

Hi, can someone add the updated source link for number 11. This one does not load the PDF. I found a working link. http://clarionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Issue-13-the-rafidah.pdf Thanks Nusent 16:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The Clarion Project isn't an ideal source. You're right that the link to the Dabiq article on Archive.org seems to have stopped working. There have been complaints in the past about linking to Islamic extremist material on Wikipedia, eg the Daily Mail got itself worked up here. The Dabiq link was a load of blather about what a warm and wonderful person Emwazi was, and it was nothing special. There is a screenshot of it here and the article should look for a secondary source rather than quoting it directly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• The Dabiq cite was used only to show that his name in his obituary was Abu Muharib al-Muhajir. Since this has appeared in plenty of reliable secondary sources, eg CNN, there is no need to use WP:PRIMARY material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The Dabiq obit was previously discussed 2 years ago. The archive.org link works for me. The site is unreliable sometimes, or clear browser cache. It says "The obituary shows him unmasked and ..", not merely using it as a source but referring to the source. WP:PRIMARY allows for it, in addition to CNN etc as supporting secondary. The only concern then is extremist material - I don't know what Wikipedia guidelines are (WP:FRINGE is the closest but doesn't seem applicable) or if an obit would be extremist. Regardless, if it's causing an issue it's not worth disputing to retain an ISIS obit which future historians will probably find more interesting the talk page discussions. -- GreenC 05:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting blank pages when I try to view the Dabiq link on Archive.org. As for showing him unmasked, there is a screenshot lower down the page in the CNN article which can be enlarged by clicking it. I didn't see anything in the text of the Wikipedia article that required the full WP:PRIMARY article in Dabiq.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It really does work. Clear cache, try a different browser, different computer. Or the item page: https://archive.org/details/Dabiq13 (the main landing page). If all that doesn't work, quite possible your ISP is blocking, or somewhere upstream, if there are laws against extremist material. PRIMARY doesn't require and doesn't disallow :) -- GreenC 14:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

And now we're getting somewhere. The link https://archive.org/details/Dabiq13 shows up as Geo-restricted Items for which access is geographically restricted so it won't work in some countries. Most of the geo-restricted items seem to involve Islamist extremist material, although The Eternal Jew (1940 film) is also in there. So it looks like the CNN article is now the preferred option.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• According to this article, Internet Archive has become wary of being used as a file sharing service for extremist material, following concerns that it was being referenced by extremists for propaganda purposes. This seems to have happened fairly recently, as the Dabiq link worked when it was added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"Military career" infobox

Military career is not the correct term considering he did not represent an authorised armed force of a recognised Sovereign State, I suggest renaming sub heading to "Militant activities". — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.S.Farquhar (talk • contribs) 14:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The article uses embedded Infobox military person. Agree that he did not represent a sovereign state, as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Al-Nusra Front are both best described as armed Islamist organizations rather than a recognized national army. Also, according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, killing unarmed civilians would not be part of a military career. The use of Infobox military person should be reconsidered. It seems to be designed for use with people who represented the armed forces of a recognized sovereign state, which isn't the case here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

"Kuwaiti-British"?

Only the citizens of Kuwait can be called Kuwaiti, which is about 40% of the population. His parents were Iraqi, and they were denied Kuwaiti citizenship. I suggest it should be "British of Iraqi descent, born in Kuwait".Malaiya (talk)