Talk:James Foley (journalist)

Suggested change of name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Webby Award nominee, [1], key player in Globalpost's Overseas Press Club award for Best Online Coverage of Breaking News.[2], adds a bit of notability. Martin451 23:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Authenticity

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

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

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

"This is not a forum for general discussion about about James Foley, whether the video is fake, conspiracy theories and other tangential topics such as the credibility of the CIA". Why are you somehow IMPOSING that there should not be any discussion about the authenticity of this video? since it is claimed that this is an ISIS video, what has such discussion to do with "conspiracy" or "CIA"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Authenticity of video

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good day my friends. Surprise surprise: [3][4] [5][6] [7] [8][9][10] [11] [12] [13] I think it is quite time we introduce a section "Video authenticity", do you have any objection?--81.244.86.119 (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No one was saying you were wrong. I suggest you just be patient in the future. And I don't think that a well staged video means that the beheading didn't happen. Also this video shows that there are two Jihadi John[14].Myopia123 (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Death confirmed

It is inapproprite to list "cause of death" as beheading. It can be listed as a means of execution or murder but the graphic nature and the description beheading is not a standard way of listing cause of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.102.58 (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Foley's family has confirmed his death. The family is the first to be notified. It would be a shame if this article became a monument to conspiracy theory and "what ifs" by the press and pundits. -- GreenC 05:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Why did the video show a still picture of the aftermath without showing the actual beheading? This is the first IS video that does not show the actual beheading which raises a reasonable doubt. Also, the alleged murderer in black spoke with a British accent which is not the norm for IS. The White House could not confirm and many news media are saying that there is a little chance that the video was fake.Worldedixor (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you have the sick need to actually view the beheading itself? (Read WP:NPA). Considering that the video was released by IS through their "official" channels, we can conclude it is authentic. Additionally, the family members of Foley have confirmed his death. IS has beheaded more than just a couple of people, it appears to be their M.O. as of late. There is no reasonable doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.183.232.24 (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly Wikipedia is not the place where people should publish there own theories, but when there is a debate we can report the debate. Are there some good reliable sources that can answer the following three questions:

* Was the American who spoke in the video James Foley?

* Was he killed?

* Was he killed by ISIS ( aka IS)?

Aberdeen01 (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Its not affirmed just yet. [15]>> What James Foley's Murder Says About Islamic State. Also the deate doesnt have to be when it was reported by videoLihaas (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on up to the minute news from NSC, video and beheading have been confirmed. [16] Worldedixor (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Slander/falsehoods about Foley

speculation, WP:NOTAFORUM

"Convicted and executed as a spy and assassin"? "Pedophile"? Who keeps posting this stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.193.164 (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Vandals and trolls. WP:BDP applies, Biography of Living persons applies to the recently deceased, and those whose deaths may legitimately questioned (as in the bloomberg reference above). Martin451 16:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Live video of Obama statement on Foley execution

[17] -- 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)

ISIS or not ISIS?

Intro:

"he was abducted and later killed by a fundamentalist militia in northwestern Syria...Foley is the first American killed by ISIS militia"

I understand that - at least earlier today, fill me in - it was unsure whether it was ISIS who did it. If it was, then the intro should say:

"he was abducted and later killed by an ISIS militia in northwestern Syria...Foley is the first American killed by ISIS militia"

And if we still don't know, then all references to ISIS in the lead should be removed unless they have a "reported" or "alleged" before them. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

He was killed by ISIS this is verified by the highest level sources per the article (see footnotes). Who abducted him in 2012 is open for discussion. -- GreenC 23:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

David Cameron

British Prime Minister David Cameron cut short a holiday to hold meetings after the murder, due to a strong likelihood that the murderer was British. Can this go in the article, or is that making it more an article on the incident (execution) rather than a biography? http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/20/isis-fighter-beheaded-us-journalist-james-foley-appears-british-hammond '''tAD''' (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The murderer in question was described as having a British-sounding accent or apparently sounding British. That can and should be included if properly sourced. If it turns out that he is a British citizen, then by all means, no censorship. But I don't think it has been established yet for encyclopedic standards. Quis separabit? 01:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Voice experts and British people as a whole are agreed that the speaking voice of the masked man has a British accent. The wording in the article, "The killer spoke with a British accent" makes the generally held assumption that the masked man is speaking the words himself, not a voice-over. This is hard to prove for certain, but the video does give the impression that the masked man is the actual speaker.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Religion RC Church

Wasn't he Roman Catholic as some site said he prayed the rosary in detention? See [18] and [19] 62.205.66.50 (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll add it as I find several newspapers mention it too.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Crank conspiracy theorists

Right on cue and predictably with high profile events, crank theorists have shown up speculating the video is fake etc.. this is not the appropriate place to have that discussion see WP:NOTAFORUM (also known as SOAPBOXing) and WP:BLP (applies to recent deceased). There are no reliable sources that support that view and this isn't a forum to discuss or push personal opinions. Citizen journalism has its place, this is not it. -- GreenC 04:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss Wikipedia policy. Try the Village Pump.

Wikipedia should have a forum as well as a talk page in this case as the rational debate and discussion of many topics is a good thing and will help improve understanding and critical thinking. Your use of defensive language and slander shines light and gives solid foundation to these views you oppose. It reflects badly upon you.188.220.31.204 (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia(more specifically, talk pages) is not for discussing theories; we are here to write this encyclopedia, which is based on verifiability, not truth. This isn't a debate society or discussion forum. If you have reliable sources which support your views(which would differ with pretty much the entire world and even ISIS itself, who hasn't denied anything) then please offer them; otherwise, please find the proper forum for what you want to do. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC) As I said (above and below): Wikipedia needs a forum if Talk pages are not fit for purpose. You still did not answer if the CIA and other similar intelligence agencies can be relied upon as primary sources? The majority of reliable sources reprint unvarifiable information from said agencies, for example the false information used to start the ongoing war in Iraq in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.31.204 (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC) To everyone, Wikipedia is clearly WP:NOTAFORUM. This has not changed. However, since the events depicted in the video raise many questions leading that it may be staged by actors, "common sense" discussion on the Talk page as to whether or not to accept such allegedly staged event in an encyclopedia is warranted. There are many clues and inconsistences in the video to analyze. Worldedixor (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Something else to consider. According to Beheading video, there appears to be a precedent of "A hoax beheading video by Benjamin Vanderford received wide attention by the American press. The creators of the video claimed to have released the video to point out how uncritically the mainstream media would accept an anonymous video (the video turned up on U.S. media outlets immediately)." Worldedixor (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Execution or Murder?

This would clearly a murder. Anyone disagree and why? Worldedixor (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you proposing some sort of change to this article? 331dot (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

yes, obviously. Since murder was reverted, I think it is best to seek consensus before reverting it tomorrow. I appreciate your asking for clarification in good faith. Worldedixor (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"This would clearly be a murder"? What are the sources saying? I think I've seen it referred to as a murder, execution and killing. All seem to have conotations that are inherently POV and i can't think of a word that is NPOV but we should try to find one. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Murder is unlawful killing. If ISIS are the legitimate government (I am not saying they are) then it is a lawful execution or killing, in their eyes. Generally for articles about incidents in the UK, a person (or people) have to be convicted before wikipedia uses the term murder. I don't know if that is the same for US articles. No-one has yet been convicted, no court has yet determined that this is murder, and so it should be executed or killed. I was thinking of bringing this to the talk page yesterday, but decided to leave it until the article cooled down a bit. Martin451 22:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Martin brought some solid arguments. Killed is as WP:NPOV as it gets. I am satisfied with it. Any other good arguments against killed? Worldedixor (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Killed seems fine to me, per Martin451's reasoning. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can argue with 'executed' or 'beheaded'. Either of those two words provide enough of the factual details without getting into legal grey areas.Myopia123 (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

'Killed' seems the most appropriate word to me. 'Executed' gives the act too much legitimacy, based on the facts as we know them. Not happy with 'Murder', because it tends to dismiss the apparent organizational structure that stands behind the decision to kill Foley; makes it sound like an individual, or small group acting alone. Foley was killed, therefore, "killed" is factual and the most neutral choice.Bennycat (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

His head was cut off ceremonially while he was restrained. That's an execution. It's more significant than merely "killed" which leaves questions of what happened. As for giving the ISIS legitimacy, we are not in the business of supporting or opposing ISIS. A search of "James Foley executed" on Google News brings up thousands of hits so it's a common phrase in cases like this. -- GreenC 04:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe we all need to look up Justifiable homicide. Homicide is defined as the act of one human killing another human. I believe the point of contention here is whether it is a Justifiable homicide, which I personally do not believe it was.

"Execution" may or may not be an accurate description of the manner in which Foley was put to death. Where the infobox is concerned, it's an irrelevant discussion. The cause of Foley's death was beheading. I have amended the infobox accordingly. Writegeist (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the best solutions are the simplest!... IMPORTANT: I started this discussion to discuss and seek consensus. For the record,Writegeist was not allowed to make its premature change single handedly before consensus. I personally support its edit, but, for objectivity, if the rest disagree with the two of us, they are invited to oppose. Whatever the consensus is, the change must follow. Worldedixor (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. Not having done my due diligence (I failed to read the edit history, and didn't read the discussion closely enough) I rashly assumed the discussion was to do with the sentence "In August 2014, Foley became the first American citizen to be formally executed in the name of the self-proclaimed ISIS movement." (Emphasis added.) So I didn't realize the discussion was about the infobox. If anyone wants to revert, please go ahead. Incidentally on the subject of "execution", "murder" and Google hits: I'm getting 24,200,000 for journalist "James Foley" murder—almost double the 12,300,000 for journalist "James Foley" execution. Which may or may not be worthy of consideration for the the sentence I've already quoted. I.e. it could read ". . . the first American citizen murdered by . . . etc." That said, "killed by" is actually true to the source, so that would be my personal preference for this sentence. Writegeist (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No apologies needed, Writegeist. Thank you for proactively reverting your revert pending consensus. I actually liked the simplicity of your edit: beheaded, end of story. However, if we must have something else, then I am also with killed not executed nor murdered. We seem to be getting closer to consensus. So, let's give it a few hours and then make the change agreed upon by consensus. Worldedixor (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to the infobox, I have to say I don't think Cause of death: Killed will fly. This concludes my contributions here, such as they are. Hope a clear consensus forms. Writegeist (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Every other article on a topic like this says beheaded or executed. The simple fact is, he was decapitated and it was an execution by ISIS. "Killed" is a more general term and isn't incorrect but misses the story. -- GreenC 13:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is no consensus on 'killed', I would go with 'beheaded', as a description of the manner of death. To me, 'executed' means the execution of an order by judicial proceeding. If there is strong consensus on 'executed', I would urge editors to document the crimes committed by Foley (according to ISIS) that led to the decision that he put to death. 'Beheaded' accurately describes the act, while leaving it to the reader's POV to decide whether the killing was an execution or murder. I think that rounds out my thinking on the subject. In good faith. Thanks.Bennycat (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS sent an email to Foley's employer with a declaration that Foley "will be executed as a DIRECT result of your transgressions towards us!". They call it and consider it an execution. -- GreenC 14:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

GreenC. I can tell you are trying to adhere to WP:NPOV, but unfortunately "executed" is a POV. I also refer you and everyone to the arguments well presented by Martin in favor of the truly NPOV "killed" with "beheaded"... Martin's logical arguments ought not be dismissed. If the article can live with one cause of death, then "beheaded" alone should suffice. I support Bennycat and the majority here. I personally will not edit this, but I invite someone in the next few hours to do the edit based on consensus. Worldedixor (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Majority Consensus Reached (changed to avoid further WP:PA): It appears that editor Writegeist has already made the change [20], a bit pre-maturely but in good faith. However, since majority consensus has been reached on two options "killed, beheaded" and/or "beheaded", there is no harm, so no foul needed. If a new majority changes the outcome of this consensus at any given time in the future, then a new change may be permitted. Meanwhile, no editor should change what Writegeist has edited, aka Beheading, without discussing it and obtaining consensus on this Talk page. Worldedixor (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

STOP SHOUTING, also that is not how Wikipedia generally works, you are not qualified to close this debate and "consensus" is never formalized in this way. Please relax, sign your post and don't act like you have any more authority than the rest of the editors here. See Wikipedia:What_is_consensus?#Not_permanent. Finally, this is not a vote, Wikipedia:What_is_consensus?#Not_a_majority_vote CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Who's shouting, wombat? You're the one shouting. Don't assume you know my intent. Why do you find it necessary to be rude here and on your user page [21]? You relax, and don't act like you have any more authority than the rest of the editors here. I certainly did NOT make the change to the article. Another good editor did it in good faith based on implied consensus. Do not imply this was a simple majority vote. This consensus was discussed following logical arguments and reasoning, and the majority of the editors happen to think along the same terms. Don't turn a friendly attempt to reach consensus to a combative WP:Battleground in 2 seconds... You have a point but this is NOT the way to address me. You can apologize and just adhere to WP:AGF. If you have a better way of reaching consensus, then, by all means, feel free to take over from here but adhere to WP:AGF and civility when you address me.Worldedixor (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Supported. Worldedixor has been nothing if not civil in an attempt to build consensus among all of those with an interest in this issue. In fact, everything has been done to ensure an inclusive venue and opportunity for talk. Proper adherence to, and reiteration of the rules should not be mistaken for 'shouting'. Bennycat (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP policy may apply to this article for another two years

Our BLP policy clearly states that "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." This is a particularly gruesome crime. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but "can extend" does not mean "must extend". 331dot (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP that added the defamatory content to the article, referenced in the now-collapsed section above concerning fringe/speculation. As for BLP, this clearly meets BLP for the time being. Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

can, "—six months, one year, two years" that may not be the case here, why bother posting this here as a specific topic when it is a simple suggestion? CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

$132 million is wrong

There is a HUGE difference between 3 sig-figs, as it implies that the islamist kidnapers were not 100% serious in their ransom. I'd change it myself but i think the article might be locked. Lemonsdrops (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what your saying. -- GreenC 03:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

International Business Times of Australia claims fake video

We now have a conspiracy theory in the article saying the video was staged. Sourced to a single news source, the International Business Times of Australia and unnamed "specialists".[22] It's a shame to give these kinds of inevitable conspiracy theories much credibility as they will flourish in particular in off-beat sources like IBT which are online-only and not known for their quality reporting. Not sure how to deal with it, except to reduce the amount of space due to WP:WEIGHT perhaps a sentence or two. It's a single low-quality source making some very extraordinary claims from anonymous "video experts" that no other reliable source is saying. -- GreenC 05:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This hot potato was just moved to another article Jihadi John.[23] -- GreenC 05:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The James Foley video is professionally produced, media sources are agreed on this. It is not the work of someone who only knows how to press the "record" button on a camcorder. This is pretty much how the Nick Berg and Kenneth Bigley videos were produced. This has led the usual tinfoil hatters to claim that the James Foley video is fake, but this runs into issues with WP:WEIGHT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please GreenC learn to read! There are no doubts about the authenticity! There is no conspiracy theory. It is just elaborately staged, deliberately orchestrated, a intricately designed scene, detailled planned (prearranged) put-up scene, "Inszenierung" ! --91.10.32.234 (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

See: de:Inszenierung Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Allright, then what is purpose of bringing up all of that video analysis, especially in that Australian article, which uses non-neutral words like 'Playacting' and such. Also while everyone is free to contribute to the debate, please refrain from Personal Attacks, it is against Wikipedia policy.Myopia123 (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please calm down "play-acting" is not "non-neutral". In the video the actual moment of the decapitation is not shown. The video has several "takes". Foley shows no single sign that he was terrified in the first take. Do you know the word Todesangst? All human beings fear being put to death. The death anxiety has various physiological responses. But in the first take Foley speaks remarkable calm. This led to some speculation that, after nearly two years in captivity, he had been affected by Stockholm Syndrome, the psychological condition under which hostages begin to empathise with their captors. A better explanation, however, is that Foley was instead simply unaware of how close he was to death!

In death agony ... "the knees buckle and you become like a rag doll, whereas this guy seemed to sit upright. It could be that that particular knife wasn't the one that killed him, that that was a play-acting thing," the expert told". In that take where the beheaded corpse was shown, there is a longer knife... Though we can presume the masked man in the video is the man whose voice we hear on the audio, the murderer may not be the man who spoke with a British accent... etc. ect. First there has to be analysis, than a purpose may emerge. ;-) --91.10.32.234 (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOR states clearly that this is not the place to perform analysis or any other kind of Original Research. You must find another avenue for your analysis, publish it in a verifiable source and then feel free to link it over here.Myopia123 (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The video scarcely shows anything - they start (apparently) cutting his throat and then it fades to black, returning to show a severed head. Just watching it we (as editors doing "original research") can't prove even that he was killed, since Penn & Teller could do better on each other and still take a bow afterward. So we do have to leave the interpretation to the secondary sources, even if their commentary is woefully insufficient. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance but I don't fully understand the Penn & Teller reference as I am not from the US. Could you please restate that in simpler language? Thanks.Myopia123 (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

They're stage-magicians; they recently ran a humorous segment where they pretend to show the trick of sawing a woman in half only to have an accident where she is sawn in half. In this case, their expertise would be wasted, really: we don't even see the blade draw blood, and then they switch to a scene of his severed head resting atop his body. It would, of course, be possible to fake a single fixed gory scene like that outright, though I have no idea what the motive would be. Wnt (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a "forum". I think this discussion is important to show all POV's but the discussion should be focused on debating reliable sources that support whether this video is real or fake. I invite all editors to voluntarily remove the chat and focus on providing well sourced facts. Worldedixor (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

More forensic scientists are saying that the video may have been staged and that the beheading may have taken place after the camera was cut. This leaves the possibility open that Jihadi John was not the killer. [24] Worldedixor (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this interpretation is gaining popularity; see [25]. As we move forward with this, we should avoid getting caught up in false dichotomies - as Worldedixor says, the speech scene could be staged but the beheading could be real. Actually my guess is that they made him rattle off a dozen speeches like this one ("Your defilement of the Koran was the last nail in my coffin!" "Your attack on Nigeria was the last nail in my coffin!") as insurance in case he died some other way; then, when he did die for some other reason, they cut his head off and spliced on a long intro to make us think his vague reference to air strikes was related to the recent news. Yes, I know that's OR and I don't plan to write that; I'm just saying, let's make sure we don't write any either-ors into the article unthinkingly. Wnt (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, all sources with this latest news including this one [26] are not disputing that he was beheaded. In fact this latest source also supports Wnt's theory that they made him repeat the statement several times(or took many takes if you like). The experts are simply trying to figure out the sequence of events such as Foley's Speech cuts to Jihadi John's speech cuts to (apparently) Jihadi John putting his knife near his throat cuts to beheaded corpse cuts to Steve Sotloff. Just to reiterate, it think all sources are stressing that it is not a matter of dispute that Foley was beheaded but they are analyzing the apparent 'production' of the video, for lack of a better word.Myopia123 (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, that source (like the ones I cited) ultimately traces back to a Times of London story behind a paywall. If anyone has access to http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4186089.ece - please check if there's data in there that the rehash stories are missing. Wnt (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Now, this is where the "staged video" theory gains momentum [27]. Just remember, that not one reliable source has alleged that the "actual beheading", something we all have a right to suspect, was also staged/photoshoped/faked. Worldedixor (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This link here is very close to the conclusion that there are two Jihadi Johns. They show that the man speaking and the man beheading have different heights[28].Myopia123 (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Community placed Syrian Civil War sanctions including a 1RR restriction now apply to this page

Just in case anyone misses my addition to the top of the talk page, in accordance with a July 2013 motion and community consensus on August 2013, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours when reverting logged-in users. Read the message at the top of this page for more details. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks or other sanctions (such as page or topic bans). See Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions for further details. And please note that the 1RR restriction is separate from the sanctions:

• All articles related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed, are placed under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert.
  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
  • Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

IS VS ISIS VS ISIL

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

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

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

Reason for Suspicion

speculation, wp:blp, wp:notaforum

The beheading video conspicuously fades to black as soon as the man begins cutting into Foley's neck. This is the reason why there is so much suspicion around this video (and rightfully so). Here are some important comments that people who believe this video to be authentic should read and think about: "As the knife saws away over 1/2 dozen times (at least) not one drop of blood comes out of Foley's neck. It is most likely a psyop designed to drag us back over to Iraq." "What kind of terrorist fades to black when the real terror happens? It's unprecedented in the history of Islamist propaganda." Some of these issues should be inserted into the article as they cast serious doubt that Foley was actually murdered. 74.66.88.150 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC) If you want to be taken seriously you need to reveal where that quote is from! ;-) --91.10.32.234 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC) It's probably sourced from a blog or "alternative news" website. It is obviously hard to prove that Foley is dead, but the full video leaves little doubt about this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Ianmacm how exactly does the full video "leave little doubt" that Foley is deceased? The video proves nothing, all that we witness at the end is a decapitated body lying on the ground, with a head resting on their back covered in blood that could be anyone. 74.66.88.150 (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Wrong website for this discussion, please see at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion about about James Foley, whether the video is fake, conspiracy theories and other tangential topics such as the credibility of the CIA. Any such comments may be removed or refactored." Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Searching that quote I came up with [29] which quotes similar arguments. I'm not sure how good a source it is, but we're getting there. Wnt (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for edit -- when did it occur?

Phil Mattingly , White House correspondent, reports being told killing probably happened months ago. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-19/islamic-extremist-video-shows-beheading-of-american.html , the video on that page. GangofOne (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think he means the attempted rescue operation, which reportedly (elsewhere) happened in early July. -- GreenC 14:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

== Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary ==

Several newspapers are now naming Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, 24, from London, as a suspect:[30], [31], [32]. The Sunday Times describes him, on its front page, as "a key suspect". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This is of more relevance at Jihadi John. It is still speculation, and even Islamists are covered by WP:BLP. Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary [33], who goes by the name of rap artist L Jinny on YouTube[34] is the son of Adel Abdel Bari, who already has an article about him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It won't be relevant at all if Jihadi John is deleted. I think there's "speculation" and "informed guesswork by the secret services". I'd be surprised if this name was simply pulled out of a hat before it was published by The Times and NYT. The biggest hurdle to inclusion of any name is (as already posted above by the anon ip): "murderer may not be the man who spoke with a British accent." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename to James Foley (journalist)

Foley was on assignment in Syria as a photojournalist but he was always a writer and engaged in journalism prior. It would be a mistake to call him only a photojournalist, his career was as a journalist, which included print and photography. This is not unusual for freelance journalists who are able to do multiple types of journalism. -- GreenC 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles written by James Foley at GlobalPost. Not just photojournalism. Most sources call him "journalist" from pre-2012 (pre-capture). I think the "photojournalism" became common knowledge since that's what he was doing when captured and how it was reported. -- GreenC 21:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

GreenC, although I personally would support the move to just "journalist", was there a consensus for such move? Worldedixor (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The move seems fairly uncontroversial, given the evidence of his journalism career. Don't need to start a WP:RM for every page move. If someone(s) are going to dispute it then we'll start an RM. Is that OK with you, Worldedixor? -- GreenC 02:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I prefer non-controversial speedy moves by non-admins if allowed by WP. In any case, you have shown good faith and made it clear that your are willing to seek consensus if anyone objected. Based on this, it is OK with me considering that I personally support the move. Worldedixor (talk) 03:29, 25 August 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)

(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 [35]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. [36] 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)

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, [37] 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)

Police warn sharing James Foley killing video is a crime

Police warn sharing James Foley killing video is a crime. Met says passing on clip of Isis militant murdering US journalist on social media could lead to prosecution under anti-terror laws.

In light of this I am removing the bit torrent link to the video. Not sure yet which policy it violates but it seems that even possibly violating the law would not be wise. Also, it is a Copyright video. We are not supposed to link to unauthorized copyright videos. -- GreenC 01:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you will not complain when someone takes the same action when the PRC makes a determination about our Tiananmen Square content, right? I have addressed the copyright claim above - there is no claim. Nobody in all the media discussion about this video has raised this issue. I should also note that the police statement quoted carefully avoids making any statement that they determined that video to be extremist material, nor does it explain when that law applies. Wnt (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless the video is released under a free license it is copyright, claims don't need to be explicitly made. Also YouTube has the option to upload as PD or CC and they did not do so. -- GreenC 01:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The video was for general release. I'm not trying to upload it to Commons, mind you; I just don't see any way that we could say that anyone putting this video online lacks permission when there are so many articles complaining about ISIS distributing their propaganda. Wnt (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square, much of that material is downloadable from YouTube etc. It does not expect the user to redistribute it. Martin451 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed you're not uploading to Commons. See WP:COPYLINK "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." We can reasonably assume a torrent is in violation of the owners copyright. A place to get answers on this is Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- GreenC 01:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not fond of the idea of Wikipedia content being censored because of a restrictive UK law. Perhaps this should be referred to WMF legal?- MrX 01:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine, get their feedback before adding it back. Start an RfC. But even basic policy says don't link to copyright material that is unauthorized by the copyright holder. -- GreenC 01:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

...material which we can't be sure hasn't been tampered with by whoever first uploaded the BitTorrent file, and which we can't actually guarentee hasn't been tampered with since... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Honestly, I felt like the beginning of this discussion was done in good faith, but here, I simply don't believe that you believe your arguments, and my revert is spent. So I will pause here. Wnt (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in contacting WMF, because I'm not advocating linking to the video download. Someone else is welcome to if they are so inclined.- MrX 01:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

it is not only UK law, it is the US Patriot Act as linked above. Most of the US media and video feeds are refusing to show this. So why the link on wikipedia. I agree a WMF legal opinion would be nice before putting back in. Martin451 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I discussed that claim in the section above. Without conceding any need for it, I'll ask how do you get an opinion from WMF legal anyway? Wnt (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe start at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- GreenC 01:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

legal@wikimedia.org - MrX 01:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

UK law is no more relevant to Wikipedia than North Korean law. The Wikimedia Foundation is subject to United States federal law, Florida law, California law, and the San Francisco Municipal Codes, exclusively (with the possible exception of jurisdictions hosting Wikimedia servers). No law exists criminalizing (note: not "criminalising") distribution of such a video, including the PATRIOT Act. Being an English-language resource, I understand how people might be confused. That said, as I've tried to make clear on the Freedom of speech by country and Censorship in the United Kingdom articles, the UK does not have freedom of expression as it is known to the Wikimedia Foundation corporate bylaws and officers, and criminal speech in the UK includes "[...] incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications, glorifying terrorism, collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist, [... and] indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency [...]" (emphasis mine). The only relevant Acts of Parliament I have tracked down are the Terrorism Act 2000 and Terrorism Act 2006. Also, depending on the intent with which you are speaking and to whom you are speaking, other crimes may be applicable, such as the Public Order Act 1986 and Malicious Communications Act 1988. From what I understand of American law, "possession" would include downloading and/or viewing material on the Internet, as with child pornography, and I would assume government officials with European legal systems could also interpret it as such. Also, its pretty disingenuous to say it is "[known] or reasonably suspect" such a video is in violation of American, Syrian or ISIS copyright law (whatever that means). Per WP:NOTCENSORED, censorship is only allowed in limited circumstances, and this is not one of them. Int21h (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Int21h (talk). I was a little surprised. Has the US "somehow" passed a bill that banned the video? Even if it did, the ban would be unconstitutional and can be escalated to the Supreme Court. If it has not, UK laws only apply in the UK, and Int21h addressed that well. Worldedixor (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In the US, courts have determined that is is allowable for the police to lie. Maybe the same applies in UK? Police statements might not be suitable for Wikipedia without confirmation. This lawyer (see link following) attempted to find out WHICH law they referred to; apparently it's something the police PR department made up. http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/08/21/is-viewing-a-video-a-criminal-offence-under-terrorism-law/? GangofOne (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be more interested in the opinions of the WMF lawyers on this than on those of random contributors... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And I'd be more interested in winning the lottery. But that changes nothing. Int21h (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, no I disagree about American police. As described in the Making false statements article and 18 U.S.C. § 1001, in the US even police cannot "[make] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation [in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully]". It is not required that such statements be made to the government, or that they be made in relation to any ongoing federal civil or criminal investigation. The phrase "within the jurisdiction" is not defined and is not really clear. But if such lies are within such jurisdiction, it is every American's duty to report them to the nearest federal judge, or other federal civil or military officer, per 18 U.S.C. § 4, or face three years in prison. Int21h (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is still WP:COPYLINK "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." And as AndyTheGrump says, we have no idea if the Bit Torrent video is authentic or tampered with. The only release by the copyright holder was on YouTube and that link no longer works. -- GreenC 04:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And of course the not-insignificant fact that accessing this video requires our readers to install file-sharing software which may well result in them uploading the video to others without realising. Not something I'd see as compliant with good practice if the file were entirely innocuous and legitimate, and given the possible legal consequences, even more questionable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, it is disingenuous to say that such a video released purposely for wide, unrestricted distribution in Syria and throughout the world is probably a copyvio. Int21h (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEVERSUE is the guideline here. OK, it is very unlikely that IS will sue over the use of this video. The problem is that the torrent version is basically primary source material where secondary analysis would be preferable. As for the legal issues, the UK authorities can set the rules on what is acceptable material on the Internet. People in the UK (and Europe as a whole) should avoid torrent or similar P2P software unless they know what they are doing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't "neversue"; this is a matter of saying a third party violated copyright when you have no reason to suspect them of doing so. If we were going to host a copy on Wikimedia Commons - which is hardly out the the realm of possibility - I'd like to have a little more confidence that the material is truly released for public distribution, though there is at least some reason to think this may be the case. (see [38], [39], in which archive.org has accepted many items as public domain. I hope these search indexes are not illegal in Britain, though you never know anymore.) But when we link to a third party as a source, we need merely ask ourselves whether we have reason to think it is a violation, not to audit the third party's licensing records. Wnt (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the UK authorities cannot set the rules on what is acceptable material on the Internet, at least not any more than North Korea can. And there is nothing particularly wrong with people using Bittorrent or similar P2P software AFAIK, people in the UK and Europe included. A secondary source is preferable over a primary source, but a primary source is also acceptable. Int21h (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Good news: I found an alternative to the Bittorrent link, available from Goregrish.com. (link - the legality of this material has been questioned in Britain) The video page says it was last edited by site moderators, and it is not our role to second-guess third-party licensing decisions. Wnt (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is. There's no reason to think that the moderators of that forum care about copyright. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Last 'letter'

BBC has published the text of a "letter" (apparently undated) from James Foley to his family, memorized by a fellow 'IS' hostage/prisoner who was released. Sca (talk) 14:25, 26 August 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)