Talk:Kidnapping and murder of Kenneth Bigley

Confirmed
According to the BBC and to our front page, his death has now been confirmed. Someone who's been following the story closer than I have will need to make some changes to the article to bring it up to date.

fabiform | talk 17:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The quoted site seems to be some kind of fancy hotel. Can anyone confirm it is the correct page?

--Stereo 14:42, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)

I have to question whether it is proper to link to the beheading video in the external links. -- Redfarmer 00:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * IIRC it was decided it was acceptable assuming it was not a hyperlink and just text of the URL. See other executed peoples talk pages. Kiand 02:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Analysis of video
I'm not terribly keen on your personal major edit of what was a stable version of the account. The direct links, while offensive to some, did enable readers to judge for themselves what was being shown - particularly that the video, with its obscured viewpoint and continuity jumps, does not unequivocally show Bigley's killing in real time. Besides, it's a primary source; Wikipedia can do better than just repeating, as you've done, what other news media say their reporters saw in the video. RG (Comment moved here from Slim's Talk page)


 * I removed this part of the article, because it sounded odd, yet someone has put it back in saying it's crucial. Could you say why, please?  It wasn't clear to me what was being said. I haven't watched the video, because I did watch Eugene Armstrong's and couldn't stand to see another one. But I have seen stills, and his beheading does not appear to be completely hidden by the kidnapper's legs in the stills. Slim 04:08, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Can you find a reputable third-party source (newspaper, statement, whatever) that talks about these continuity gaps? If so, we should quote them. Without a source, it probably shouldn't be there, which is why I compromised with "appears to." Are you Gordy, by the way? Slim 17:17, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: I can't find third-party sources that talk about these continuity gaps, because they don't mention them. For this very reason, I strongly advise you, even though I appreciate that you find the prospect uncomfortable, to watch the video to see that they exist and are not a matter of opinion or interpretation. It's far less explicit than the Armstrong one. (I'd add that if you haven't seen it, you shouldn't be revising accounts of its contents by people who have). In my view the importance is the possibility, not mentioned in the mainstream media, that the filming is edited: Bigley's death is not in doubt, but there's reasonable doubt as to whether the video is a true record of it. No, I'm not Gordy. RG


 * Hi RG, I do feel we need a third-party source. The Wikipedia rule is "no original research." Even if we know something to be true, we're supposed to provide attribution to a reputable source.  I won't watch the video. I would imagine that, if this looks as though it was edited, someone, somewhere will have mentioned it, so it's just a question of finding it. Slim 03:59, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Point reluctantly taken (I pondered this heavily in relation to the No original research page). This runs into one of the difficulties with Wikipedia; rules that quite rightly ground it in reliable sources nevertheless stop it diverging from those sources when they are biased or in error (even for something that anyone can verify for themselves by clicking on a hyperlink). "Someone, somewhere will have mentioned it, so it's just a question of finding it". Yes: you'll find repeated comments on these scene cuts at the www.ogrish.com forum thread "Kenneth Bigley Beheading Video", but I doubt that this will ever get the source respectability of a mainstream report. This doesn't necessarily mean that its existence is doubtful, merely that, for whatever reason, the Western media choose not to mention it - as happened with the expert forensic opinion (see here) that Nick Berg's decapitation was performed post-mortem. RG


 * Yes, I take your point too. How about we leave it as it is (with "appears" to have continuity gaps), then if we find a mainstream sources, we can firm it up, and add the attribution. Slim 17:12, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed! Thanks. RG

Providing links to the video
Whisper to me edited the links for the video back into this article, which I have removed once again pending discussion. I'm first of all going to find out what Wikiepedia policy is on this issue by asking on the WikiEN-l. I'll report back here what is said, if anything. Slim 04:25, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

The wikipedia policy is to keep such images. For instance Abu Ghraib and Goatse.cx have links to such images. WhisperToMe 04:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * All editors have the right to edit Wikipedia so long as they stick to its policies. A discussion on the Nick Berg page does not exercise control over what happens on this page, and in any event, there was no clear consensus on the Nick Berg page either. These videos are primary source material, not normally allowed in Wikipedia under the "no original research" ruling. We are an encylopedia, which means a tertiary source, publishing facts and analysis already published elsewhere. We don't link to primary source material. You would not find a link to these videos, or even a description of them, in the Encylopedia Britannica. Anyway, I have placed a query on the mailing list, and I will report back here when I get a response. Slim 04:43, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

As said earlier - Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - and yes, it can link to primary source material. Wikipedia ITSELF cannot be a primary source but it can link to primary source material. WhisperToMe 04:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The policy in this area is have a text link to this kind of vidio. Prople link to original reseach all the time. Scientific papers for example.Geni 05:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Geni, thanks for your comment. Can you direct me to the policy page where it says that? I've been looking around myself today but so far haven't found anything. Slim 05:44, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe Cite sources will work? WhisperToMe 05:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, there's nothing there that covers pornography or death videos. I've posted a couple of queries on the list and elsewhere, so hopefully someone will answer. If there is no policy page covering it, we may have to write one. It is kind of covered by the "reputable publication" or "reputable source" idea, but not entirely. Slim 06:17, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * How about you (Slim) cite where it says wikipedia can't link to primary sources? A rhetorical question, as I know you're either attempting to mislead or merely very mistaken yourself  ~leif &#9786; HELO 06:17, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understood your question, Leif. The issue is whether the death videos are regarded as the kind of primary source material we should be linking to, and how to categorize them. If we linked to a government report or a trial transcript, that is acceptable primary source material. If we linked to my weblog, that is not acceptable primary source material.  How do these videos fit in?  I have no idea.  I'm assuming there must be a Wikipedia policy on publishing or linking to violent or pornographic images, but I can't find one.  Slim 06:25, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I was actually referring to your ridiculous statement above, "We are an encylopedia, which means a tertiary source, publishing facts and analysis already published elsewhere. We don't link to primary source material," timestamped 04:43, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC). In any case, I believe you're assuming wrong. The video link should definitely stay. Correct me if I am the one who is mistaken, but I highly doubt you will find any official wikipedia policy saying that hyperlinks to relevant media should be censored, nor anything saying wikipedia is not a secondary (as well as tertiary) source or that we cannot link to primary source material. You might be interested in reading some pages from Category:Wikipedia official policy.  ~leif &#9786; HELO 09:53, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think we should include the links to the video; removing them smacks of censorship, I'm afraid. They are relevant and informative, and I think it's tenuous to argue that linking to primary sources is original research. &mdash; Matt Crypto 08:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A skim of Wikipedia finds very many examples of links to primary sources, such as the John F Kennedy Zapruder film - not as original research, but simply as the objects to which the articles refer. Raygirvan 16 Dec 2004

The first two links to the videos seem to be dead anyways. While I agree that we should link (in a non-clickable way) to such videos in our articles, I can't understand why we have to link to sites like "beheadingvideos.co.za" (which is also not available at the moment). I already tried to start a talk about that site at the Nick Berg talk page. It is my opinion that we should only link directly to such videos, other decapitation videos are not significant to this article. --Conti|✉ 15:08, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Finding a consensus/compromise

 * Lief, I apologize if I wrote we should never link to primary source material. I didn't intend to write that, of course, because often it's valid and informative to do so. I'm questioning only material that is so graphically violent, and which actually shows someone's death. To my knowledge, no reputable news organization has provided information to its readers on how to find this material, and I feel that Wikipedia should take its lead from reputable publications, where there are experienced editors who are used to making hard editorial decisions. I also feel, out of respect for the hostages' families, that we shouldn't make it easy for people to find these videos.


 * I've done two things to help find a consensus. First, I've put up an RfC. Second, I posted a query to the mailing list and got a very helpful response from Jimbo Wales, who makes a number of suggestions, including: (1) The usefulness and historical importance of the material should be a factor regarding whether to include it or not; (2) if we do decide to include it, we should find the most tasteful site (and preferably not ogrish); (3) we should provide only the URL, not the link, so the reader has to cut and paste, and in that way won't inadvertently see other material; and (4) the URL should be accompanied by a firm disclaimer.


 * Conti, I agree with you that, if we're going to provide the URL, it should be only to the video, not to other material too.


 * I suggest we wait another day or two to see if the RfC brings more opinions, then we can decide what the consensus is on this page and proceed from there. Slim 22:07, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article should avoid linking to the type of sites that sensationalize this video. I haven't actually tried accessing any of these current links myself yet, but hopefully there is a site that hosts the video in such a way that we can link directly to it. I don't know about making it be a copy+pastable URL instead of a real hyperlink; I think a normal External link and a factual statement of what the video contains (and not guesses or judgments about how people should feel watching it) is totally adequate. To be clear, the video link does not need a disclaimer, but merely (as any link to a video clip should have) a brief description of what the video depicts.  ~leif &#9786; HELO 23:03, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I also think Slim's assessment contains some presumptions to be questioned. 1) "I'm questioning only material that is so graphically violent, and which actually shows someone's death". Slim has refused to watch it, so is in no position to judge the content. 2) All the detail about reputable news organizations, experienced editors, hard editorial decisions, is irrelevant appeal to authority. Wikipedia makes its own consensus, and isn't bound to copy the particular editorial stances of other media. Raygirvan 16 Dec 2004


 * I didn't say Wikipedia was bound to follow reputable news organizations. But we usually do, so I wonder why not in this case. Appeals to authority are not always wrong. Rather than arguing against me, could you supply a more positive argument of your own in favor of why the URL/link for the video should be provided? Slim 23:41, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Many articles and other content on WP are clearly not for "children" who cannot handle the content. Wikipedia has articles on many sexual practices, and an article on shock sites. Surely we can link to Ken Bigley's video. WhisperToMe 01:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Precedent. Related pages - Nick Berg, Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr., Kim Sun-il, Shosei Koda - have linked. 2) As WhisperToMe says, Wikipedia's baseline for showing or linking to potentially shocking material is self-evidently not that of the mainstream media you consider respectable. Other examples: the pages on nudism, Mr Goatse, or gangrene. 3) Wartime atrocities are an area notoriously prone to spin and rumour, and whether the motive for withholding the detail is taste or censorship, there's always the risk of inaccuracy creeping in when only second-hand accounts are provided. Here, Wikipedia can be more objective than other media by providing a primary source. If people can access that source themselves, it clarifies what's factual and what interpretation. 4) The historical importance was their unprecedented nature and their effect on world opinion at a critical time. Raygirvan 17 Dec 2004

Ray, I do agree with some of what you say, but not all. (1) These precedents were set by a very small number of people, and not much of a consensus was reached if you look at the Talk pages; (2) Regarding the point that we link to shock sites: do we? Can anyone give me an example? (3) I do agree with you on your point (3); (4) Not sure I agree about the historical significance of the actual video. It was historically significant that it was taped (that they all were); that the men were beheaded; that the tapes were made available online: these are all historically significant facts, I agree. But to link to the actual tape? I personally don't see that going that extra step provides any additional historical information that outweighs the harm done to his family, and the possible harm done to a Wikipedia reader who watches the video without realizing how horrible it's going to be. It's a cost-benefit analysis in my view and the cost outweighs the benefit. Just my opinion. As a matter of interest, Ray, why do you suppose that not a single, reputable North American or British newspaper provided information for their readers on how to find the video? Do you think they were just engaged in unjustified censorship? Slim 03:18, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Nevertheless those pages have been stable in that form for a while.
 * 2) You were just given an example: Goatse. Use the search box at top left.
 * 3) OK.
 * 4) I take the opposite view of the cost-benefit. No-one is forced to click on a link. Why should a few people, who probably won't even look, over-ride the availability of information for many others? The additional historical information people get from actually seeing the video is accurate knowledge of its contents, which will put them in a better position to judge other media accounts (which invariably don't mention the continuity breaks that spoil the clear-cut horror story). "As a matter of interest, Ray, why do you suppose that not a single, reputable North American or British newspaper provided information for their readers on how to find the video? Do you think they were just engaged in unjustified censorship?" Partly. I just know you're about to play the sensitivity card, but I think that because of the scope for readers being misled by second-hand accounts (written in some cases by people who haven't even seen the video) this is an area where it's justifiable to over-ride that. Raygirvan 17 Dec 2004


 * Regarding your point 4, that point is not a valid one for Wikipedia. I see you've just become an editor so I don't know how familiar you are with Wikipedia's no original research policy. The "continuity breaks" have not been mentioned in any reputable newspaper, so regardless of whether they're there or not, Wikipedia can't mention them. That one sentence is in the article only as a compromise with a previous editor, but it really shouldn't be there. We are supposed to source all our claims and use only reputable publications are sources. Slim 20:45, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Raygirvan's version of the cost-benefit analysis; we have two sorts of readers who will view this page: those who want to view the video, and those who don't. With the links, everyone is satisfied; without the links, the page is less useful for at least some readers. The way I see it, by not including the links you're making the reader's choice for them. I would also suggest that if a reader, even after reading the dire warnings, goes ahead and pastes in the URL, downloads and watches the video, and subsequently has a negative experience, that they could hardly then lay the blame on Wikipedia. We don't have a responsibility to protect readers from themselves, but we do have a goal to make our articles as informative as possible. &mdash; Matt Crypto 22:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Matt, I have to admit that my position is based on taste and intuition, not argument (although taste and intuition are often good arguments, in my view). I feel these videos are appalling. I am suspicious of anyone who wants to see them. I feel that voyeurism is not a defensible intellectual position. I feel Wikipedia cheapens itself by including such material. I feel that the videos have no historic or informational value whatsoever. I feel that their inclusion is in every sense non-encyclopedic.

Having said that, I'm clearly in the minority, at least so far as this page is concerned, and the important thing is to reach a consensus, so what I suggest we do as a compromise is follow Jimbo Wales' advice and (a) find a URL that links directly to the video, but not to anything else, (b) avoid the ogrish site, (c) supply the URL but not as a link so that no one can click on it inadvertently, and (d) provide a warning and disclaimer above it. Slim


 * My comment, in response to the RfC: The reader should be given access to the video. As to Slim's suggestions: (a) I'm not sure what this means -- a news outlet's hosting of the video, as opposed to some URL sponsored by or sympathetic to the killers, so that they don't get increased traffic because of their wrongdoing?  That I could accept.  (b) I haven't bothered to visit ogrish, no comment on that particular site.  (c)  I disagree with Jimbo re cut-and-paste.  If there's a concern about inadvertent clicking, link to a new WP article created solely for that purpose, the new article having the hyperlink to the site with another warning.  Two clicks is easier than cut-and-paste.  (d) The boldface warning on this version seems fine to me. JamesMLane 03:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm also a little worried that a) may be a criterion that can't be fulfilled. The large files draw such bandwidth that sites come and go. Ogrish.com has the stylistic disadvantages (it's a 'gore' site); it is, however, well-established and stable. I'm not sure what the situation is about jumping direct to files there; it's physically possible, but they may not like people bypassing the front-page terms and conditions.Raygirvan 18 Dec 2004


 * No original research. The no original research rule was designed to stop crackpot theories, not simple factual description of objects linked to. As a practical example, the list of shock sites has photo link descriptions that I'm sure you won't find corroborated in any "reputable publication".
 * I feel these videos are appalling. I am suspicious of anyone who wants to see them. I feel that voyeurism is not a defensible intellectual position. There are many more motives than voyeurism. Raygirvan 18 Dec 2004

Here is the e-mail from Jimbo Wales on this matter. It was good of him to respond to the request, and his suggestions are a reasonable compromise. Slim 04:58, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. Candidates, then. Links mentioned on other Wikipedia pages are down apart from Ogrish.com, the fallback option. Rejecting white supremacist sites and ones that could be construed as supporting terrorism, I've found:
 * Northeast Intelligence Network
 * http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/
 * The Patriot Edtion
 * http://patriotedition.com/
 * The first is a US anti-terrorism site, the second a US patriotic site; both host the video in a 'this is what we're up against' rather than a voyeuristic spirit. Actual links on request.Raygirvan 20 Dec 2004

That sounds okay, Ray. Thanks for looking for them. I was hoping someone would because it wasn't something I was keen on doing. Would you like to edit them in as URLs, rather than links? Do you agree with that? Slim 04:45, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Are there any exact links to the Ken Bigley video from these sites, or other sites? If not, we might have to use Ogrish until an alternative URL is found. WhisperToMe 23:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jimbo Wales is fairly clear that ogrish shouldn't be used and I, for one, agree. If this video is of such historical importance that it should be in Wikipedia, it must exist somewhere other than a bestiality/shock website. I thought Ray had found some, above? Slim 01:42, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Jimbo said Ogrish should not be used if there is an alternative. FWIW, I feel at most we should give only the URL or use James' excellent solution (because Jimbo was after all wanting to avoid the possibility of the inadvertent click rather than make it harder to access overall); I agree that there should be a very strongly worded warning, not just about the video but about Ogrish too, if that is what is linked to. Personally, I feel that there is no clearcut case for including a link to the video and Jimbo is quite right to caution against extreme standpoints either way (that it must or must not be included). I'm inclined to agree with Slim that the video is not informative and that voyeurism is not intellectually defensible. This would more strongly count against hosting the video ourselves, or stills from it, whatever, but I think her position should be addressed carefully.Dr Zen 03:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I too was thinking of a warning and non-clickable URL. WhisperToMe 08:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of general Wikipedia policy and any other considerations, I would make the following comment on the moral issues: the intention of the perpetrators of these murders is to publicise them in the belief that this in some way helps their cause. Regardless of the affiliation of the killers, publicising the videos is acting in accordance with their intentions, and to some extent colluding with them, and encouraging further murders. While I don't wish to exaggerate the influence of Wikipedia, my opinion is firmly that URLs should NOT be published. 213.208.107.91 22:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to base wikipedia policy on doing the oposite of what the killers want. The decision on whether to host the url should be based on it's value to the wikipedia nothing more nothing less.Geni 23:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes - and in any case, objection on grounds that the publication will "publicise them in the belief that this in some way helps their cause" is spurious. It could be argued that publication shows how repugnant their cause is. Still, the video exists; it's a matter for comment. Either link to it, or include a report that is a consensus of the views of those here who've seen it (as opposed to hearsay from those who haven't).
 * It is not spurious at all. It will help with some people. It is in appalling, depraved taste and it is a sign of how coarsened society has come that there are people who are even prepared to defend such grotesque and callous bad taste. Cloachland 03:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference request
This paragraph in the intro needs a source and it's not clear it belongs in the intro anyway; it sounds as though we're blaming the men for having been kidnapped. "Before they were kidnapped, the men were repeatedly warned about their security and welfare by security personnel hired by their employers to keep them safe. Despite being in such a hostile environment, the men often thwarted advice given to them and went out into the streets without protection or taking simple steps to avoid attracting attention." SlimVirgin (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A POV May Allah(SWT) have mercy on his soul and give strength and solace to his family. He was an innocent man who came to help the iraqis, he did not deserve to die.

How was he captured, while driving a truck? Ambush on a chow tent? Storming an office? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

seriously no one should take a life like that, is it any wonder the world is a mess!!!should be ashamed of themselves, it does not accomplish anything, just hate!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.229.40 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)