![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The lead section quotes an ABC News report with unnamed U.S. officials saying that he is believed killed. This is out of step with most media reports which say that the Pentagon is still assessing this. [1] As ever with JJ, there is a strong element of "sources said" rather than hard facts at the moment.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I have been following the news as I am sure most have, the article Abdel-Majed_Abdel_Bary and press reports are showing a photograph which it is claimed is of Mohammed Emwazi, the government has identified Jihadi John as Mohammed Emwazi, however press reports and articles across the internet are showing the photo of Abdel Majed Abdel Bary. Can any other editors work out what is going on? Is the photo the of Emwazi or Bary or is it that they are one and the same person. Either way the other article about Bary also needs editing. Pennine rambler ( talk) 22:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Pennine rambler ( talk) 23:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
We've got both ATM. I can see an argument for both - most English sources ( [3] vs. [4], for what that's worth) use Raqqa, but the WP article is Al-Raqqah. In this sort of situation, I tend to go with the WP article name (as I assume that's had some thought put into its commonname, which may be naive). Thoughts? Bromley86 ( talk) 07:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jihadi John has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please amend to say that this cowardly gutless piece of excrement is dead 92.236.219.211 ( talk) 10:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jihadi John has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Reaction" section mentions a Lord Carlisle, but this is an error. The correct form is Alex Carlile, Baron Carlile of Berriew. Philip Cross ( talk) 11:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I wrote a bunch of this section when events were unfolding after John's first killing and there were some sources wondering if the video was fake. After subsequent videos appeared no one was questioning. Now that section seems anachronistic and odd. Would there be any objection to its deletion? Or perhaps a two sentence summary elsewhere in the article. -- Green C 14:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Jihadi John has the Category:Possibly living people which is incorrect as it is used mainly for persons of advanced age (over 90) for whom no documentation has existed for a decade or longer about their survival or not. Kindly review and remove category from Jihadi John page. werldwayd ( talk) 19:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD currently says "Following his assassination, the November 2015 Paris attacks occurred." True, but there is no evidence of a link and experts say that the Paris attacks would have taken months to plan. This is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Due to 1RR I can't revert this, but the lead (or other sections of the article) should not say this unless there is reliably sourced evidence of a link. The source given is a Daily Mail article with the headline " Was Paris terror revenge for Jihadi John? ISIS executioner's drone death may have accelerated attacks on France, experts say, which is speculation and not a reliable source. The Daily Mail should not be used as a source anyway. Please can someone lose this from the lead section.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This source is an amazing story of nano drones and special forces. Unfortunately they name no sources, and it's only reported in The Daily Mail which has a poor reputation for fact checking and spreading incorrect information. Is it reliable for inclusion? -- Green C 00:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I am jumping in here after reading this article for the first time, but I found it quite jarring to read what a pop/rock star (albeit legendary, in his own right) thinks about the nickname of a group of terrorists. I think it is out of place. Of course we all know what Ringo would think. Superfluous info. 67.82.15.60 ( talk) 00:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Re this edit: it is generally agreed that the Daily Mail dreamed up this nickname. After some searching using the Mails search facility, the earliest story that uses the phrase is here on 21 August 2014. The BBC refers to this in its review of the papers the following day. [8]-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Good work finding the origin. It's accredited to "David Williams and Sam Marsden for MailOnline and Sue Reid for the Daily Mail". One of those three is the creator. I did a Google search with a date range from July 30 to August 20 (the day before the Mail article) and nothing there so it looks like August 21 is the origin date. -- Green C 16:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Update: An earlier reference in The Spectator from August 20: "Jihadi John – a very British export". -- Green C 18:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
in the infobox on the page it talks of a 'criminal charge' but of course, emwazi was never actually charged with any crime in any court anywhere on earth he was extrajudically murdered. since he wasn't charged, and since he thus of course wasn't found guilty, it is NPOV to speak of 'criminal charges' as well as factually inaccurate. someone should be brave enough to remove this in the name of encyclopedic accuracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 ( talk) 23:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The British newspaper front pages today are full of the English speaking man and boy dubbed by The Sun as Jihadi Junior. Only time will tell if this will catch on and be notable enough for a mention in the article.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I just came upon this article through recent changes and the note on the top of the article of his date of death. Surely this can't be correct, since the government have simply said there is a "high degree" of certainty, that he is dead. Not that he is dead. You can't say the guy's turned his toes up without proof, right? Moorcroft.lucas152 ( talk) 00:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the infobox entry. We currently have an unqualified fact where we should be qualifying and a qualified fact where we probably shouldn't be qualifying. Namely:
Clearly, he's not confirmed dead, so that Died needs to be qualified by reported, presumed, or similar. In contrast, the Cause of death, if he is dead, is almost certainly drone strike. Sure, it's possible he died of other causes, but the reported death that we're using has been exclusively tied to drone strike, no? Any objections to me changing the infobox to reflect this? Bromley86 ( talk) 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
As Coroner I must aver,
I thoroughly examined her.
And she's not only merely dead,
she's really most sincerely dead.
We are still having problems with finding a form of wording for the article which confirms the death of Jihadi John without a coroner's report. A point has been reached where Barack Obama and David Cameron would be seriously embarrassed if Emwazi turned up alive. They have assured the media that he is really most sincerely dead on the basis of a combat operation, which is not quite the same as a death certificate.--
♦IanMacM♦
(talk to me)
18:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Following up on this discussion, I think " Jihadi John" should be moved to " Mohammed Emwazi". As far as I can tell, this nickname wasn't used by the subject, so it seems strange to affix it as his biographical page title. A page move here would also follow the setup we have with Jihad Jane, a redirect to Colleen LaRose, which is a similar-ish situation. Thoughts? (cc: JhonsJoe and Green Cardamom) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 05:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Green Cardamom: Looking at the BBC article you linked to, it mostly refers to "Jihadi John" in quotation marks, indicating that it's a nickname, not his actual name. When referencing the individual, it reads "Emwazi first emerged in August 2014 [...]" or "[...] targeting Emwazi had [...]" or "[...] track Emwazi down [...]". The BBC article uses his actual name, not his nickname, except to identify the news relevance and association between the two. If you scroll down that same article to the timeline of his life, it's titled "Mohammed Emwazi". Is there a reason not to use the individual's actual name here? Are there other English Wikipedia biographies where we do something similar? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to reopen this, does anyone have any similar example of a person, specifically a criminal or terrorist rather than a performer, whose WP article is their nickname rather than their real name? I found Carlos the Jackal, but that was it. C.f. the the other six I found, listed here, who are all named for their real names rather than their commonname (assuming their nicknames are their commonnames). Bromley86 ( talk) 11:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
new images of jihadi john released should this be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B8FB:F900:B97F:C347:F9E3:8D27 ( talk) 19:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jihadi John. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
i was just wondering, if you have to use a picture of him in a mask, could someone at least find a HD one that isn't fuzzy? and isn't a picture that actually shows his face more appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 ( talk) 21:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
the point of the mask was that, for quite a while, he wasn't actually known at all though, was he? it just doesn't make much sense to have a picture of him masked, because surely the point of the picture being on the wikipage is to see what the person looks like to me, it makes most sense to have as recent a possible picture, so people see how he looked just before his death the most recent one is the one below, released by islamic state al-naba magazine
https://www.google.com/search?q=mohammed+emwazi+naba&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS9sC38obNAhWCCcAKHcM2BPMQ_AUICSgD&biw=1440&bih=766#imgrc=24bSEj5PlkagnM%3A https://twitter.com/charliewinter/status/691961708320047104 (better image save from tweet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 ( talk) 13:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
it WAS how he was best known. he isn't featured at all in the media anymore because hes dead... since this is a biographical article it would make sense to see his face as it was before he died. I can't see any issue using the image (the one from al-naba with the kalash) as for 'the word of IS', it is quite clearly him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 ( talk) 15:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
im glad you agree that SITE and I are correct. (you should remember the pirates hat photo is around 7 years old) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 ( talk) 14:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jihadi John has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The video that ended with a shot of Kassig's severed head showed the beheadings of 21 Syrian soldiers in gruesome detail, by a group led by a masked Emwazi."
CNN confirms the number is actually 22. Can someone fix the number please? Thanks.
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/world/isis-syria-video-analysis/
-- 185.24.233.143 ( talk) 21:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It might been fashionable at the time this page was created to call him Jihadi John as without any clear identity, people knew him as Jihadi John. But now that his identity is known and he is dead, I believe the page should be renamed as Mohammed Emwazi. werldwayd ( talk) 20:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The lead section quotes an ABC News report with unnamed U.S. officials saying that he is believed killed. This is out of step with most media reports which say that the Pentagon is still assessing this. [1] As ever with JJ, there is a strong element of "sources said" rather than hard facts at the moment.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I have been following the news as I am sure most have, the article Abdel-Majed_Abdel_Bary and press reports are showing a photograph which it is claimed is of Mohammed Emwazi, the government has identified Jihadi John as Mohammed Emwazi, however press reports and articles across the internet are showing the photo of Abdel Majed Abdel Bary. Can any other editors work out what is going on? Is the photo the of Emwazi or Bary or is it that they are one and the same person. Either way the other article about Bary also needs editing. Pennine rambler ( talk) 22:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Pennine rambler ( talk) 23:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
We've got both ATM. I can see an argument for both - most English sources ( [3] vs. [4], for what that's worth) use Raqqa, but the WP article is Al-Raqqah. In this sort of situation, I tend to go with the WP article name (as I assume that's had some thought put into its commonname, which may be naive). Thoughts? Bromley86 ( talk) 07:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jihadi John has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please amend to say that this cowardly gutless piece of excrement is dead 92.236.219.211 ( talk) 10:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jihadi John has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Reaction" section mentions a Lord Carlisle, but this is an error. The correct form is Alex Carlile, Baron Carlile of Berriew. Philip Cross ( talk) 11:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I wrote a bunch of this section when events were unfolding after John's first killing and there were some sources wondering if the video was fake. After subsequent videos appeared no one was questioning. Now that section seems anachronistic and odd. Would there be any objection to its deletion? Or perhaps a two sentence summary elsewhere in the article. -- Green C 14:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Jihadi John has the Category:Possibly living people which is incorrect as it is used mainly for persons of advanced age (over 90) for whom no documentation has existed for a decade or longer about their survival or not. Kindly review and remove category from Jihadi John page. werldwayd ( talk) 19:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD currently says "Following his assassination, the November 2015 Paris attacks occurred." True, but there is no evidence of a link and experts say that the Paris attacks would have taken months to plan. This is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Due to 1RR I can't revert this, but the lead (or other sections of the article) should not say this unless there is reliably sourced evidence of a link. The source given is a Daily Mail article with the headline " Was Paris terror revenge for Jihadi John? ISIS executioner's drone death may have accelerated attacks on France, experts say, which is speculation and not a reliable source. The Daily Mail should not be used as a source anyway. Please can someone lose this from the lead section.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
This source is an amazing story of nano drones and special forces. Unfortunately they name no sources, and it's only reported in The Daily Mail which has a poor reputation for fact checking and spreading incorrect information. Is it reliable for inclusion? -- Green C 00:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I am jumping in here after reading this article for the first time, but I found it quite jarring to read what a pop/rock star (albeit legendary, in his own right) thinks about the nickname of a group of terrorists. I think it is out of place. Of course we all know what Ringo would think. Superfluous info. 67.82.15.60 ( talk) 00:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Re this edit: it is generally agreed that the Daily Mail dreamed up this nickname. After some searching using the Mails search facility, the earliest story that uses the phrase is here on 21 August 2014. The BBC refers to this in its review of the papers the following day. [8]-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Good work finding the origin. It's accredited to "David Williams and Sam Marsden for MailOnline and Sue Reid for the Daily Mail". One of those three is the creator. I did a Google search with a date range from July 30 to August 20 (the day before the Mail article) and nothing there so it looks like August 21 is the origin date. -- Green C 16:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Update: An earlier reference in The Spectator from August 20: "Jihadi John – a very British export". -- Green C 18:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
in the infobox on the page it talks of a 'criminal charge' but of course, emwazi was never actually charged with any crime in any court anywhere on earth he was extrajudically murdered. since he wasn't charged, and since he thus of course wasn't found guilty, it is NPOV to speak of 'criminal charges' as well as factually inaccurate. someone should be brave enough to remove this in the name of encyclopedic accuracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 ( talk) 23:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The British newspaper front pages today are full of the English speaking man and boy dubbed by The Sun as Jihadi Junior. Only time will tell if this will catch on and be notable enough for a mention in the article.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I just came upon this article through recent changes and the note on the top of the article of his date of death. Surely this can't be correct, since the government have simply said there is a "high degree" of certainty, that he is dead. Not that he is dead. You can't say the guy's turned his toes up without proof, right? Moorcroft.lucas152 ( talk) 00:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the infobox entry. We currently have an unqualified fact where we should be qualifying and a qualified fact where we probably shouldn't be qualifying. Namely:
Clearly, he's not confirmed dead, so that Died needs to be qualified by reported, presumed, or similar. In contrast, the Cause of death, if he is dead, is almost certainly drone strike. Sure, it's possible he died of other causes, but the reported death that we're using has been exclusively tied to drone strike, no? Any objections to me changing the infobox to reflect this? Bromley86 ( talk) 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
As Coroner I must aver,
I thoroughly examined her.
And she's not only merely dead,
she's really most sincerely dead.
We are still having problems with finding a form of wording for the article which confirms the death of Jihadi John without a coroner's report. A point has been reached where Barack Obama and David Cameron would be seriously embarrassed if Emwazi turned up alive. They have assured the media that he is really most sincerely dead on the basis of a combat operation, which is not quite the same as a death certificate.--
♦IanMacM♦
(talk to me)
18:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Following up on this discussion, I think " Jihadi John" should be moved to " Mohammed Emwazi". As far as I can tell, this nickname wasn't used by the subject, so it seems strange to affix it as his biographical page title. A page move here would also follow the setup we have with Jihad Jane, a redirect to Colleen LaRose, which is a similar-ish situation. Thoughts? (cc: JhonsJoe and Green Cardamom) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 05:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Green Cardamom: Looking at the BBC article you linked to, it mostly refers to "Jihadi John" in quotation marks, indicating that it's a nickname, not his actual name. When referencing the individual, it reads "Emwazi first emerged in August 2014 [...]" or "[...] targeting Emwazi had [...]" or "[...] track Emwazi down [...]". The BBC article uses his actual name, not his nickname, except to identify the news relevance and association between the two. If you scroll down that same article to the timeline of his life, it's titled "Mohammed Emwazi". Is there a reason not to use the individual's actual name here? Are there other English Wikipedia biographies where we do something similar? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to reopen this, does anyone have any similar example of a person, specifically a criminal or terrorist rather than a performer, whose WP article is their nickname rather than their real name? I found Carlos the Jackal, but that was it. C.f. the the other six I found, listed here, who are all named for their real names rather than their commonname (assuming their nicknames are their commonnames). Bromley86 ( talk) 11:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
new images of jihadi john released should this be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B8FB:F900:B97F:C347:F9E3:8D27 ( talk) 19:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jihadi John. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
i was just wondering, if you have to use a picture of him in a mask, could someone at least find a HD one that isn't fuzzy? and isn't a picture that actually shows his face more appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 ( talk) 21:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
the point of the mask was that, for quite a while, he wasn't actually known at all though, was he? it just doesn't make much sense to have a picture of him masked, because surely the point of the picture being on the wikipage is to see what the person looks like to me, it makes most sense to have as recent a possible picture, so people see how he looked just before his death the most recent one is the one below, released by islamic state al-naba magazine
https://www.google.com/search?q=mohammed+emwazi+naba&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS9sC38obNAhWCCcAKHcM2BPMQ_AUICSgD&biw=1440&bih=766#imgrc=24bSEj5PlkagnM%3A https://twitter.com/charliewinter/status/691961708320047104 (better image save from tweet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 ( talk) 13:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
it WAS how he was best known. he isn't featured at all in the media anymore because hes dead... since this is a biographical article it would make sense to see his face as it was before he died. I can't see any issue using the image (the one from al-naba with the kalash) as for 'the word of IS', it is quite clearly him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 ( talk) 15:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
im glad you agree that SITE and I are correct. (you should remember the pirates hat photo is around 7 years old) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.144.10 ( talk) 14:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Jihadi John has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"The video that ended with a shot of Kassig's severed head showed the beheadings of 21 Syrian soldiers in gruesome detail, by a group led by a masked Emwazi."
CNN confirms the number is actually 22. Can someone fix the number please? Thanks.
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014/12/world/isis-syria-video-analysis/
-- 185.24.233.143 ( talk) 21:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
It might been fashionable at the time this page was created to call him Jihadi John as without any clear identity, people knew him as Jihadi John. But now that his identity is known and he is dead, I believe the page should be renamed as Mohammed Emwazi. werldwayd ( talk) 20:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)