Talk:Juba (sniper)

"Juba" might not even be real

It is doubtful that "Juba" even exists. Seems more like a propaganda tool for insurgents and terrorists. 68.125.62.98

Well, I was looking at Faces of the Fallen in the Washington Post the other day, and it seemed like there were more sniper deaths than there used to be. Of course, I wouldn't blindly trust either of the sources.-LtNOWIS 20:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They may have determined that it's a fair strategy and have decided to use it more. Also, since the article now explicitly mentions that his existence has not been proven, the concerns of 68.125.62.98 have been addressed and there's no further need for the NPOV tag. I'm going to remove it, since the current article is perfectly neutral, if, admittedly, short. 68.125.62.98's record leads me to doubt he would do it himself or I would let him handle it. 68.9.205.10 22:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is real. user:George

So you've met him personally? 68.9.205.10 22:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be an ass. It's my opinion. user:George

I agree that Juba could well be a insurgent propaganda tool, however, a recent article mentions that sniper attacks are the 2nd largest killer of US troops, after car bombs, and excepting clashes with insurgents. I have asked a friend, who has confirmed from a contact of his that this is indeed the case, which seems to support the case that there is more than one sniper operating. However, if the insurgents do have a particular sniper operating, he is unlikely to be camping as suggested, and rather hitting certain targets, as a higher profile sniper would. Any links are welcome.

--The1exile 18:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of the article seems NPOV.

Example? --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:34, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

This page is neutral. I don't know what people are talking about. user:George

Video links

I'm not a fan of using megaupload or yousendit in these cases, since the links go bad after a time. I say they should be removed, or moved to permenant hosting. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 01:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but I don't want them removed till a stable surce is found --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how is this page NPOV? let's remove that

Sethie 19:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Video links ethically not right

In this article there are links to long videos which shows US Soldiers beeing killed by a sniper! I think that's ethically not right to link to videos which are glorifying the killing of people! User:Echalone 19:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored - ethically or otherwise. BDAbramson T 20:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And what's next? Child pornography in the Paedophilia Article?? So there's at least some sort of censorship! I definatly think glorifying of the killing of human beings should be censored... and if you watch those videos you will see that they are clearly glorifying the killing of people! Wikipedia should be a neutral encyclopedia... glorifying the killing of human beings isn't neutral.User:Echalone 01:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Child porn would be illegal, whereas (so far as I know) links to video of war deaths are not. That being said, I have no intention of adding such links, or of restoring such links if they are deleted, as they do nothing to enhance the encyclopedic nature of the article. BDAbramson T 01:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is it unethical? If you somehow tricked someone to watch them without them knowing, you could argue that you had slighlty harmed someone, please elaborate on how you view this as morally wrong?

The glorification of killing? I mean, it is part of the human experience... you may not like it, I may not like it, and, certain people cheer when certain people are killed. It happens in war, it happens in with the death penalty, it happens when criminals shoot each other. I warmly welcome you to view the glorification of killing as unethical, and if you view it as such, you have a much bigger fight on your hands then this article.

I am not in the mood to watch those vidoes, however I am skeptical that the intent or function of the vidoes is to glorify killing.

Keep them. What an amazing resource, wiki is, the good, the bad and the ugly, and with multimedia!

Sethie 08:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the... unorthodox content of the video material, I have to agree. If it's not illegal, it should be up here so everyone can access the information and judge it on his own. File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said "I am not in the mood to watch those vidoes, however I am skeptical that the intent or function of the vidoes is to glorify killing."... but if you would watch them you would clearly see that there is a, to me sounding pretty happy, arabian music in the background and it's clearly like a commercial video for killing americans. It seems to be one of those terrorist videos which should glorify their doings (like the last statements of suecide bombers in Palestina). The Videos seemed to be shot BY the sniper himself, between each killed soldier there is a intro to the next killing... its definatly glorifying and therefor should be banned. If you argue about illegal context it it will get pretty complex since wikipedia is a global project and there are different laws in each country! To refer to child pornography again: In the EU child pornography is every video or picture document with nude male or female people under 18, whereas in other countries it is only child pornography if they are under 14. So, you see, there are different laws in different countries! We can't simply settle on the definition "we show what's legal" since this is a very dubious definition on the internet. And in the United States (or other countries which are on a fanatic hunt for terrorists) such videos could possibly be interpreted as terrorist properties and therefor be illegal. (since it's apparently a promotional video of a terrorist) User:Echalone 11:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: Such images and videos which are glorifying the killing of people and showing their moment of death for the propaganda of one party (like terrorists) is pretty sure a violation against the Geneva Convetion and/or the human rights (as well as the "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" and severel other international rights) User:Echalone 12:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Facts: ~there is arabic music in the background ~there is music in it. some people would say that some of it sounds happy ~it appears to be shot by the snipers

Interpretations (your thoughts about the facts): ~it is glorifying the killing ~it is like a commerical video for killing americans ~Any film shot by terrorists "is illegal" ~it is a promotional video of terrorism

What do you mean it is illegal? Illegal to own, to watch, to have, to show? Whether something was shot by terrorists or not doesn't mean it is "terrorist property," nor does it mean it is illegal. By your thinking, any film that terrorist have shot MUST NOT be shown to anyone. News shows however show terrorist shot footage all the time.

If the video flat out SAID- "Hey- go kill Americans, it's cool, it's fun!" it would still be news, and would still be worthy of looking at. See WWII propaganda- which is definately more overt then these videos: http://www.teacheroz.com/WWIIpropaganda.htm

Some preacher recently said, "We (the US) needs to go kill the leader of Venezuala. We need to take him out." Should we censor that?

I agree with Nightstallion, let people draw their own conclusions!

If the video MADE people go out and kill Americans and become terrorists, I would agree with you, take it off. However, look at the effect it had on you- it made you mad at the people who shot it. So if it is a recruitment/glorification video- it obviously is a very INNEFFECTIVE one.

Showing videos of someone's death for political purposes MAY be against the Geneeva convention... I don't know. Quote me the particular section and I'll listen.

However, do you really believe that is what this Wiki is for? Is this Wiki a terrorist promotion center? If you can show that this is the case, that this is not a neutral presentation of facts of actual occurances, like any other footage of violence we can see on the news or the net, then ok.

I have now watched it. Yuck. I am guessing that the video was designed with the intent to celebrate those deaths.

However, you haven't convinced me (or apparently anyone else on this page) that this is reason to censor it.

Sethie 20:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it from a dispute over context to a dispute over neutrality nomination since I think I made a mistake there... I also added the line 'This article contains explicit videos that some may find uncomfortable. Discretion is advised.' to the beginning of the article like I have seen it in the Nanking Massacre article. I also added the line 'be advised that this may be a terrorist propaganda video and glorifies the killing of people.' to each link of a maybe terrorist propaganda video. I think that would maybe be an acceptable compromise for all. Even if I'm still for the deleting of the links, I think that lines at least keeps up some sort of neutrality to the wikipedia since you simply can't show such videos without comment in my opinion. (For example: In Austria old Nazi propaganda videos are sometimes shown in cinemas with a following discussion about what you just have seen. It's importand to clarify the context of propaganda so it's loosing it's effect and moreover makes you aware [and hopefully immune] of propaganda) User:Echalone 23:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

)

I am enjoying that you did that- I was going to propose something similar....

What I like about your changes: ~using the word "may" as in "may be terrorist propoganda ~that it is an attempt to satisfy both your desires, wiki's neutrility and some of the other people's desires

There are two changes I would like: ~I don't like the wording you used, "Glorifying the killing of people," it is too interprative for my tastes ~I don't like that the same sentence is repeated three times.

I would like ONE sentence that is a little more neutral, right above the video links, something like: Some of these links below lead to graphic videos, some of which seem to celebrate the killings that occur in them.

What I am after is the most neutral descriptive, description.

For now, I'll just leave it as is and see if others have thoughts.

peace, Sethie 23:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think your proposal for one neutral sentence above the video links and the changing from "glroifying the killing of people" to "some of which seem to celebrate the killings that occur in them" seems ok to me. I would support this decision. Thanks for your positiv thoughts. User:Echalone 15:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you... i like solutions both people feel comfortable with! :) Sethie 20:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Write

I have re-written the article in a way which I believe is better. I also removed the small piece at the bottom which was a direct quote from the article in the Guardian Unlimited as its inclusion was in contravention of the Guardian Unlimited's terms and conditions (Section three, paragraph three). --cheese-cube 06:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

I don't know what this page was like when the NPOV check was posted, however, it seems neutral to me now. I propose if after a week there are no major objections, the NPOV be removed.

Any thoughts, feelings, etc, feel free to post em here.

peace, Sethie 06:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the neutrality issue seems to have been resolved. --cheese-cube 07:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have postet the NPOV check so I feel free to remove it now (since it seemed I was also the only one who had problems with the article). I also feel the neutrality issue has been solved. I'm happy with the solution we have found. Thx for your support in this discussion! User:Echalone 14:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC) I added NPOV to this article since it seems to have an unsupported anti-Israeli bias. The first external link is to a Holocaust denial & other conspiracy theories website. Whoever orignally created this article needs to come up with some real sources or I may have to recommend this article for deletion. Any article that talks about Israel and Jordan jointly running an Arab terrorist training camp with "death chants" written by American Jewish songwriters needs to have pages and pages of supporting documentation, not the non-existant support given here!Iwalters 02:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing the references to Israeli provocateurs and supposed 'false-flag' terorrism training camps, related chants and certainly the 'highly' questionable linked blog. Where is the suppoting evidence ? What justification for removing the entire article given the Guardian report, the video footage and similar disparate and corroborating supporting references re a 'Juba'(s) ? The analysis re the possible use of a digital camera synched to the snipers rifle re the actual footage appears valid though.

On second thought, deletion would be extreme, since there is, via the Guardian article some evidence that US forces think this guy exists. How ever, these totally unsupported assertions linking JUBA to Israel either need to be supported by the creator[and without citing to Holocaust denial websites] or I'm going to delete them. Iwalters 13:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--- You should not immediately rule out "holocaust denial websites". Holocaust revisionism represents a serious historical endeavor to sort truth from propaganda.

I think you should rule out such a web site. In Austria the denying of the holocaust isn't a serious historical endeavor, it is a serious criminal offence! If you are saying, the holocaust was just a lie, you are a criminal in my country! And I absolutely agree with the law of my country in this question. User:Echalone 17:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminating Israeli links?

Classifying a this siteas 'Holocaust denial', and then eliminating the link is wrong. There are US Marine lives at stake, and this censorship is adding to possible fatalities.

Why the name Juba?

Leaving aside the videos issue, why is the sniper/s known as Juba? Lisiate 02:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read this article a while back about the Americans looking for him in bushes and buildings.

And I recently just watched the videos. If that is him shouldn't they look for in cars? He's obviously hidden in a vehicle since he always is always lined up to a sidewalk and attacking road patrols!