Talk:Islamic State beheadings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Needs de-orphaning

Shouldn't be too hard. -- œ^™ 21:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS vs ISIL

ISIS is an old name they don't use anymore, they changed it to ISIL to show they had expanded the territory of their state. Then they changed it again to just Islamic State to show they had no bounds to their ambitions. For Wikipedia purposes, consensus is only for ISIL, see Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. As such recommend name change to reflect ISIL. At some point Wikipedia consensus will catch up and it will be renamed to Islamic State, but not there yet. -- GreenC 15:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

ISIS & ISIL are just different ways (Syria vs. the Levant) of translating the same Arabic word (Al-Sham). The name was changed to Islamic State, which would probably cause IS to be used as the group's acronym if ISIS wasn't considered such a handy acronym &/or the US didn't still use ISIL as it's acronym. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the Levant = Syria geographically? The Islamic State claims they don't recognize the old borders created after WWI so it would be odd to translate their name using those borders. In any case, current consensus on Wikipedia is to use ISIL so the article should reflect that. -- GreenC 15:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not the same as the country of Syria (which is the usual modern usage of Syria), but it's similar to (though not the same as) the region of Syria. The Levant is the part of the Middle East along the Mediterranean coast. The Levant is probably the proper translation if they aren't talking about the modern country. Of course, they're calling themselves just the Islamic State now, though Wikipedia doesn't reflect that yet. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Move?

To me, it seems like 2014 ISIS (or whatever you want to call the group) beheadings would be a better title. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support move to 2014 Islamic State beheading incidents. ~Technophant (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That is counter to Blaylockjam10's suggestion to drop the "incidents", it's counter to using ISIL which is current consensus on Wikipedia, and it's a !vote there is no RM to !vote on. -- GreenC 22:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidents seems redundant & unnecessary. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Noted. I am in favor of removing 2014 from the title. It's unknown how many beheadings there will be however separating them by year shouldn't be necessary.~Technophant (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sotloff image

The Sotloff image used in the page has been requested for deletion. Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 September 5#Steven Sotloff.~Technophant (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

2013 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker

The article Draft:2013 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker is created and ready to go however User talk:G S Palmer is wanting community consensus approval for this article to be included. I emailed the functionaries 2 days ago for their approval in publishing this draft but have not received a reply. I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#2013 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker.~Technophant (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I favour leaving this as part of a larger article. This individual is not notable for other reasons: there are thousands of aid workers in the region; kidnapping/being held for ransom/being killed are one of the known risks to aid workers in combat zones; this particular group has killed a significant number of people in a very brutal manner, often as "examples" and often videotaped, even if it hasn't captured the attention of Western media. We know a lot more about this specific incident because it involved an English-speaking victim and captured the attention of English-speaking media. Many similar victims are from countries where the media is under far greater control by government or fear of retribution - if there is an organized news media at all. I will also comment on the related discussion. Disclosure: I was one of the oversighters involved in the suppression of early versions of an article related to this, and have also (now that there is apparent consensus amongst oversighters about this) reverted several related suppressions. Risker (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you Risker for reverting the suppression. I understood there is no WP:DEADLINE and was hoping and expecting a reasonable outcome. As far as notability goes, it doesn't help that his brother said in a released statement that David was a "regular bloke". Also, this article was rather neglected previously but now it will receive some attention. It also should be noted that original AfD was restored and can be seen here.~Technophant (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Date of death

Regarding David Cawthorne Haines: The video was released on September 13, 2014. But, we don't know anything about his actual date of death. Isn't that correct? If so, can someone please re-word the article? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why the template:circa is used for date of death. No, the actual execution date is not known at this time. I heard an expert that he thought Sotloff's death was within 48 hours of the release of the video.~Technophant (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In the first sentence, it says "circa" for his death. Later on, down in the third paragraph or so, it says: Haines was executed by beheading by ISIL on 13 September 2014, as shown through another video "A Message to the Allies of America" released by the group. The video, following a similar format to the ones for Foley and Sotloff, showed Haines delivering a prepared speech, followed by a scene of Haines' body with his dismembered head on top. That is what I was referring to. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Manner of beheading and other horrible things

Does anyone know if all the beheadings were done with a knife? (See [1].) Did the executioner sever the vertebrae with the first stroke? Or did he strike upward, cutting the victims throat? I know it's ghastly but don't you think the manner of execution pertinent to the article (if we can find some WP:RS)?

If you don't sever the spinal cord immediately but cut the windpipe instead, the victim will probably die of asphyxiation, rather than brain ischemia. This is a much longer and far more unpleasant way to die. In the recent past, some Muslim countries allowed their capital prisoners to choose beheading as opposed to hanging or stoning. A Muslim may think of beheading as a more-or-less humane method of execution. I for one would certainly prefer beheading by a competent headsman to today's lethal injection as mis-practiced in America.

Also, are the videos copyrighted (greater than CC BY-SA 3.0)? If not, can't someone upload them to Wiki-Common so that we can insert wiki-links in our articles? I don't believe that Wikipedia has any rules about obscenity or things that we can't show, if they're relevant to the article.

But I may be wrong. I welcome comments. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a few of the videos and all of the ones I have seen the beheadings were done front to back, slowly. I assume this is done to maximize the suffering for the victim as well as to maximize blood spillage to horrify the viewers. I can't understand why there is no struggling or attempts to escape by the victims, at this point they have to know what is about to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.134.14 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

None of the videos actually show the beheading. There's experts that think that the filmed part of the beheading where the executioner puts the knife to the front of the throat and makes from 5 to 13 sawing strokes with no blood shown are done with a rubber knife. Also keep in mind that it has been reported that Foley had been subjected to multiple fake executions, so sadly he may have been used to this charade. The actually beheading is done off-camera and the victim is shown with a camera pan, usually face down, with their head on their back facing the camera. Previous beheading videos done by AQ show the whole ugly process (which is horrible to watch). By not showing the actual beheading has lead some to think the whole thing is fake (see the James Foley talk page). While that video, and to a lesser degree the Sotloff is questionable, in my opinion the Haines corpse looks very realistic and unlikely to be faked.

As far as uploading the video to Commons I'm positive that it will be deleted and rejected by quite a few admins. I think there needs to be a policy or Jimbo discussion to see how far our wp:Notcensored ideology goes against community values and possible legal issues.~Technophant (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant: and everyone else: Do we have enough reliable sources to justify a "Manner of beheading" section in this article? I believe that we have two or three sources (including the story linked to in my first sentence) in the article about James Foley. Is this enough?

Also, where would I start the discussion about uploading and displaying the actual videos? Would it be better if they were External links? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I found an article by the NYT here that has a full transcript and description of the video. There's been some debate as to how much of the transcript or description to use, like in the Sotloff video. Originally I put the full text of Sotloff's speech in the article, but it was removed for being too much detail or undue weight. Then I put it as a footnote where it has remained. There's a lot of censorship regarding these videos. In Britain citizens were threatened by the head law enforcement official (see Foley article) with criminal charges for viewing the video.~Technophant (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have just added this section in the Village Pump about whether we should include the videos in Wikipedia. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thwarted Australian beheading plot

I can't seem to find any mentions on Wikipedia of the recent thwarted Australian beheading plot. This would be the place to put it. [2], [3], [4], [5], etc.~Technophant (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Split section David Haines to own article

David Haines is not just a notable crime (WP:BLP1E), he also seems to qualify as a notable person for his career as humanitarian aid worker - risking his life in dangerous areas of the worlds to help thousands of people. This section was forced to be put into this article as part of the general censorship of his name debacle. Due to the undue weight put on this list of events, and that this person meets WP:Notability (person) I think this split should be made.~Technophant (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent beheading in Oklahoma

Just in the news a recently terminated worker at a food distribution plant who has been described as a recent convert to Islam beheaded a co-worker and stabbed another. It's too early to say if this person is responding to Abu Mohammad al-Adnani's call to "kill a disbelieving American or European". Please remember to follow WP:BLPCRIME and not name the suspect in this discussion. ~Technophant (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If someone has been arrested for a crime, and charged as this individual has, and their name has been published in numerous newspaper around the world, (2,360 news stories with his name at Google News, currently) we cannot unring the bell by censoring the name here in a misinterpretation of WP:BLPCRIME. The past practice at Wikipedia has been to include the name of the arrested person, without any assumption of guilt. I agree with not including the name if the person is only a suspect and has neither been arrested nor indicted. The incident should not be included unless it is related to the ISIL atrocities by reliable sources. Edison (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Edison Agreed. WP:BLPCRIME applies to articles, but not talk pages as far as I know. There's plenty of evidence to suspect this person was influenced by ISIL, however until the trial is over, or the FBI releases something (they usually don't) it can't be confirmed.~Technophant (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Self-differentiation by decapitation?

The lead states " Max Abrahms posited that ISIL may be using well-publicized beheadings as a means of differentiating itself from Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)," According to the main article, ISIL had been Al-Qaeda in Iraq. This either needs to be clarified or deleted. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Al-Qaida threw them out in February 2014, after 8 months of negotiations; reportedly they objected to the Iraq-Syria merger. (I don't know how much them not wanting to call al-Baghdadi caliph and swear loyalty figures into it...) The ISIS article actually has this, but it's tucked away in an odd spot and not treated as definitively as it should be. We should keep in mind that (as the ISIS article explains) virtually every name change involved some kind of merger, change in leadership, declaration of loyalty etc.; none of the named predecessors are precisely equal to ISIL, and the declaration of a universal Islamic State represented another major shift in doctrine after that. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Beheadings in Libya

As beheadings carried out by ISIL-linked terrorists in Algeria and Pakistan have been mentioned, shouldn't we mention also the beheadings perpetrated in Libya in the last days by militants which have declared allegiance to ISIL?--2.35.5.21 (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and also the alleged beheading plot in the UK http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/20/trio-court-alleged-beheading-plot-terrorism Legacypac (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Abdul-Rahman Kassig also known to us as Peter Kassig

This Whitehouse briefing refers "Peter Kassig" as "Abdul-Rahman Kassig". It says, "... Abdul-Rahman Kassig, also known to us as Peter.". I think we should mention this at appropriate place.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 05:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

His conversion and name change (both of them while in captivity and being beaten regularly) is mentioned in the section on him. I guess the question is, did he convert and change his name try to save his life and also prevent the regular beatings? If so, it's pretty much just an "aka" for survival's sake, although one his parents and supporters picked up and used to also try to prevent his being killed. Softlavender (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

exactly - and the NYT article confirms this. See excerpts below. Anyone who has not read that well researched piece is not qualified to give an informed opinion me thinks. Legacypac (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I vote: for now, go with what WH and family say; then later when family publishes an obituary/talks to the press/holds a memorial service, defer to the name they choose. FourViolas (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You have to remember that anything that comes out of the White House vis-a-vis terrorists is a political statement, and worded for maximum geopolitical impact. Thusly: "ISIL's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own." Therefore, WH statements are not WP:NPOV; it's much more reliable to base information on the uninvolved WP:RS press. Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. His parents' statement of yesterday calls him only "our son" or "our treasured son," which doesn't settle it.

Ugh, I don't think my nose is hard enough to work on this article. What a tragedy. FourViolas (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If his name was Abdul Rahman Kassig at the time of death, shouldn't that he be addressed as such consistently? I mean even Muhammad Ali is consistently called Muhammad Ali in his article and it's only mentioned once that he was born Cassius Clay. Myopia123 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed the name to Abdul-Rahman Kassig since no one responded and I think the white house's statement is a reliable source for that. I did it since no one responded to the above comment. I am open to discussing the change and if you feel I jumped the gun, feel free to revert and then we can discuss. Myopia123 (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, most of the U.S. was asleep during those hours. I don't agree with the change; as noted above, and per FourViola's argeement, the White House is neither an objective, neutral or unbiased source. We should be relying on objective neutral sources like BBC, NY Times, and HuffPo (and I haven't checked what any of them are calling him). And by the way (correct me if I'm wrong), his legal name was and is still Peter, not Abdul-Rahman. The only way a U.S. citizen can legally change their name is by signed court order within the U.S., and since he wouldn't have been able to do that, he is actually still Peter, no matter what his aka was during captivity. Softlavender (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, this is how the BBC headlines him: [6]... and HuffPo: [7]Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

And the New York Times, probably the most reliable of them, gives Peter: [8]. Since Peter is still his legal name, and he changed his aka under duress, I still say go with Peter. Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Under duress? How do we know that? And what if NYT is unique in it's editorial policy on naming US citizens - is that the same thing as reliability? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

To say that it was under duress without sources would be original research. As far as I know, sources currently say he willingly converted to Islam. The official facebook page run by his parents says Abdul Rahman as does NBC. In this link The Guardian his parents specifically say that he should be referred to as Abdul Rahman and not Peter. Myopia123 (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

And the legal name thing doesn't make sense to me. Iggy Pop, Slash, Honey Singh all have legal names which are different from what they actually go by. It is not necessary to change your name when you convert to Islam so just the fact we know he went by a different name should be indication enough. And well, at the end of the day we can't really ask him, so since his relatives have also said it should be Abdul-Rahman then I think it should be Abdul Rahman. Myopia123 (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Iggyp Pop, Slash and Honey Sinng were not held under conditions of mock executions, real executions of torture, witnessing beheadings etc, when they took stage names.108.18.64.197 (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• The preponderance of sources has clearly been Peter Kassig. Any argument to use the last minute name change would rely on some kind of original argument -- and if we were to resort to that, the bottom line would be that throughout history, whenever any religious doctrine makes itself mandatory, it inevitably becomes impossible for people to make a convincing statement of belief in it. Also, Wikipedia tends to require some evidence of use of a new name before believing it. Wikipedia at times goes too far on this - notably, using Cat Stevens rather than Yusuf Islam for an article title - but changing the main use of the name here would be absurd. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, just throwing it out there, Dave Chappelle is an example of someone who converted to Islam without changing their name. Myopia123 (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand how we can judge that name-change to have been "last minute". I certainly think the wishes of his parents should be respected here. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. However, it appears that someone has gone ahead and changed it back to Peter Kassig - Myopia123 (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the consensus it should be Peter. There is no legal name change to Abudul Rahman. The idea that duress is unproven when the other captive mention mick executions, rape, and murder in front of captives eyes is abusurd. The duress is already explicitly shown. 108.18.64.197 (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Making statements like the IP user just did without any sources or data is what is absurd. Myopia123 (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• See the discussion here. First, we should of course reflect what the RSs report about his Islamic name. Second, as to what our primary name is to refer to him, we follow wp:common name ... and follow the RSs (not the White House, or any "official" name -- though there is not even any evidence that he "officially" changed his name, or any "unofficial name at his death but we understand he was using it at the time of his death", or cherry-picking one or two RSs rather than doing a search to see which usage predominates). And the RSs point to Peter Kassig predominately. Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that because most were published before he changed his name? And because he was killed shortly after he changed it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your argument that "there is not even any evidence that he "officially" changed his name" is rather an odd one. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter Kassig name debate 2nd section

I've reverted the effort to change the section header Peter Kassig, which has many articles linking to it, back to that name as it is his more commonly appearing name in RSs. That it our test, per wp:commonname. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't an "effort" it was an edit. Maybe the name "commonly appears" in sources that were published before he changed his name? How does the number of articles linking to this section header affect whether it's right or wrong? Are you sure that's not the list of articles linking to this entire article? By the way, this topic is being actively discussed two threads above. Do we respect name changes only if the individual stays alive? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't, per wp:commonname ("Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources"), necessarily use the official (though in fact there is no indication that he made an official name change) name of the person, but rather the name that has been most commonly used by the RSs. Here, it is overwhelmingly Peter Kassig. Epeefleche (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Depends on which WP:RSs are used in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC) p.s. how exactly would he have made "an official" name change in his situation?

That's completely wrong. It doesn't depend on which RSs are used in the article. Please re-read wp:commonname. And then revert yourself. You made that change on an incorrect assumption, that is not supported by our guidelines. Our guidelines look to which name is most frequently used in English language RSs -- not which is most commonly used in an RS you cherry-pick for the article. And a simple google search (and more in-depth review of the sources to see which are RSs) shows an overwhelming preponderance of the use of the Peter Kassig name. You are, just outside the 1RR timeframe, re-reverting based on a non-guideline view (that we follow the lone RS you quote), rather than the guideline which is exceedingly clear on this point and contrary to your view.

And as to your query "how would he have made an offical name change in his situation," your very query shows you are not reading the guideline. First, I of course agree that he could not make an official name change in his situation. Thus, he did not. We can agree on that. And dispense with that. But even if he had done so, our guideline states: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". And that points to using Peter Kassig -- whatever his official name is, or might have been had he had a chance to mail in a change-of-name form. Epeefleche (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What sources have I "cherry picked" exactly here? Would you care to expand on the list of articles that link to that section heading? And what am I supposed to be reverting again? You think the BBC report is a "lone RS"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

We should use both first names but note that the new name was acquired while in captivity. The change was clearly made under duress (no matter how voluntary it may have been) and not his legal name or commonly used. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is that "clearly"? I thought we had to rely on reliable sources here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, this is the second time you've been asked that question. I really want to know where you got this info from about his conversion under duress. While we're waiting for Legacy to break out the RS's here is a fact in a very general context: if, hypothetically, his conversion was under duress, then according to Al-Baqara 256, it is null and void. Myopia123 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Myopia123 some quotes about Kassig from [9] "The militants also discovered that Mr. Kassig, the aid worker from Indiana, was a former Army Ranger and a veteran of the Iraq war. The punishment for any perceived offense was torture. “You could see the scars on his ankles,” Jejoen Bontinck, 19, of Belgium, a teenage convert to Islam who spent three weeks in the summer of 2013 in the same cell ... said of him (Kassig). “He told me how they had chained his feet to a bar and then hung the bar so that he was upside down from the ceiling. Then they left him there.” Mr. Bontinck said. “Most people would say, ‘Let’s convert so that we can get better treatment.’ Former hostages said that a majority of the Western prisoners had converted during their difficult captivity. Among them was Mr. Kassig, who adopted the name Abdul-Rahman, according to his family, who learned of his conversion in a letter smuggled out of the prison. Only a handful of the hostages stayed true to their own faiths...(they single out Slotoff as one) Those recently released said that most of the foreigners had converted under duress... When the guards brought an English version of the Quran, those who were just pretending to be Muslims paged through it, one former hostage said. (then only singles out Foley as seeming to genuinely convert). “I am obviously pretty scared to die,” Mr. Kassig wrote in a letter recently published by his family. “The hardest part is not knowing — hoping, and wondering if I should even hope at all.” Legacypac (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The article actually says this: "Jejoen Bontinck, 19, of Belgium, a teenage convert to Islam who spent three weeks in the summer of 2013 in the same cell as Mr. Foley, said of him..." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The article does not say that Kassig converted under duress" it says "Those recently released said that most of the foreigners had converted under duress, ...". That's a misreading of the article. Apparently I can't revert your addition of the words "while under duress" for 24 hours. I believe what you have put there is wrong. So I guess it will have to stay wrong for 24 hours. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. I believe it is not proven that it was under duress yet. Myopia123 (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable Myopia123 you are simply protecting your position at the expense of evidence- if you can't get from that article that ALL the hostages that converted did so under duress you have NO idea what duress means. Anyway my edit [[10]] was 100% correct and should not have been reverted. Go read this article about a reporter held in similar circumstances (sounds like with Foley, though it does not specify exactly but they were both held in the same allepo children's hospital) for how the Nusra guards tried to force submission to Islam. [11]

Legacypac, I'd say your edit was at best 50% right and a very good example of how a reliable source can be misinterpreted to suit a given position. As you admit it does not specify exactly. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not find it acceptable to make a wider generalization from a specific story. If we were to go down that road, I would point out that in the same article, it says it was evident very soon that converting to islam would not help. I could also make another generalisation: Peter Kassig was a US Army Ranger. He was a highly trained soldier serving in a unit whose sole purpose is to skull stump terrorists wherever they can find any. I'm pretty sure a ranger could've withstood anything ISIL threw at him. BUT, we're kind of leaving the realm of reliable sources and starting to perform some original research, aren't we? Myopia123 (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, where does it say in that article that he, Kassig, was being tortured? This is reason you have given in your edit summary for reverting Myopia123 . Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, you're starting to act like that Signedzzz dude. Revert yourself and let's talk it out. -Myopia123 (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Near the top of the article is one place: "The story of what happened in the Islamic State’s underground network of prisons in Syria is one of excruciating suffering. Mr. Foley and his fellow hostages were routinely beaten and subjected to waterboarding. For months, they were starved and threatened with execution by one group of fighters, only to be handed off to another group that brought them sweets and contemplated freeing them. The prisoners banded together, playing games to pass the endless hours, but as conditions grew more desperate, they turned on one another. Some, including Mr. Foley, sought comfort in the faith of their captors, embracing Islam and taking Muslim names." The article goes on to name Peter Kassig, as does the description for the accompanying graphic just below this statement. This source says he was tortured. Where is the source that says he was not tortured? Especially since he was a former American Army Ranger (as the article points out) - and that he was beheaded - are you seriously suggesting he was not tortured? Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Dude, calm down. What I'm saying is that until you have a source that specifically states he converted under duress, it cannot be added. Just as there were a bunch of people debating, not long ago, "that since you can't see the actual decapitation of Foley, that means it never happened and it's staged". I found Wikipedia guidelines which prevented such original research from being added to the article to be very useful and well-thought out then. And I am sticking by them, and reliable sources, now. Myopia123 (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123 questioned "where does it say in that article that he, Kassig, was being tortured?" which I responded to with a quote because appearently that editor did not read the article. I find the implication of that question very strange because it suggests Peter was not tortured. My edit says he was under duress and he converted. 2 facts supported by all the reliable sources. I did not write that "he converted because he was under duress." If you want to dispute sourced facts you need to provide RS that say the facts are different. Why should we have to suffer this dissection of plain English? Now I suggest putting back in the material and cite that was deleted. And by the way, the NYT article has been cited by CNN and a number of other news outlets worldwide. Why an editor would delete it as a cite here is beyond my understanding. Legacypac (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The wording/phrasing you chose was clear POV pushing.Myopia123 (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Jejoen Bontinck was describing the torture of James Foley who was his cell-mate. Essentially that article is about Foley, and just includes some mention of Kassig. I think you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick there. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree w/Legacy that "Peter" is the more commonly used name. It thus is our lead name - though the other as Legacy says should of course be mentioned, as well as the timing and circumstances. Also agree with Legacy that Peter is his legal name as well -- though even that in itself is not determinative. But rather what I have quoted above from our guideline. @Martin-you cherry-picked one lone source and asserted that as your basis for changing the title of the section name -- that's not how wp:commonname works. As I've quoted it to you above, that should be clear. Epeefleche (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Plenty more cherries out there, I think. Still waiting to hear about articles linking to that section heading. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

So are we going with Peter just because it is more WP:Notable? - Myopia123 (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 ISIL beheading incidents → 2014 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant beheading incidents – Alternatively, you can pick either Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant beheading incidents or Beheading incidents by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or Beheadings by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. "ISIL" must be spelled out completely as it's not consistent with titles containing "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". If these proposals do not work for you, would you suggest another title. George Ho (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose because it just seems unnecessary. This is going to end up being a much ado about nothing kind of debate. Myopia123 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per examples compiled at WP:SHORTFORM. bd2412 T 20:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412 and Myopia123: There were past requested moves; see Talk:2014 military intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. --George Ho (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Moratorium. --George Ho (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Can I just put in a request that whatever the page is called, the word "incidents" be stricken from the title? It seems bizarre and clinically remote to refer to beheadings as "beheading incidents". Why not simply refer to them as "beheadings"? Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I would support removing "incidents" from the title as unnecessary verbosity. bd2412 T 21:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

What Klaas and BD said. Pretty obvious ... how did that creep in there in the first place? Omit needless words. Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, then 2014 ISIL beheadings it is. --George Ho (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above two editors, and per WP:COMMONNAME. Can redirect any of those to this article, however. Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• I would support 2014 ISIL beheadings. Myopia123 (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment "beheadings" would be inaccurate and extremely prejudicial to the living persons hostages mentioned currently or in the future, in the article. I'm sure the family of the next captive will not want to see their loved one listed in an article preemptively titled "beheadings"! Softlavender (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's no living people in the article currently, and even if they were, would the families feel a lot better if it was left right now as 'beheading incidents'? And does WP:BLP apply to this article? Wouldn't it only apply to the actual articles of the people in question - Myopia123 (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, listing a living person as a beheading is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Peter Kassig was listed in this article on October 3, six weeks before he was beheaded. Since the ISIL has been announcing their next beheading target immediately after each one, it is to be reasoned that another living person will end up on this article, for a month or more before they are either rescued, released, or killed. It is a firm violation of BLP to announce or imply anyone's death or execution as a fact before it has actually occurred, and being listed prematurely in an article titled "beheadings" would be exactly that. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Any inclination to move the title to 2014 ISIL beheadings requires a new and separate publicly posted move discussion/request. Softlavender (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced...Peter Kassig was listed in a section called "Threatened Beheadings", which seemed very relevant and would address the issue of predicting a beheading. And even if the title is left as is, the exact same confusion has the potential to occur, since the difference between "beheading incidents" and "beheadings" is not that much. Also, according to my autocorrect, "beheadings" is grammatically incorrect but I don't know how accurate my autocorrect is. My vote is to just leave the page as it is. - Myopia123 (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no arguing with Wikipedia policy. A move request cannot be so radically changed midway without a new and separate publicly posted move discussion. The original and publicly posted request focused only on the spelling out of the organization. Removing the word "incident" and thereby implying the fait accompli beheading of every person listed or to be listed in the article, requires an entirely different publicly posted discussion. Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Move requests often result in a consensus to move to a compromise title different from the original proposal and arrived at over the course of the discussion. You are, of course, free to provide notice to any relevant WikiProjects as to the current direction of the discussion. bd2412 T 02:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This new title is not a "compromise" and has absolutely nothing to do with the original proposal, as I mentioned above. Newly arrived-at titles in the middle of move discussions only happen acceptably when there is a similarity in purpose between the originally proposed move and the newly proposed solution. The new proposed title in this discussion is in no way represented in purpose or in wording by the publicly posted move request, therefore no one except readers of this Talk page will know this radically different title is even being considered. Move discussions are supposed to be public, for exactly that reason: so that the entire Wikipedia community can weigh in, not just the few people (in this case 34 or less) who have the Talk page on their Watch List. Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I knew this was going to be a much ado about nothing type discussion. Myopia123 (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, your last statement "My vote is to just leave the page as it is" contradicts what you said an hour or so previously: "I would support 2014 ISIL beheadings" so you should probably strike one of those for clarity. Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment shouldn't it be 2014 Islamic State beheading incidents...? That is their new name, and as that bloody caliph of theirs was gloating about today,^[12] they "give you good news by announcing the expansion of the Islamic State to new lands, to the lands of al-Haramayn and Yemen... to Egypt, Libya, and Algeria. We announce the acceptance of the bay'ah of those who gave us bay'ah in those lands, the nullification of the groups therein, the announcement of new wilayat for the Islamic State, and the appointment of wulat for them. We also announce the acceptance of bay'at given by the groups and individuals in all of those mentioned wilayat and others." Wnt (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment George Ho, Myopia123, Zachary Klaas, bd2412, Epeefleche, Softlavender, As a regular editor of the ISIL pages who has spent a lot of time on the subject I would recommend 2014 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant beheadings or 2014 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant beheading incidents. To me 2014 ISIL beheadings treats the subject lightly. When someone is brought to court on a charge before a judge, the court does not refer to the defendent by abbreviation or acronym. This is not how this type of content should work. I also would not like people to joke that there could have been or were 2,014 ISIL beheadings.

Wnt please refer to the long discussions and related Moratorium on requested moves associated to the Wikipedia designation of this group. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ummm, I would think that the move for this article either is or isn't under the moratorium, but certainly there shouldn't be a moratorium against moving it to the right name but not against moving it to the wrong one. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think it is necessary to spell out the group name but not a big deal if we do spell it out. I would support dropping the 2014 as we will shortly be in 2015 and I doubt the beheadings will stop by year end. I strongly oppose going against the move moratorium on the ISIL article which would apply to any change to just "Islamic State" here or elsewhere. Legacypac (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neither execution or murder but killing. NPOV issue

"Execution" implies legality while "murder" implies illegality. Neutral wording such as killing should be used. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe same debate occured at Jihadi John at some point between the exact same words. Maybe following that example would save us a debate? Myopia123 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In english "execution" is commonly used to refer to gang and cartel killings too. Executions are deliberate, planned and often public. I do note that here Execution redirects to Capital punishment. Legacypac (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

In this I was taking up the argument presented by PBS and I think it valid. Executes has the wrong connotations.

Suggestion the article should be moved to "Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", a lot of captives get killed that are not necessarily beheaded. This would fit in as main article to Category:Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Murder

The assertion that ISIS has not committed murders because there is not a court determination (and the deletion of the cat on that basis) is wrong. Where the RSs call it murder, it is murder for wp cat purposes.

Otherwise, of course we would never have for example a "murder-suicide." Nor the category Murder–suicides. And here we have the UN calling it murder, as well as various country leaders (just check the article), etc., in addition to the RSs. It's all very nice and sweet to worry about the ISIS killers in this regard, but it is wrong-headed. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

One typically gets arrested for, or at least charged with, murder. In war, killing is simpler. You kill us, we kill you. And so forth. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The article title

Why is the article titled "incidents"? Shouldn't be "executions" more accurate? - Wuvixx (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, since they've also started burning people alive as well, maybe a more generic term would be more suitable. "ISIL Executions" or "ISIL Execution Videos" or "ISIL Murders" or something along those lines...Myopia123 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

People are also shot, burned, dropped from high buildings.

I tried to change the title but it was re-done. -- Simplicius (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Use the proper page move discussion process. WWGB (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 13:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

---

ISIL beheading incidents → ISIL show killings – It's clear that the beheadings, the burnings, and other deliberately barbaric video-recorded killings of defenceless victims are all part of a single phenomenon: killings designed to be seen and to shock. I've used the term "show killings" by analogy to "show trials" -- if anyone can come up with a better name, please do The Anome (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Show killings" is an emotional and value-laden term that has not been used widely in mainstream media as a common term for the events. WWGB (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Really? I'm using the word "killings" to be deliberately neutral, and not to get into the whole murder vs. execution thing: and they are clearly both killings, and also a "show": self-consciously staged to shock the viewer and make a political statement. How about the term "ISIL staged killing videos", then?-- The Anome (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I would be more comfortable with something like ISIL filmed killings. WWGB (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That would be OK with me, but one tiny nit: "filmed" is a bit of an outdated term, and I've not seen any evidence that these were higher than video quality. Can that be improved? "Videotaped" might also not be the right term: many cameras now record directly to solid-state media. "ISIL killing videos" might be a good term, but it makes the videos the subject, and perhaps inappropriately de-emphasises the fact that these were barbarous killings of defenceless people. "ISIL staged executions" might also be an appropriate title, as well, but it gets into the murder vs. execution terminology debate we've seen above, and the key thing is not the staging, but the recording or distribution to a world audience. -- The Anome (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Can we close this RM due WP:SNOWBALL. The name that is suggested is not even used by reliable sources. Mbcap (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
• Provisional support. In a google search on "show killing" all the results initially scanned seemed to relate to ISIL/Islamic State. The incidents are killings that are presented on video so as to be shown to as wide an audience as possible so the title achieves the fundamental requirements of AT.

I think that it is also notable that a search on (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") AND "beheading incident" got just one result in news. Incidents that are reported include shootings, throat cuttings and now the burning of a Sunni Muslim POW. "Beheadings" does not cover the potential scope of an article. Wikipedia already has an article on Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which covers incidents whose reports have been sourced through a variety of channels. I think that an article relating to materials sourced through the groups propaganda efforts also has a place here. The only issue as far as I am concerned relates to the most appropriately descriptive title that might be applied to the article. GregKaye 19:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Obvious POV shove attempt. Should speedy close. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 03:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - title suggested is an emotionally laden word and POV. These incidents are commonly referred to as beheadings. Mbcap (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Khaled Sharrouf & Mohammed Elomar

Not confirmed, but two of the Australian 'jihadis' involved in the beheadings may have been killed. Source & Another. They might have been killed at the same time in Mosul this week, possibly in a drone attack. Just a heads-up in case it is confirmed. 220 of ^Borg 12:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

WWGB per your edit [13]. I was wondering if Mohammed Elomar was the same person as Mohamed Ali Elomar. You certain? 220 of ^Borg 13:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@WWGB: According to this [14] ABC source from September 2014 'Mohamed Ali Elomar' is in jail still, and is the uncle of the boxer who went on to fight with ISIS and is now, possibly, dead. Just to confuse the issue there is also a boxer named as 'Ahmed Elomar' [15], previously arrested in Lebanon for suspected "militant activity", that the source says is the same person now reported dead. 220 of ^Borg 16:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

OMG! There are two brothers named Elomar, both boxers, Ahmed and Mohamed! [16] I wonder if the sources are confusing the two? (plus their uncle 'Mohamed Ali' Elomar) - 220 of ^Borg

Sorry, my bad! Correct name restored. WWGB (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No problemo, I learned a few things chasing the names down. 220 of ^Borg 03:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Why doesn't IS victim Peter Kassig have his own Wikipedia article when the others do?

Why does cab driver Alan Henning get his own Wikipedia article but "Peter Kassig" (who had, before his kidnapping, appeared on CNN) redirects here to 2014 ISIL beheading incidents? I would assume Kassig had at least as much coverage as Henning did. David Cawthorne Haines and Steven Sotloff also have their own Wikipedia articles. If Kassig isn't considered notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article, why are the others notable enough? Eaqq (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

He probably is notable enough for his own page. Epeefleche (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

One reason and one reason only: because you haven't started it yet. You can edit Peter Kassig and make it an article instead of a redirect. (Just click on the "redirected from ..." part, which lands you at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Kassig&redirect=no ) Wikipedia is nowhere near complete - for every page we have you can easily name ten we ought to. You might face a discussion about whether a separate page is needed per WP:BLP1E but you've alluded to prior independent notability that should prevail provided your page documents it with good sources. So far the media has been pretty good about doing biographies of the people being killed, so it ought to end up as a decent article. Wnt (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of "the others" don't have articles. The overwhelming majority here don't even have names. Six paragraphs for Kassig, two lines for eighteen soldiers. The media has been "pretty good" about focusing on a very specific sort of victim, and enumerating the rest. Not particular to this article, or even Wikipedia's fault, but still craziness. Imagine the weeks of features we'd get if twin Yemeni bombings killed seven Americans. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Why would Kayla Mueller have an article about while Peter Kassig does not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuvixx (talk • contribs) 09:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question. Bring it up in the talk section about renaming her article after the event. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter Kassig needs his own article so that most of his table entry can move there. Right now the level of detail in his entry is inconsistent with that of the other entries. TheBlinkster (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)