Talk:Jihadi John/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

MI5 and MI6 "identify Jihadi John"

Today's Sunday Times, [1] (subscription required), claims that British intelligence services have identified Jihadi John. There has been considerable speculation that he may be Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary [2], who goes by the name of L Jinny on YouTube[3] and is the son of Adel Abdel Bari, who already has an article about him. Obviously this has BLP issues, and the article should not say that it is him on the basis of the word of "experts".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. But should it say he is the "key suspect", as The Sunday Times does? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The article now says this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Article Name changed when identified

Assuming this guy will be identified; when his real name becomes known, we must change the article title as soon as possible

JhonsJoe (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There won't be unnecessary delay. Just need to ensure the sources are sufficient for WP:BLP. This would likely require highest-level sources such as heads of state and/or intelligence agencies providing unambiguous identification. Similar to the authentication of Foley's death and video. -- GreenC 01:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

International Business Times of Australia claims fake video

We now have a conspiracy theory saying the video was staged. Sourced to a single news source, the International Business Times of Australia and unnamed "specialists".[4] 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 article needs a cleanup to meet various guidelines. It is better to have material about the video here, because it runs into WP:TOPIC issues in James Foley's article. This article should not give much, if any, weight to the claims that the video is fake, per WP:FRINGE.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Removed some conspiracy theory type statements and references about James Foleys death. I don't even understand why people feel the need to debate the details of the beheading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Myopia123 (talk • contribs)
There is no "conspiracy theory". It is just a video analysis.--91.10.32.234 (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
There is also The Guardian[5] which calls into doubt some of the veracity. However one of wikipedia's core policies is WP:VERIFY. The video (apparently) does not show the execution of Foley, Rather Foley reading a statement, Jihadi John, placing a knife to Foley's neck, then moving to the dead body. I am not a supporter of WP:Fringe theories on wikipeida, but we should be reflected on what is known to have happened, rather than what is inferred. Martin451 13:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
In the interest of Neutrality I have added a source who analysis the video in more detail while being less judgemental.Myopia123 (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Currently there is a WP:WEIGHT issue with too much text on minority alternative fringe theories and not enough about the real facts. -- GreenC 18:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is still giving far too much weight to the IB Times article with its unnamed WP:WEASEL "experts". This source should not be used in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Right. The world's top intelligence analysts in multiple countries are on this case and none of them came to those conclusions (that we know of). We shouldn't let minority opinions in minority sources be elaborately extrapolated on Wikipedia; at best just say these theories exist and who/where they were said with links to sources for those who want to read more. -- GreenC 14:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The way it's worded now is preposterous anyway. The term "staged" is being used wildly out of context - none of the sources used, IBT included, are suggesting the video was faked. The suggestion is that it was expertly staged using a pre-written script, microphones, editing and potentially, a second knife and even killer who actually killed Foley. That isn't an 'alternative theory", but the wording is highly suggestive. The sub-heading and wording should be changed. --75.68.97.241 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that a few other articles (Huffington Post says the Times contracted such an expert) say that the video is in their particular opinion staged, it makes sense to just make the following change. Instead of describing `Jihadi John' as the person who beheaded Foley, it makes sense to say he is the one who appears to do the beheading in a video. Also I changed it to be clear the date in the article is the date of release of the video (almost certainly it is not the date of the beheading anyway).

Just a small change, anyone welcome to revert if it adds confusion. This would only matter for someone unfamiliar with the story anyway, most people know that the beheading referred to is the one in the famous video anyway.

Createangelos (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Telegraph article

Further coverage of this issue in the Daily Telegraph, although again citing unnamed experts.[6] It is obvious that the video, titled “A Message To America" is edited, which leads to two possibilities that cannot be ruled out:

  • The masked man does not carry out the beheading himself, as it takes place off camera
  • The voice of the masked man is a voiceover, not his actual voice

This is a separate issue from the one of whether Foley is dead, which has been accepted by the government and his family.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

In another Telegraph article today, a British expert claims to have identified the spot in the hills near Ar-Raqqah where Foley was killed. It is here on Google Maps. This is speculative and unsuitable for the article, although government experts are doing the same thing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Another possibility is Jihadi John did it on camera but they edited it out later. I suspect they removed the beheading so the film would be more widely distributed, more widely watched, and/or not taken down from YouTube (though it happened). Prior beheading videos were so graphic most refused to watch it. I for one have not seen this video and will not watch a beheading, after seeing Kenneth Bigley and Daniel Pearl it is more than enough. That is the contradiction of terrorism for propaganda. They may be trying to soften it to get wider audience. Another possibility is the video was so shocking (something happened) even these guys didn't think it wise to show. Or the camera ran out of battery would be Occam's answer. -- GreenC 16:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a source [7] that goes into detail about there being several 'takes' etc. There's no doubt that the video has been very expertly made so it would make sense that they would put effort into every aspect of the video. Also, an expert in the source I have listed gives 'suspected' GPS coordinates of the execution spot. Worth including at this point?Myopia123 (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
According to Frank Gardner, previous beheading videos were seen as a "vote loser", and ended up only on the shock sites.[8] This may have been a deliberate attempt to produce a video that would have more widespread media attention.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Two Jihadi Johns

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[9]. Myopia123 (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how far this will go, but we can't include this n the article until it is proven.
I agree that it's too premature to include anything in the article at this point and we should wait for the whole story to develop. Just thought it was worth adding in the talk page to indicate this whole business is way more complicated than it seemed at first with the whole Big budget video, multiple takes, ALLEGED (at this point) change of person from speaker to beheader and different knives[10].Myopia123 (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a CNN write up here: Did a second ISIS militant kill James Foley? mentioning two different knives, and a second man after a break with a different stature than the first.
British media has also covered some of this with Telegraph writing:"Some experts who have analysed the video of Mr Foley’s last moments have concluded that at least two people took part in killing him. Two different knives appear in the film"
I think it may be relevant to include this speculation in the article; it is no more speculative than the speculations about the identity which is already included; and it may be a bit misleading to hide that there are various theories in reliable sources about what exactly happened in the video. Iselilja (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Using the word 'Staged'

Multiple sources have confirmed that this was a very well planned and carefully managed video, with high quality equipment, multiple takes, graphics(if you look on the top right at the animated flag) etc. Many of these sources are using the word, 'staged', to encopass all of these concepts. Please correct me if I am wrong but to me, using the word 'staged' implies some sort of deceptive connotations. For example, "He staged his own accident". If I am right(and please correct me if I am wrong), shouldn't a less judgmental word be used, since Foley's death itself is not in question and we need to abide by WP:NPOV?Myopia123 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Both of the citations use the word "staged".[11][12]. It has been staged in that it makes sophisticated use of camera angles, editing, graphics and subtitles. Somebody with good, possibly professional level skills did this. The action is unconvincing for a live video. It wants to give the impression of a live video, but may have been filmed carefully and edited down from a range of takes. This is what has aroused suspicion. The government and Foley's family accept that he is dead, but the video is not a simple record of the events surrounding his death.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Staged means two things. First, put on the stage – like in a theater or something. Second, contrived or made up. I think that here people are using the word in its first sense, meaning "look at how much effort they put into this production!", even though there is no physical stage in this instance. So I don't believe it's a violation of NPOV. That being said, if there is a better word to use that doesn't have a secondary meaning with connotations of deception, I would use that instead. But I'm fresh out of ideas at the moment. AgnosticAphid talk 17:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Is a simple link to staged appropriate, or does this make it less clear since theatre is a "fictional" medium. Or perhaps to Propaganda film? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think a link to a theatre article is needed.Myopia123 (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Is there a better way of disambiguating the meaning of "staged"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
          • 'Well-planned', 'well-coordinated', maybe even 'well edited and produced' are some that I can come up with off of the top of my head. Basically we're trying to get across that the video is of high-quality and tailor made for as much mass-consumption as possible. Its clear these guys understand that people prefer 1080pxHD to the old grainy 240 handheld videos of the past...Myopia123 (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

One thing is quite strange about the whole thing is the calmness of both captives, if you were about to be beheaded there is the very real chance that you would be absolutely freaking out, not talking in a calm and controlled manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.174.4 (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I know this is Daily Mail but it has an interview from a former hostage of terrorists talking about a possible reason for the calmness[13]Myopia123 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Picture

What would be the legal guidelines for a photo on this article? I doubt that terrorist groups copyright their videos, and if it is copyrighted, then I'm sure Fair Use covers a photo for which there is no possible free alternative (as we don't know who this man is to find a "possible" free alternative). '''tAD''' (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoever took the video doesn't need to copyright it (automatic assumption), rather they need to release it into the public domain or some other suitable license. I'm not sure how Fair Use applies to an anonymous masked person, but since it appears there is a good chance the real person will be identified, I doubt Fair Use could be claimed - so long as they live. -- GreenC 03:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The video was originally uploaded to YouTube, and the standard license retains copyright for the owner. Since 2011, it has been possible to select Creative Commons as one of the options [14] but most videos do not do this. Perhaps we could ask Jihadi John. Seriously though, this image would not add much to the infobox, as it is just a man in a black ski mask. If he is identified, it may be worth claiming fair use on an image of him.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I highly doubt ISIS and it's members give any thought to Copyright law. And if someone has masked and hidden themselves to the extent to which they remain absolutely anonymous, then wouldn't that imply that they are giving up any claim, since they did not want to associate themselves with that image at the time?Myopia123 (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
News outlets around the world are using said photo. I'm sure jihadi John didn't tell them it was okay. 24.45.77.205 (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Since many news sites have been using the picture, we can only assume that it has no copyright. I've put one up. If anyone disputes it, please send me a message on my talk page. thank you. JhonsJoe (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It has copyright unless the author says otherwise, or it is older than (I think) 70 years. Just because the news sites use it does not mean it does not have copyright. News sites may think fair use applies, or that they will not get sued, or if they do get sued, they have enough money to pay up. Someone owns that copyright. Martin451 21:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
ISIS WILL DEFINITELY NOT SUE ANY NEWS SITES. That is why they are using the images. JhonsJoe (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
1. Don't scream. 2. Don't upload images to Commons unless they have a legitimate license. They will just be deleted and waste everyone's time. -- GreenC 00:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not screaming. Simply making something important stand out. JhonsJoe (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
It does seem kind of...strange...to acknowledge copyright to a group that is on the US State Department's list of Terrorist Organistations[15]Myopia123 (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The copyright is owned by whoever took the video, not IS. The jurisdiction where the video was taken is Syria, a country which is party to most international copyright conventions. IS seemingly only acknowledges the Law of God, but since IS is not recognized as a state, Syrian law still applies from an outside perspective (eg. Wikipedia). -- GreenC 00:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I've added what I think is a fairly detailed description of how he appears in the videos. In my opinion, it is sufficient for the purposes of this article at this time.Myopia123 (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision history crossed out???

If you look the revision history for this page on September 3, 2014 (and part of September 4), each entry is gray and crossed out. You can't access any links, either, such as the (cur | prev) or viewing those revisions of the page. What happened to these entries?? Llightex (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What happens if JJ is Adel Majed al bary

There is an article on Al-Bary. Will that one be deleted and this one renamed or...

JhonsJoe (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if Jihadi John turned out to be someone who has an existing article on Wikipedia, I am sure the appropriate content from both would be merged into one article.Myopia123 (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It will also depend on what they discover. JJ may be a composite of multiple people and could still be a viable article. -- GreenC 02:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Jihadi Ringo and Jihadi George

I don't this may sound stupid, but do we have enough info for an article on Jihadi George, and Ringo? Should we make a new section in this article? I doubt that we should, but I want to hear everyones opinion. JhonsJoe (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that George and Ringo have British accents, nothing is known about them. Paul appears to be missing from this version of The Beatles.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
If more is know about them there could be page create called The Beatles (terrorist cell). Also Jihadi Ringo and Jihadi George could be redirected here. Interesting that Ringo Starr has made a comment about them saying "the numbers don't add up" here.~Technophant (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The Beatles (terrorist cell) Article

The Beatles (terrorist cell) I have made this article. Can I get some help on it. Also, is there not enough info on it to have it be an article? JhonsJoe (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said previously, there isn't enough material for an article on the terrorist cell at the moment. The article is basically a WP:CONTENTFORK of this one.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles (terrorist cell) for exactly that reason. WWGB (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Official and unofficial

We need to differentiate between official and unofficial analysis. These are not just fancy woowoo words. On this issue, the government is an official source. It's needed to differentiate from the private, so as not to put them on equal footing. The government has some legal responsibility to the victims and could be sued for negligence or incompetence; the private analysts don't have a responsibility to the victims or families, only to their customers and shareholders - private analysts are free to speculate (even wildly) in a way official analysts can't and won't. -- GreenC 01:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.Myopia123 (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason I altered this was tautology. Any statement by the government on the record in public is official, this goes without saying. THe FBI and the United States National Security Council would not make an unofficial statement on the record in public.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, it would be better for a reader if there were seperate sections which had the official analysis and ones which had unofficial ones. I tried doing this but it was undone by and IP, who has also kind of ruined the formatting of the whole article [16]Myopia123 (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I've just redone that formatting. I'd appreciate it if editors seek consensus before changing up the whole formatting of the article I personally found the one I just changed from to be tedious to read.Myopia123 (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mirror

.. is reporting that intelligence authorities in the US and UK have ID'd John, will release his name "in days", that he worked in the UK for charities, and that 12 accomplices will be taken down soon. The Mirror exclusive is echoed in other sources: Fox, Daily Mail, IBT, RT .. a who's who of sketchy sources. I'm for keeping it for the moment. -- GreenC 01:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed this because the Mirror is a tabloid and it is too sketchy at the moment. It also has WP:CRYSTAL problems. We can afford to wait a few days to see whether this happens or not.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
According to this CNN story, the British government knows the identity of Jihadi John, but has decided not to make it public "for operational reasons."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not surprising they know the identity, but it would be surprising they would release it. The CNN story makes more sense. -- GreenC 13:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Current Article Formatting - Not Ideal

I really don't like the way that the article is currently formatted. Some of the subsections under 'Executions' should be under their own separate section, with official confirmations of the authenticity apparently having disappeared completely. It's gone back and forth for a while so I'm not going to change it again so as to keep from edit warring. But in my opinion, this article is very badly formatted right now. It's badly organised and makes for tedious reading.Myopia123 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I support your previous structuring as in this version here. The reverting seems to be principally by an IP editor. I am going to restore your edits, and if the disruption continues we will have to seek semi-protection. Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Lock the article.

Ip edits on this are getting annoying. Some IP's only have one edit, and that is on this article. If we lock it, we can fix it without being disrupted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JhonsJoe (talk • contribs) 11:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I filed a request earlier at WP:RPP#Jihadi_John_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Cprotect.7Cdelete.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.7Cviews.29. If other editors support the request it is more likely to be approved. Betty Logan (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Location wrong?

Bellingcat acknowledged a quote "interesting counter-argument" by ISSE. Bellingcat's argument seems popular for reference by other news sources, and, while the ISSE counterargument isn't, it is acknowledged by BC himself on his argument (which we cite). Not exactly sure if/how to include this source in the article. moluɐɯ 18:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Added currentevent tag

MI15 has reported that Jihadi John's pattern is to kill one of the hostages every 11-15 days and that he currently has about 20 hostages in custody, and that US special forces are in the area he is believed to be residing in and preparing to target drone attacks and/or air strikes. Given that, we are likely to see this article change drastically every 11-14 days. Hopefully, the remaining hostages will be spared, but not likely according to MI15 public statements and a video released today by ISIS stating that the "Flames of War" are coming to America. 2601:7:6880:740:212:17FF:FE94:BE5E (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Who gave him his name?

The first and second sentences in this article give two different answers to the question: "Who gave JJ his name"? Can someone please fix them, so it does not appear that the article is fighting with itself? Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. WWGB (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
He was called John by the hostages. There is little doubt that the "Jihadi John" tag was invented by UK tabloid newspaper headline writers. It was used by the Mail and Sun in August 2014 and has stuck.[17]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Table Format - Killings Section

I wanted to use the talk page before making any modifications, but it would appear that Jihadi John has killed a rather large number of people now. Perhaps it would be better formatting to use a table instead of the list format right now? Thanks in advance for all comments.Myopia123 (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. I don't agree that the number of victims is "rather large". Using a table format reduces a human life to a data set. WWGB (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This would be a disrespectful thing to do. Human deaths are not to be presented as statistics.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Just putting it out there, there was no disrespect intended. Just talking about better formatting.Myopia123 (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This is something that has prior precedent on Wikipedia. If you look at pages about Gallantry/Valor awards, many of the awardees have died in the line of duty. They are frequently presented in list form, with links to their own articles included.Myopia123 (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. An encyclopedia has no feelings, so a table seems perfectly reasonable. But in this case I agree that the "data" are a bit too sensitive to be treated in this way. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunate name

One: This perp does not reflect any form of Jihad. He is a murderer of innocents and a heretic of the Islamic religion.
Two: Greater Jihad is defined as an internal struggle towards a sense of Islamic spiritual purity. It is very possible for someone to be Jihadist with no intrinsic problem. However the wording of articles like this serves to radicalise Islamic terminologies.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This has WP:NOTAFORUM issues, but it is now his WP:COMMONNAME in media coverage. However, I agree that the name - which appears to have been invented by the UK tabloid press in August 2014 [18] - tends to trivialise what is basically murder.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
This source in the Washington Post says "As per the British press, the masked man is known as “Jihadi John.”" A web search shows that the American media are less keen on the JJ nickname than the British media, where it is in almost universal use. This New York Times article about the death of Alan Henning does not mention Jihadi John at all, and refers to "the black-clad executioner".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The article does need a name. Is it a good idea to replace 'Jihadi John' with something like 'Unidentified Executioner'? I don't think so. However, to add some more context, this link may be of use: Catchy nicknames help FBI snare bank robbers. It appears that giving such names to individuals actually aids in their capture, so it is not just a matter of tabloid journalism. Myopia123 (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't support a rename proposal as "Jihadi John" appears to have stuck. The alternatives, such as "black-clad executioner" are unsatisfactory. What the article should mention, with the two reliable sources given above, is that the "Jihadi John" nickname is the work of the British press.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Really

Does this person really deserve his own wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.43.249 (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This matter has already been debated and settled by consensus. Please see top of page for link to that discussion.Myopia123 (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Please famiarize yourself with the WP:GNG, and then look at the articles sourcing. This may better help you understand. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggested merger into new article - Foreign/Western ISIS Fighters

I have a the following suggestion: Jihadi John, The (terrorist) Beatles, this new information about an masked (possibly) American ISIS fighter for which the FBI has put out a wanted ad [19], [20] and all future information about western jihadis be merged into one article.

The purpose/logic/rationale behind the merger is as follows: Each topic is about individuals who are members of ISIS and are suspected to be from Western Countries. There have been additional reports about British and American ISIS members(both male and female) joining or being killed in airstrikes[21], [22], [23], [24]. I feel that:

  • On a larger scale, these people and them travelling to this region would not be notable without the fact that they are western and their purpose was to join and fight for ISIS.
  • While some may feel that Jihadi John is an exception to the above point, he has not been identified yet. There are also theories about there being multiple masked men in the videos etc. etc., so it is possible that Jihadi John is more than one person
  • Since these individuals are all unidentified at the moment, it would be better to have all of this info in one article which dealt with the actions of masked ISIS members (we could include Jihadi John and the beheadings, the masked american who executed syrian POWS and all of the various information about other western people who are joining and/or dying for ISIS.
  • It would be better served for the purposes of an encyclopedia to have all of this information as one article with sections devoted to different individuals instead of spread out over different articles, since it seems that foreigners travelling to and fighting for ISIS is turning into a big deal in America and the UK.

I look forward to all of your comments regarding this suggestion. Myopia123 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Jihadi John meets WP:GNG on his own, and further mergers or spinoff articles would be unnecessary.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I was not suggesting spin-off articles. Foreign ISIS fighters is becoming a notable topic in its own right, w.r.t the links above. Even the masked American ISIS fighter meets WP:GNG in his own right [25]. So is the issue of female ISIS members. An article that covers the topic as a whole would be more efficient.Myopia123 (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to avoid a WP:CONTENTFORK, because The Beatles (terrorist cell) should not have been created either. Jihadi John should continue to have his own article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Lol, i'm trying to avoid a WP:CONTENTFORK as well. The way I see it, either we create articles for ever ISIS member/topic that meets WP:GNG or we include them all in one article. Another option would be to create a template that links the different topics together.Myopia123 (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The possibly American person mentioned here is nowhere near meeting WP:GNG and should not be lumped in with Jihadi John. Nor is there any evidence that he is involved with the beheading incidents which have been the subject of major media coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I see your point. Take a look at the terrorist beatles talk page. I think that article would be better served by addressing the broader topic of foreign fighters, since they are not individually notable in their own right (with the exception of Jihadi John)Myopia123 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The Beatles as a group meet GNG -- they have been discussed as a group a great deal by RS media. If Jihadi John also meets GNG, that doesn't meant the article on the group is not notable. The refs in that article, and even the titles of many of the articles, refer specifically to the group, the acts the group took in guarding and torturing the hostages, and the hunting of the group, etc. There is no need for the other three members of the group to each independently be notable -- that's why we don't have individual pages for them (as distinct from the individual members of the rock group the Beatles, where the individual members are notable). Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Three or four Beatles in terrorist cell?

Re this edit: the sourcing is unclear on whether Paul is a member of the terrorist cell. The cite here is from the Daily Mail, which is not ideal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Injured in airstrike

IS executioner 'Jihadi John' injured in air strike: reports. Also gives name. -- GreenC 02:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the front page of the Mail on Sunday today; the other sources are basically repeating the MOS article. On close inspection, this is the usual "sources said last night" type of story which stops a long way short of direct confirmation. The same thing happened recently with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who according to some reports was killed in a coalition airstrike, but may still be alive. As for Jihadi John, the wording "The Mail claimed that a nurse who treated some of those wounded in the attack said there was a man named Jalman on her list, referring to him as "the one who slaughtered the journalists" is well meaning but does not come close to a reliable confirmation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Do we have to reliably confirm in order to list reported suspects? I recall this article had a reported suspect list but no longer see it. -- GreenC 15:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Serial killer?

"Serial killers", as I understand, are civilians. Is this really applicable to somebody who represents a paramilitary and kills in a warzone for political reasons? '''tAD''' (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

While it satisfies the technical definition on Serial Killer, I would ten to agree with you. Maybe this is more of a War Criminal type category? - Myopia123 (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Contribution to beheading 18 solders

//WWGB twice reverted my edits - but I'm going to discuss this here rather than off to 1RR https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jihadi_John&diff=634360465&oldid=634360350 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jihadi_John&diff=634435164&oldid=634432689

No one has proof that JJ personally killed any of the 5 western hostages, but we list them as his victims. However there is video proof that JJ personally lead a group of ISIL guys as they beheaded 18 Syrians. I submit that leading an execution squad makes you in fact guilty of killing all the victims - even more so than ordering a killing from afar. I propose we leave the 18 Syrians as victims on this page. Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Legacypac. Pahlevun (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I too have no problem reporting 18 victims on this page. My concern is that the 18 soldiers were listed in the JJ article under "Executions", and he did not personally execute all 18. Let's distinguish between truth and tabloid. WWGB (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you need to reread my point. This has nothing to do with tabloids your edit is a sanitization of a terrorist act. He only killed one guy, no responsibility for the others he is leading doing killing. Legacypac (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it him ?

Hi. The guy on the left side of this picture looks like him (i mean the eyes look as his). I found the pic in this guardian article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/18/un-report-isis-enough-weapons-carry-on-fighting-two-years --88.207.199.68 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

"Expertly staged" misquote

The sentence "Dr. James Alvarez, a British-American hostage negotiator, also claimed the James Foley video was "expertly staged".[12]" is a misquote. In the cited article, he does use the words 'expertly staged' but he is referring to production quality, not a conspiracy.

The citation: "Mr Alvarez said the video was “expertly staged”. It was filmed using two separate cameras, and a clip-on microphone was attached to Mr Foley’s orange jumpsuit to ensure good sound quality."

Since Mr. Alvarez works in the hostage negotiation field, being untruly associated with a conspiracy theory seems potentially damaging to his career. I think the sentence should be removed. DeskPenSpeaker (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a question of interpretation. Everyone except the tinfoil hatters accepts that the hostages have been killed, but the use of multiple camera angles and editing makes it hard to say exactly what happened to them. The current wording in the article is not a misrepresentation of what Dr James Alvarez said, and it does not paint him as a conspiracy theorist. Thoughts from other editors welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if this is worth including in Jihadi John but it is very clear at this point that ISIL does a very good job as far as making viral videos is concerned and its social media arm is very strong. Aside from their execution videos, even their propaganda films are extremely well edited and produced. I think this is something that is addressed at the main ISIL article at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Propaganda and social media. So, in my opinion, most readers would be able to relate that to the quotes in question. Maybe a wikilink to that page if editors still feel its not clear enough? - Myopia123 (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

# of suspects

Our text says: "According to sources, there are four main suspects:". And then we name ... three. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This may be because an IP added a name which was probably vandalism.[26] I've trimmed it back to three as this is all that the sourcing supports.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

The Infobox is distasteful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.53.170.18 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why because Wikipedia is not censored. The interesting thing about the infobox photograph is that it credits Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as the copyright holder.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. The infobox is written like it is detailing the stats for a character in a video game. Imagine what other mass murders would look like if they took the same format and tone? 67.207.99.66 (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Categorization

Shouldn't he be categorized under "Kuwaiti terrorists" rather than "Kuwaiti criminals." I know, I know, it would fail neutral point of view, but it seems unfair (to others in that category) to lump him in with the likes of bank robbers, counterfeiters, and what have you when he is known to have personally murdered numerous people, and on camera, no less. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Why can't he be in both categories? No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Mohammed Emwazi

This is just one of many in a long line of claims made by the press on who JJ is. Of course the BBC and WaPo are good sources, but they are not the highest sources, which are government. Government sources have not confirmed this identification. As such we need to be careful about unequivocally asserting that JJ = Mohammed Emwazi. -- GreenC 14:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly expect no separate announcement by UK government, unless at PMQs next week. One by MI5 might be possible, but also seems unlikely. Maybe things work differently in the US. In any case, I know of no policy that requires use of the "highest sources" - all articles simply rely on reliable sources. In fact I'm surprised that no-one has yet moved the article to the new name of Mohammed Emwazi. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
How wrong could I be? A statement in support of the security services from Cameron and a full-length interview by John Sawers for BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Together with a map showing his journeys over 2009 - 2013 (thanks to CAGE) and even pictures of him at primary school. There is no doubt that Emwazi is "Jihadi John". The use of the lede phrase "are believed to be pseudonyms for" is starting to look increasingly overly-cautions, even dated. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

High school

Emwazi attended Quintin Kynaston Community Academy

Image discussion

This article has long used File:Jihadi John.jpg as its primary image of the subject. As a consequence of the recent claims about Jihadi John's identity, Sky News obtained an image of Mohammed Emwazi from his school records and published a photo collage that included it alongside a masked image of Jihadi John, which can be seen at http://news.sky.com/story/1435642/first-photo-of-jihadi-john-as-adult-revealed. A low quality version of that image has now been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where it will soon be deleted because of the copyright issue, but in the meantime several editors have changed the infobox to use that image. The basic issue deserves discussion: should there be a clear image of Emwazi on this article? Should it be used as primary identification? Should there instead be a photo collage similar to the Sky News one? We can certainly justify a claim of fair use either way; Jihadi John is not currently available for free-use photographs, and the article already uses a fair-use image for that reason. Any change to the image in the infobox will be contentious, though, so it ought to be discussed here first. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that image is of "Jihadi John" and so it fits the current article name. I think many readers may come here expecting to see a picture of Mohammed Emwazi, perhaps not unreasonably. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Is the identity fully confirmed? I think we may have to wait a little while. But however, his iconic photo seems to be the hidden face Jihadi John. So that shall be the infobox pic. – nafSadh did say 06:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems that "confirmed" in this case, for some editors, would have to be be a direct (and rather lame) statement by the FBI, MI6 and Barack Obama. I'm not sure these will ever happen. I'm suggesting that his identity, of which his real name(s) are just one aspect, is agreed by very many reliable media sources - even CAGE fully supports his identity as Emwazi. This is quite a bizarre situation where we have "some news outlets have associated Jihadi John with a man named Mohammed Emwazi" in the lede. No-one has challenged the name. There is no dispute. The article name, and use of WP:COMMONNAME, is a separate issue. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC) (p.s. ""Mohammed Emwazi" now gives 5,090,000 Google hits, compared to "Jihadi John" 12,800,000)
Search results for Mohammed Emwazi would include other people. However with id being confirmed, a mugshot could be placed in the infobox. His college picture however is not fit as primary photo. However, I suspect wider circulation of his real name would not help finding him much, rather would harass other people of same name. Though that is not WP's concern. – nafSadh did say 10:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
What would "fully revealed" mean for you? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible confusion

I would just like to point out that "Jihad Johnny" and "Jihadi John" (plus final "-i" in "Jihad" and minus final "-ny" in "Johnny") are related to two different people and that this may lead to confusion. I hope this helps.   M aurice   Carbonaro  10:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

A surprise. But suggests we need to use his real name! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The situation regarding the name is unsatisfactory. We still don't really know that Jihadi John is Mohammed Emwazi, even though the Washington Post is a reliable source. Other major news sources have covered their backs by stopping short of saying for sure that it is him.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe "Other major news sources" have just said nothing (for whatever reason). Or maybe there's a deep security conspiracy here to smear the wrong man?! Seems a bit unlikely, given what CAGE have said on the matter. Am still amazed. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Legal name change

Emwazi legally changed his name to Mohammad al-Ayan in 2013

Whilst an interesting point if there's ever a full page on him, it's probably not relevant to this article as it stands. All news outlets, and indeed Cage, are referring to him as Emwazi. It seems he's also been called Al-Zuhary,[27] at some point, as well as possibly Ibn Muazzam.[28] Bromley86 (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Worthy of mention in the article. And of creation of redirects. Epeefleche (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I had assumed that there would be two articles, one for JJ (comprised of things like Analysis of videos and Identification and manhunt) and the other for Emwazi, as a notable figure. However, as I see from the name changing discussion, I was wrong. In that case, of course the names go in here. Bromley86 (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Always assuming, of course, that Emwazi is Jihadi John (as seems to be uncontroversial at this point), we probably should mention the names "Muhammad ibn Muazzam" and "Mohammed al-Bary" in the article. The former is just a variant of "Mohammed Emwazi", and the latter was his legally adopted name, though it may have been a pretextural change to aid him in traveling. Both already redirect here. I'm skeptical about mentioning the name "Mohammed Al-Zuhary" in the article in any way based only on his email correspondence; there's no way to know if he used that name outside of his corresepondence with one organization and they haven't explained why they corresponded with him under a different name. There are a few individuals with visible web presences who go by variations of that name and they don't deserve to be unfairly associated with a terrorist. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It appears he used the Al-Zuhary name when dealing with the Daily Mail as well.[29] Bromley86 (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Bedoon and RS

We had a comment that his parents were Iraqi Bedoon, but the supplied cite merely said that they claimed to be Bedoon in order to try to get Kuwaiti citizenship and were in fact Iraqi citizens. However, there's a bunch of reports in tabloids which, I'd suggest, would clearly trump that cite for reliability that say they were Bedoon (Mail, Mirror1 & Mirror2 and give a far more believable explanation of why the family moved to Kuwait and then why they left. We have the BBC, but it's a regurgitation of the Mirror's work. Bromley86 (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

We can't use tabloids here, see WP:BLPSOURCES and the section above. --John (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Class

The lead describes Jihadi John as being identified by the BBC and Washington Post as a 'British man from a middle-class family'. Having read the sources referenced, i can find no specific reference or weighty indication that Mohammed Emwazi is from a middle class family.

The Washington Post states that his family are 'well-to-do', this could easily mean that they are just rich (which is only one contributing factor in social class). This point is not expanded upon in the news article.

Furthermore in the aforementioned Washington Post article, Mohammed Emwazi is described as having been 'raised in a middle-class neighbourhood'. An old saying goes that you can 'raise a cat in a stable but it doesn't make it a horse'; again there is no specific reference to class in the article.

The media appears to be trying to portray Mohammed Emwazi as the most stereotypical English gentleman possible, whilst this may well be the case, i hope that the encyclopedic fashion of Wikipedia remains and does not get caught up in the spin of the media.

I suggest the removal of the mention of class unless more specific sources are found that support this or indeed hope that someone can bring to light a specific method of determining someones class that is acceptable on Wikipedia. Cesdeva (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed, not properly sourced or relevant.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth

We now have his date of birth c/o a Sky News source. Shouldn't that appear in the first sentence of the article, as for most BLP articles? Doesn't this provide further evidence of his true identity? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

First sentence -- not sure, First paragraph -- sure, indeed. It can appear after mentioning his real name. – nafSadh did say 21:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I've decided WP:BLP rational thought doesn't apply here because we still have (at least) two people. On the brink of suggesting a spilt off of Emwazi as a separate (deeply-misunderstood-middle-class-corrupted-by-MI5) article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The article says "the security services in the US and UK had known his identity since September 2014, but explained that they had chosen not to identify him as Jihadi John earlier for operational security reasons." This appears, to me, to be endorsment "by the highest sources" that his identity was, and is, Mohammed Emwazi. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I was the last person to play with that entry, and I think I may have been wrong to leave it as it is. It's based on this Frank Gardener analysis in a BBC article:
US and British counter-terrorism officials discovered the identity of "Jihadi John" as far back as last September. The FBI, Britain's MI5 and other intelligence agencies used a combination of voice recognition software, interviews with former hostages and on-the-ground research in London to build up a profile of the man now revealed to be Mohammed Emwazi. They have always declined to reveal the name for "operational reasons". Now that it's out in the public domain, it's emerged that Emwazi was well-known to MI5 and that it even tried to recruit him as an informer, years before he went off to Syria to eventually join Islamic State.
So, what that actually says is that they have IDed JJ, but not that they've revealed that it's Emwazi. I've removed it now, pending actual confirmation by the security services that the man that they IDed was Emwazi. I've included a cut down version a couple of paras below, where it's a better fit. Bromley86 (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. All of the many interviews with Emwazi's former friends, associates and teachers, that the media is now packed full of, seem to make any statement/ non-statement by the security services wholly irrelevant. That's just my personal opinion of course, but I suspect it's one shared by millions of other people across the world. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The point being reported here here is whether or not the security services knew it was Emwazi back in late 2014, which is interesting from a historical perspective. It's been all but said that they did by Gardener, but he's not actually said it. Likewise, this Guardian article actually says that they've known, but doesn't attribute and appears to be assumption; it later says that the security services have refused to confirm. Anyone seen a source that attributes to "unnamed" or "off the record"? Bromley86 (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is interesting from a historical perspective and this chronology should be preserved in the article. Obviously some embarassment that they had tried to recruit him (standard practice, it seems). Reports are now emerging that during that time he was quite paranoid and seemed to have even contemplated suicice, he felt that persucuted. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Whoa!! So now we know that Jihadi John and Mohammed Emwazi had the same parents! Coincidence or what?! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. The sooner we decide whether this is an Emwazi or JJ article, the better. Bromley86 (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I quite agree. But the lack of consensus for article rename (below) seems to be somewhat holding us over a dual-person barrel? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Head injury at school

Apologies for the poor sources, but the recording of the telephone call made to LBC sounds very convincing: "A former friend of the terror suspect says Emwazi suffered a brain injury after falling into goalposts, causing him to 'go a bit weird.'": [30], [31] Not sure if this could or ever will be corroborated. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Also CiF[32], HuffPo[33] and the Telegraph[34], but they're just repeating. In a similar vein (perhaps as a result of that?), he needed anger management therapy.[35] Bromley86 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
What are they saying about "the beautiful game"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Beheading, execution, murder

There's a note in the lead that says:

known for beheading several hostages in 2014 and 2015<!--Please use neither execution or murder as both are not NPOV see talk page -->

I don't want to change it, but I couldn't find the Talk section discussing why murder/execution is not NPOV. Anyone know? Bromley86 (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic here, but we don't really know if he beheads the hostages, and various commentators have suggested that it could have been done by someone else off camera. The actual beheading is never shown. All we really know is that this man appears in a series of propaganda videos by IS.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Essential point Ian. I know there was a similar discussion over at Lee Rigby before the court case delivered a verdict, although the circumstances were very different, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Although not hostages, he has verifiably beheaded one person (and perhaps others; that's just the one I know about). The video is pretty awful, so you might like to take my word for it; if not, it's 10 mins in.[36] The US has confirmed that the video is authentic. I suppose there's a chance that was some other bloke in the hijab, but they looked the same to me. Bromley86 (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hats and tabloids

I don't think we need record the reaction to his hat in an old photo unless it becomes a major part of the story. Similarly the Evening Standard doesn't seem like a strong source on a BLP. --John (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Evening Standard isn't The Guardian or the New York Times, but this is not a controversial or potentially libellous claim. It is a pity that the names of the Beatles have been dragged into this nonsense, and Ringo Starr's quote, if accurately reported, is relevant to the subject matter.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree about the hat (It's almost as if the Pittsburgh Pirates believe it's Jihadi John). But I think the Standard is used all over Wikipedia, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Isn't there a policy about avoiding trivia on Wikipedia? I mean, I'm sure it'll stay if there's enough consensus but the Pittsburgh Pirates and Ringo Starr don't really add much value to this article. Myopia123 (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree that what Ringo thinks about this is pretty trivial. If Emwazi and his buddies were called "the Beatles" because they listened to their music, or something similar, then I'd support its inclusion. As things stand though, it seems to be just a silly nickname bestowed because they're British and there are 4 of them. Bromley86 (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The Pittsburgh reference is WP:TRIVIA IMHO. However, dragging The Beatles into these killings is more of a problem, and it is unsurprising that one of the surviving members of the Beatles has commented on this. It is reminiscent of Helter Skelter (Manson scenario).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Whereas I think both items are trivia. The existence of a non-trivial source for the Harrison Starr quote would be essential I think in order to consider including it. --John (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Starr quote perhaps, as George Harrison died before all of this happened. Anyway, I think that the Starr quote has some relevance as the "Jihadi John" nickname was inspired by the Beatles.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Now just back off, Ian. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
LOL, and thanks for the correction. Of course the Beatles thing belongs and of course it has good sources. The quote also needs good sources and as it concerns two people who, unlike Harrison, are still alive, if none can be found it should be removed. --John (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Is the Evening Standard not sufficiently reliable for BLPs, especially when it's an direct interview with Ringo himself? Bromley86 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
And what if the cabbies' friend managed to get an exclusive there? We can kiss goodbye to any other sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Just as to the Beatles -- we follow the RSs, and the RSs overwhelmingly support it ... and so should we. We don't interpose editor personal views as to what constitutes trivia in this regard. Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
No indeed. We follow policy and that means getting rid of it unless there is a better source. Is there? --John (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
My scoop question remains. And is The Standard an WP:RS or not? I don't see consensus to remove that. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct mis-information regarding Nationality

Jihadi John is NOT Kuwaiti. He was born in Kuwait and Kuwait does not grant citizenship to foreigners born in Kuwait ever. Furthermore, several articles mentioned he his visa to Kuwait was rejected which clearly indicates he was not a Kuwaiti as Kuwaitis obviously do not need a visa to enter their own country. What is odd is that non of the articles mentioned his original nationality but we shall find out in the next few days. For the current time, he is a confirmed British citizen but is NOT a confirmed Kuwaiti citizen and all indications suggest otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.178.185 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Above info is correct. Only way to obtain Kuwaiti citizenship is through a Kuwaiti father. Therefore everyone born in Kuwait has citizenship determined by Jus sanguinis, i.e. they obtain citizenship of their parents. That article also has a paragraph about the GCC(which includes Kuwait). Myopia123 (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is this article featured on wiki? Is there any information that could lead to the conclusion of the beheadings? no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.50.249 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jihadi_John/Archive_1&oldid=1136727113"