Talk:Jihadi John/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Death reports

The lead section quotes an ABC News report with unnamed U.S. officials saying that he is believed killed. This is out of step with most media reports which say that the Pentagon is still assessing this.[1] As ever with JJ, there is a strong element of "sources said" rather than hard facts at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr Cameron has made a statement describing it as "self-defence", and I see our Rt Hon friend Mr Corbyn has now also stepped into the fray: [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This is 21st century warfare. It is hard to say whether Mr. Emwazi is dead, although he may be. The fog of war applies here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. But will we get Mr Corbyn "droning" on and on about it? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Re this edit: at the time of writing, U.S. government officials say that it is "reasonably certain" that he has been killed. The fog of war mentioned above still applies here. Similar claims were made about Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi but reports of his death may have been exaggerated. It is too early to say with certainty that Emwazi is dead.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Are we allowed to update the Lead and infobox to reflect the fact that he's reportedly dead? Aside from anything else, we currently have a section titled "Death", which I assume should be reflected in the Lead/infobox. At the least, something like Lord Lucan would seems sensible:Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan (born 18 December 1934), commonly known as Lord Lucan, a British peer suspected of murder, disappeared without trace early on 8 November 1974. Bromley86 (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Abdel Majed Abdel Bary

I have been following the news as I am sure most have, the article Abdel-Majed_Abdel_Bary and press reports are showing a photograph which it is claimed is of Mohammed Emwazi, the government has identified Jihadi John as Mohammed Emwazi, however press reports and articles across the internet are showing the photo of Abdel Majed Abdel Bary. Can any other editors work out what is going on? Is the photo the of Emwazi or Bary or is it that they are one and the same person. Either way the other article about Bary also needs editing. Pennine rambler (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Links? Bromley86 (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

There are far to many to list, the press worldwide are showing the photo of Bary as being Emwazi, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31641569 is just one, note the photo used on BBC is Bary (The Rapper from London), every press outlet identifies the photo of Abdel Majed Abdel Bary that appears on wikipedia as Emwazi. Pennine rambler (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hope this link works to google images and this may show what I mean, https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=emwazi+or+bary+jihadi+john&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=675&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCsQsARqFQoTCN3ozu3LjskCFUWXHgodwd8K0w

Pennine rambler (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Just more complications, Bary went on the run in Turkey in July according to press reports, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/abdel-majed-abdel-bary-british-jihadist-deserted-isis-in-syria-and-is-on-the-run-in-turkey-10384099.html --Pennine rambler (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Rambler. I'm not good with faces, but I'd rather assumed that the 3rd Emwazi photo on that BBC link you supplied was a different person from the similar photo that's meant to be Bary. The photo of Bary used on WP looks to me to be Bary, but, as I've said, I'm useless at facial recognition. Bromley86 (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Raqqa or Al-Raqqah?

We've got both ATM. I can see an argument for both - most English sources ([3] vs. [4], for what that's worth) use Raqqa, but the WP article is Al-Raqqah. In this sort of situation, I tend to go with the WP article name (as I assume that's had some thought put into its commonname, which may be naive). Thoughts? Bromley86 (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Best to go with the spelling of the Wikipedia article, which is Al-Raqqah. This is a more formal transliteration of الرقة than Raqqa.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 November 2015

Please amend to say that this cowardly gutless piece of excrement is dead 92.236.219.211 (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done. Bring sources and arguments, not invectives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 November 2015

The "Reaction" section mentions a Lord Carlisle, but this is an error. The correct form is Alex Carlile, Baron Carlile of Berriew. Philip Cross (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now - as far as I can figure out, "Lord Carlile" is on of the many correct ways to refer to him. It's used in the House of Lords [5], and by both the Daily Mail [6] and The Guardian [7]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected the spelling in the article - Carlile, not Carlisle. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of video section

I wrote a bunch of this section when events were unfolding after John's first killing and there were some sources wondering if the video was fake. After subsequent videos appeared no one was questioning. Now that section seems anachronistic and odd. Would there be any objection to its deletion? Or perhaps a two sentence summary elsewhere in the article. -- GreenC 14:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It remains unclear whether JJ actually killed any of the victims in the Internet videos because the killing takes place off camera. JJ became notorious as the front man of IS, but the media has joined the dots to assume that JJ is the killer when this is never explicitly stated by the videos; it is merely the impression that the videos are designed to give. I think that the article still needs to mention this in some way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere recently that he initially was not shown doing the killing but later videos he is shown doing the killing. -- GreenC 18:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't recall any of the IS videos with JJ where he is shown doing the actual beheading. The format is always the same: JJ rants while waving a knife next to the kneeling victim in an orange jump suit, the camera shot fades and the victim is shown beheaded.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure I can dig up the source as I just read it yesterday (or possibly this from 2014). But what does it have to do with the OP? -- GreenC 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Things have moved on since JJ made his debut in the James Foley video in August 2014. At the time, the slick editing of the video marked a departure from the previous crude camcorder videos of beheadings. Experts pointed out that it is unclear from the editing whether JJ actually killed Foley as it is not shown on camera, and this is also true of some of the other videos. I still think that it is necessary to point this out, albeit briefly and perhaps trimming the wording that is currently in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous category

Jihadi John has the Category:Possibly living people which is incorrect as it is used mainly for persons of advanced age (over 90) for whom no documentation has existed for a decade or longer about their survival or not. Kindly review and remove category from Jihadi John page. werldwayd (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Done This should not be re-added as Category:Possibly living people it is intended for "Persons of advanced age (over 90) for whom no documentation has existed for a decade or longer".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Link to Paris attacks

The WP:LEAD currently says "Following his assassination, the November 2015 Paris attacks occurred." True, but there is no evidence of a link and experts say that the Paris attacks would have taken months to plan. This is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Due to 1RR I can't revert this, but the lead (or other sections of the article) should not say this unless there is reliably sourced evidence of a link. The source given is a Daily Mail article with the headline "Was Paris terror revenge for Jihadi John? ISIS executioner's drone death may have accelerated attacks on France, experts say, which is speculation and not a reliable source. The Daily Mail should not be used as a source anyway. Please can someone lose this from the lead section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Even the Daily Mail article did not match their headline... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. In a further piece of Mail speculation, the newspaper asks today Did MoS video help nail Jihadi John? Clip was last known footage of ISIS butcher before he was 'evaporated' in drone attack. This was discussed on the talk page in August 2015 and there is no firm evidence that it is him in the video. The Mail article at the time admits this. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Special forces, nano drones in The Daily Mail

This source is an amazing story of nano drones and special forces. Unfortunately they name no sources, and it's only reported in The Daily Mail which has a poor reputation for fact checking and spreading incorrect information. Is it reliable for inclusion? -- GreenC 00:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Some people always say no to the DM as a source, but I think that the real problem here is that it involves speculation about the military operation that apparently killed JJ. If it involves wording like the usual "unnamed sources said last night", it doesn't really qualify as RS. The DM does not quote an on the record source for any of this, which is a common problem with JJ.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Beatles/Ringo Starr reference

I am jumping in here after reading this article for the first time, but I found it quite jarring to read what a pop/rock star (albeit legendary, in his own right) thinks about the nickname of a group of terrorists. I think it is out of place. Of course we all know what Ringo would think. Superfluous info. 67.82.15.60 (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't miss it. Rothorpe (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Assuming this is a vote, remove it. Bromley86 (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. Rothorpe (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Origin of "Jihadi John" nickname

Re this edit: it is generally agreed that the Daily Mail dreamed up this nickname. After some searching using the Mails search facility, the earliest story that uses the phrase is here on 21 August 2014. The BBC refers to this in its review of the papers the following day.[8]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Great to see that such an august and learned publication is still responsible for the name of this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Good work finding the origin. It's accredited to "David Williams and Sam Marsden for MailOnline and Sue Reid for the Daily Mail". One of those three is the creator. I did a Google search with a date range from July 30 to August 20 (the day before the Mail article) and nothing there so it looks like August 21 is the origin date. -- GreenC 16:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: An earlier reference in The Spectator from August 20: "Jihadi John – a very British export". -- GreenC 18:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that the piece is by Douglas Murray (author) an outspoken islamaphobe, perhaps the real origin of the name. -- GreenC 18:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the reference in The Spectator. There is a certain amount of WP:OR in saying that this is the earliest reference, although there is little doubt that the nickname was invented by the British press.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Murdered?

in the infobox on the page it talks of a 'criminal charge' but of course, emwazi was never actually charged with any crime in any court anywhere on earth he was extrajudically murdered. since he wasn't charged, and since he thus of course wasn't found guilty, it is NPOV to speak of 'criminal charges' as well as factually inaccurate. someone should be brave enough to remove this in the name of encyclopedic accuracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Not so. A person can be charged and found not guilty. Rothorpe (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"extrajudically murdered" suggests he was not an enemy combatant. Not sure what the legal status is but terrorists are killed all the time with drones in countries around the world. There is some legal basis for these killings. -- GreenC 01:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I've changed this field to "known for" because it is more accurate. After the deaths of two British ISIS members in a drone strike in September 2015, David Cameron said that the decision was “entirely lawful” and “exercising Britain’s inherent right in self-defence”. However, the decision was controversial.[9] Cameron appeared to be applying a concept of self defence in a military context rather than judicial execution. Since Britain is not at war with Syria, it is something of a legal grey area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Based on comments by the US confirming the death etc.. it looks a US drone fired the missile. There were UK drones involved also so they are culpable. -- GreenC 13:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Drones, of course, don't fire missiles themselves, drone operators do. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Well if we can make corporations legal personages surely we can do it for autonomous war robots (not these these were autonomous - yet). -- GreenC 18:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Jihadi Junior?

The British newspaper front pages today are full of the English speaking man and boy dubbed by The Sun as Jihadi Junior. Only time will tell if this will catch on and be notable enough for a mention in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Also been called "New Jihadi John" although I'd probably stray away from that title as it sounds like some video game. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Re this edit: it didn't take long for the media to put a name to the man and boy in the latest IS propaganda video. The man is believed to be Siddhartha Dhar, who now has his own article, while the boy is believed to be from London.[10] The appearance of new characters in IS propaganda videos does not necessarily mean that Emwazi is dead, although he may well be.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Jihadi Junior makes his cartoon debut in Private Eye 1409.[11] His age (said to be four by the UK media) leads to problems with WP:BLPNAME, so it shouldn't be added to an article on Wikipedia. Television news reports in Britain have blurred his face, but some newspapers have not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Listing of date of death

I just came upon this article through recent changes and the note on the top of the article of his date of death. Surely this can't be correct, since the government have simply said there is a "high degree" of certainty, that he is dead. Not that he is dead. You can't say the guy's turned his toes up without proof, right? Moorcroft.lucas152 (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it gets re-added, usually by IPs, every hour or so. There's a request for page protection currently being considered. Bromley86 (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

But, as far as the lede section goes, he's now a was not an is? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with page protection, it is very unclear whether or not he is dead --Pennine rambler (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC).

I corrected that Martin, although we currently have a section called "Death" rather than "Reported death". Waiting to see what Ian (or others) say above. Bromley86 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a difficult situation. Without confirmation from IS, which may not be forthcoming, we may never know that he is dead in the full legal sense, only that it is likely that he was killed in a drone strike.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Re this edit: I can't revert it because of 1RR, but there is a consensus that the article and the infobox should not state as a fact that he is dead on the basis of a military operation. It is also disappointing that IPs keep on adding this without looking at the talk page discussions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox entry. We currently have an unqualified fact where we should be qualifying and a qualified fact where we probably shouldn't be qualifying. Namely:

• Died 12 November 2015 (aged 27)
• Cause of death Presumably killed by drone strike

Clearly, he's not confirmed dead, so that Died needs to be qualified by reported, presumed, or similar. In contrast, the Cause of death, if he is dead, is almost certainly drone strike. Sure, it's possible he died of other causes, but the reported death that we're using has been exclusively tied to drone strike, no? Any objections to me changing the infobox to reflect this? Bromley86 (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The field in Template:Infobox person doesn't allow for subtleties in whether a person is dead or alive, only a yes/no statement for the date of death. I've edited the article to reflect this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• On a slightly different note, the U.S. government also seems pretty sure that it has killed Abu Nabil al-Anbari with a drone strike in the last few days.[12] Nabil was less well known than Jihadi John, and his article does not have an infobox, but the same problem applies. It is hard to say with 100% certainty that a person has been killed in a combat operation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That's right. We will probably never have 100% assurance. Nevertheless, every day that goes by without JJ re-appearing or official sources changing the story, the more it's "good enough" for Wikipedia to say dead without needing a confirmed or unconfirmed qualifier (in the infobox). The "unconfirmed" implies that confirmation is possible which probably is not. There are only lines of evidence, as is often the case (Hitler etc..). -- GreenC 17:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Re this edit: Obama's speech doesn't add much to what is already known, which is that the American and British governments are reasonably sure that JJ was killed in a drone strike. The speech contains nothing new, eg the discovery of Emwazi's body, so it is somewhat misleading to portray it as confirmation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I changed it Obama's quote, "taken out" - worth having his direct quote adds to the evidence. I think the words "confirm/unconfirm" frame the issue incorrectly and should be avoided if possible (unless a source uses the words). -- GreenC 14:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

In The Wizard of Oz, the coroner quells the doubts of the Munchkins about whether the Wicked Witch of the East is dead by saying:

As Coroner I must aver,
I thoroughly examined her.
And she's not only merely dead,
she's really most sincerely dead.
We are still having problems with finding a form of wording for the article which confirms the death of Jihadi John without a coroner's report. A point has been reached where Barack Obama and David Cameron would be seriously embarrassed if Emwazi turned up alive. They have assured the media that he is really most sincerely dead on the basis of a combat operation, which is not quite the same as a death certificate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

In Mississippi, there was a case of a corner who pronounced a man dead. After they took him to the funeral home to prepare for embalming, he moved inside the body bag. They took him to the hospital and his relatives declared it was a miracle. Two weeks later he died. Someone said people are often reborn, but only in Mississippi can you die twice. -- GreenC 18:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless IS is lying, he is now really most sincerely dead.[13][14]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Page title

Hi. Following up on this discussion, I think "Jihadi John" should be moved to "Mohammed Emwazi". As far as I can tell, this nickname wasn't used by the subject, so it seems strange to affix it as his biographical page title. A page move here would also follow the setup we have with Jihad Jane, a redirect to Colleen LaRose, which is a similar-ish situation. Thoughts? (cc: JhonsJoe and Green Cardamom) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Still a question of commonname. WP:COMMONNAME. -- GreenC 05:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, love it or loathe it, Jihadi John is the media nickname that has stuck and is his WP:COMMONNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, as a redirect it makes sense. As the primary page title, however, it seems inappropriate. It's absolutely a media nickname, but is it appropriate to then attach that nickname to an individual's biography in the way that we are? I can't think of other places where we would ever do this. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Unabomber seems like a reasonable example. It's a redirect to Ted Kaczynski, even though the former is more common. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you read COMMONNAME? See this example[15] The press leads off wih Jihadi John first and his real name second. Because most people recognize him as Jihadi John. The article title is not an official name or anything, a biography title can be anything. -- GreenC 19:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The BBC wasn't a great fan of the Jihadi John nickname at first, but by the time of his death it had gone along with using it.[16] Likewise, the New York Times decided to headline its article about his death with the JJ nickname.[17] Also CNN.[18] There is little doubt that Jihadi John is the WP:COMMONNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi IanMacM. Nobody is disputing that the media has adopted and used the "Jihadi John" nickname for this individual. Everyone agrees on that point. The question is whether a (potentially derogatory) nickname should be the title of the person's biography. Are there similar cases on the English Wikipedia where we place the person's biography under a nickname that the individual never used themselves? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Green Cardamom: Looking at the BBC article you linked to, it mostly refers to "Jihadi John" in quotation marks, indicating that it's a nickname, not his actual name. When referencing the individual, it reads "Emwazi first emerged in August 2014 [...]" or "[...] targeting Emwazi had [...]" or "[...] track Emwazi down [...]". The BBC article uses his actual name, not his nickname, except to identify the news relevance and association between the two. If you scroll down that same article to the timeline of his life, it's titled "Mohammed Emwazi". Is there a reason not to use the individual's actual name here? Are there other English Wikipedia biographies where we do something similar? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"indicating that it's a nickname, not his actual name." .. that's right. His nickname is his most commonly known name, the name he is most commonly known by. In other words, his common name is his nickname and per COMMONNAME that is the name we use. To say it another way, Jihadi John is his most common name, how he is most commonly known by, which is how articles are titled per COMMONNAME. If there is another way to put this or of there is any confusion let me know. If you have not read COMMONNAME then please do so. The link is WP:COMMONNAME. -- GreenC 14:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Is that claim based on any up-to-date objective evidence, Green Cardamom? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

IanMacM already listed evidence further up this thread. If you think the BBC, New York Times and CNN are aberrations than show otherwise. However common sense, and the evidence, is the press is referring to this individual first by JJ and second by his real name. -- GreenC 18:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Those are headlines, I imagine to catch a reader's attention. But, more significantly, all three sources that Ian links use single quote marks which we, of course, do not. I agree it's rather debatable. I just thought that an encyclopedia would want to be more, well, kind of encyclopedic. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

We probably all know that JJ's real name is Mohammed Emwazi because of the time that we have spent on this article; the average person may not. If news media wrote stories about Mohammed Emwazi, people might ask "Who is this guy?" "Jihadi John" will always be his WP:COMMONNAME in news coverage even though it is a nickname.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

For sure. If we were discussing an article on Wikinews, I'd agree with using "Jihadi John" in the page title. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. :-) The "common name" argument seems pretty weak here. "Heart attack" is way more common than myocardial infarction, but the former is a redirect to the latter. Wikipedia exists to provide knowledge to our readers. If we know the subject's real name and we have a biography about him on our site, standard practice is to use the name he used and preferred as the biography's page title, not a media-assigned nickname. As I mentioned earlier, Unabomber seems like a decent example. I've been trying to come up with cases where we primarily list an individual under an assigned nickname and I've been struggling. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd almost agree with this proposal, and its reasoning, since Emwazi is almost universally used alongside his nickname now. However on a point of order - he changed his name by deed poll, in 2013 before any noms de guerre, to Mohammed al-Ayan. He may be commonly known as Emwazi, but it is not his real, legal, or preferred name. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

zzuuzz: Thanks, that's interesting info. This seems to be the cite we're using in our article, though the name Mohammed al-Ayan barely gets a mention in the current version. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It is confusing to make sense of all of the names that this guy has used at various points. He is commonly known as Mohammed Emwazi, although this is not his birth name. In his Dabiq obituary he is called Abu ( أبو, father of) Muharib (warrior, محارب) al-Muhajir (Muhajir, (مهاجر, immigrant). However, I still think that his WP:COMMONNAME is Jihadi John.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• His student record at the University of Westminster (image here) shows him as Mohammed Emwazi with the famous baseball cap image. However, his birth name is not Emwazi and he used various other names. The media has latched on to Emwazi mainly because of his ID at the University of Westminter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to reopen this, does anyone have any similar example of a person, specifically a criminal or terrorist rather than a performer, whose WP article is their nickname rather than their real name? I found Carlos the Jackal, but that was it. C.f. the the other six I found, listed here, who are all named for their real names rather than their commonname (assuming their nicknames are their commonnames). Bromley86 (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Carlos the Jackal is a good example of a person who is known primarily by a nickname, because most people (other than quiz show enthusiasts) would not have a clue who Ilich Ramírez Sánchez is. There is a similar situation with Jihadi John.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Re this edit: I was tempted to revert it on the grounds of WP:NOTCENSORED. The Dabiq article here is a load of blather, but people are not banned from reading Mein Kampf or Das Kapital online and I'm not sure if the Dabiq article needs banning. I didn't book the first flight to Syria after reading it, but cannot speak for other people.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

New images of jihadi john released

new images of jihadi john released should this be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B8FB:F900:B97F:C347:F9E3:8D27 (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Since he is dead, a case could be made there is little possibility of a PD picture becoming available. One picture might reasonably be uploaded as Fair Use with proper rationale, should someone want to take on the responsibility of making a Fair Use claim. I have no interest personally. -- GreenC 22:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It comes down to WP:NFCC as usual. The infobox image shows him as he is best known, and can be justified as fair use. Theoretically Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant owns the copyright on this image. It would be helpful to have an image of him without the mask, but these would usually be copyrighted. There is a famous image of him from University of Westminster records showing him wearing a baseball cap, which the Pittsburgh Pirates did not like at all.[19]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've added a link to this news article from 26 January, which SITE Intelligence Group says shows JJ unmasked. It also shows the baseball cap photograph, so it gives a range of images to view without having to argue about WP:NFCC. JJ can also be seen without his mask in his Dabiq obituary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Is that a reliable source? I'm definitely edgy about using a terrorist fanzine in WP. Although I appreciate it's certainly reliable for the name, I'd suggest that Dabiq is a bigger candidate for the "never trust tabloids" sort of response than The Mail, or even The Mirror etc. Bromley86 (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced it with the Indy source that confirms the name. Bromley86 (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Terrorist fanzine?" Yes, but it is the original source of the material. All that the secondary sources have done is to repeat what it says. Dabiq could be seen as an Islamist version of Der Stürmer and it contains a glowing obituary of Emwazi. According to his obituary in Dabiq, he was apparently a kind hearted person who helped little old ladies across the road until the evil forces of MI5 harassed him. This is pretty much what CAGE said about him.[20]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "terrorist fanzine" except from a pejorative POV. More objectively it is the ISIL house organ. -- GreenC 15:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The obituary of Emwazi from Dabiq was added in this edit. It is on the Internet Archive and is probably not illegal under U.S. law (IANAL). It contains spin about what a wonderful person he was, which is why the mainstream media has been wary about showing or linking to it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There are not many laws banning speech. Germany has some laws against holocaust revisionism, but there is nothing illegal about ISIL's magazine. In this case the obit itself is the subject of secondary coverage - the actual obit, which is displayed on the video of the Independent article. If the mainstream media links to the obit is not relevant, rather do they discuss it. A moral argument can be made Wikipedia shouldn't link to it, but IMO that would need an RfC as there is nothing in the guidelines. We link to all sorts of controversial material on Wikipedia, the question is WP:WEIGHT and relevance and notability. -- GreenC 16:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I just don't see a need to link to it. Using the reliability source argument, we tend to link to reports of court cases (secondary), rather than the transcripts themselves (primary). Whilst I accept that it might be right to include it as a ref for the obit part, there's simply no reason in the world to use it in place of a reliable secondary source for the name in the infobox. And you're right, I shouldn't have described it as a "terrorist fanzine"; it's actually pretty slick. Bromley86 (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Here is what CAGE said about Emwazi. He was apparently a candidate for sainthood until he was harassed by MI5.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jihadi John. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140822144616/http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/563629/20140822/james-foley-beheading-video.htm to http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/563629/20140822/james-foley-beheading-video.htm#.U_fkW7GTDK3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

picture

i was just wondering, if you have to use a picture of him in a mask, could someone at least find a HD one that isn't fuzzy? and isn't a picture that actually shows his face more appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The image is of adequate rather than brilliant quality and is taken from a widely available screenshot of one of the videos as used in news articles, eg here and credited to Reuters news agency and SITE Intelligence Group. As for a photograph of him without the mask, this would be useful, but would probably have to be a non-free image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The current image is Fair Use so it's only a question of which would be the best non-free image to use, with the mask or without. There are arguments either way since the current image is how he is best known. --GreenC 18:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I would quite like to add the University of Westminster image, but it would be fair use, and the Pittsburgh Pirates hate the fact that he is wearing one of their caps.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree, the Pirates hat presents a complication. Jihad Cool. -- GreenC 19:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

the point of the mask was that, for quite a while, he wasn't actually known at all though, was he? it just doesn't make much sense to have a picture of him masked, because surely the point of the picture being on the wikipage is to see what the person looks like to me, it makes most sense to have as recent a possible picture, so people see how he looked just before his death the most recent one is the one below, released by islamic state al-naba magazine

https://www.google.com/search?q=mohammed+emwazi+naba&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS9sC38obNAhWCCcAKHcM2BPMQ_AUICSgD&biw=1440&bih=766#imgrc=24bSEj5PlkagnM%3A https://twitter.com/charliewinter/status/691961708320047104 (better image save from tweet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Normally it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to have an infobox image of a person wearing a mask, but this is how "Jihadi John" is best known and most commonly depicted in news material. There aren't all that many pictures of him with the mask off and they all appear to be fair use only. The photos of the man with the Kalashnikov rifle in the Google search results were released by IS in January 2016 after his death and are said to show him in Syria.[21] The other picture released by IS after his death was in his Dabiq obituary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

An argument might be made for two Fair Use pictures, one with and without the mask. -- GreenC 14:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the small print, we have only the word of IS that it is him in the January 2016 and Dabiq photos. This isn't necessarily a problem, but it should be made clear in any caption.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

That's no problem, in the image page description field a disclaimer. What about a single composite image, with the masked version on top and the the unmasked on bottom. -- GreenC 16:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

it WAS how he was best known. he isn't featured at all in the media anymore because hes dead... since this is a biographical article it would make sense to see his face as it was before he died. I can't see any issue using the image (the one from al-naba with the kalash) as for 'the word of IS', it is quite clearly him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that the man with the Kalashnikov looks exactly the same as the man with the Pittsburgh Pirates baseball cap, but that's just my personal opinion. Sources such as SITE Intelligence Group say that it is him with the Kalashnikov and SITE is considered to be reliable by the mainstream media.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

im glad you agree that SITE and I are correct. (you should remember the pirates hat photo is around 7 years old) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017

"The video that ended with a shot of Kassig's severed head showed the beheadings of 21 Syrian soldiers in gruesome detail, by a group led by a masked Emwazi."

CNN confirms the number is actually 22. Can someone fix the number please? Thanks.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/world/isis-syria-video-analysis/

--185.24.233.143 (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure that's definitive. Most of the sources I've seen in a quick search state 18. I'll have another look. Bromley86 (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted, as the source used did not support the number, and then change the 21 to 18 for the same reason. I suspect 22 is in fact the correct number, but we'll need to source it. Bromley86 (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Bromley86 (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Renaming the page as Mohammed Emwazi

It might been fashionable at the time this page was created to call him Jihadi John as without any clear identity, people knew him as Jihadi John. But now that his identity is known and he is dead, I believe the page should be renamed as Mohammed Emwazi. werldwayd (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe worth a read: Talk:Jihadi_John/Archive_3#Page_title, particularly regarding 'identity'. I'm inclined to agree with the move, but I'm sure others will want to chip in, so you'd probably want a WP:RM. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link for earlier discussion. I think it is high time a discussion is launched about change to real name and I have done that. There is also a very relevant case of one who was known as Jihadi Jack. Now the article is with his correct name Jack Letts. Individeual known as Jihadi Jake is reflected under his real name Jake Bilardi. werldwayd (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned in that discussion, Mohammed Emwazi is not his real name, so be prepared to elaborate on that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)