Talk:Steven Sotloff

Execution image

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Steven_Sotloff_execution_image. -- GreenC 04:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I boldly removed this propaganda image, issued by murderers, from the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it has WP:NOTNEWS issues which make it unsuitable as an infobox image for a BLP article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Image has been nominated for deletion. Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_September_5#Steven_Sotloff~Technophant (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Fake?

Are editors ignoring claims that the video is fake? NorthernThunder (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Didn't take Infowars long to start spreading a conspiracy theory. [1] IRW0 (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not possible to 100% prove anything physically since the sources could be manipulated. To me it seems there is more evidence of it being staged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.183.26 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Censorship

Please be advised that Wikipedia does indeed censor. Despite this: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored The article contained a reference to an individual's name and a link to their Wikipedia article, and somebody didn't want the name there. The article was speedy deleted and scrubbed from existence so you can not see the AFD, and further more the request to undelete the article was censored and scrubbed. This is despite the fact that the individual's name has been widely reported in the news world wide, and despite the fact that the unique name is referenced on over 16,000 news articles (per Google) including news articles in the person's own country (which was not the United States) While I have no issue with the individual not having enough notability to warrant their own biography, I take issue with the censorship preventing its reference in all related articles as it it of world wide significance and the world was already informed if the situation and the person involved.MeropeRiddle (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC) The deletion review is here and has been supressed: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_September_4 Additionally, I am having a conversation here, if anybody is interested in a reasonable discussion and not arguing: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Guideline for crime victims of world wide significance

It's not unusual for people to call various policies, eg WP:BLP, censorship. That doesn't make it so. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please first be advised that I respect you and am not looking for an argument. I wanted to have the majority of this discussion elsewhere, and also want to let people know that this article can not mention an unmentionable indivual's name that has been reported world wide and is included in this extremely notable situation that has the world's attention. The fact that somebody cited "Ignore All Rules" to remove the article, scrub related articles, and scrub the ability for somebody to even try to discuss the content is indeed censoring the name from the site. Depsite the fact that the site has a "does not censor" policy thing. This is a measure that should have a guideline of some sort. An example would be: People forced into notability due to an egregious crime that has captivated the world, and despite being identified by news outlets around the world, may have all references of their name removed from Wikipdeia out of respect for their fammily due to the sensitive nature of the crime by members of wikipedia that have permissions above and beyond Administrator. Removing these references may include scrubbing requests to undelete articles and requests to change policies and guideline. This is in the interest of National Security and out of respect for the security of other nations. etc.

In the meantime, people should know that any attempt to mention this unmentionable individual's name may result in the issues that have taken place in this article and other related content, such as other user's contributions to the article being removed so that whoever the oversighter was that scrubbed the reference can get at it to scrub. Since it has been scrubbed and not just edited out, and the history is not retrievable there is no way somebody in the future will know it was removed, and therefore it runs the risk of being re-added. Removing the item and having a guideline in regards to national security or respecting family members of those impacted by an egregious crime of world wide interest/notability would prevent that from happening. That is the conversation I am trying to have. Either Wikipedia censors or it doesn't. If it does, it shouldn't say it does not. If it does, there should be citeable/documented reasonable guidelines.MeropeRiddle (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you read WP:CENSOR? It doesn't say what you think. -- GreenC 17:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED primarily applies to content which is offensive. It does not mean that the WMF cannot remove information that they deem could be harmful to an individual or likely to bring about legal action against the WMF (or its users). Information of this sort can, and has, been removed on a number of occasions. In fact, such a removal is even provided for under the criteria for speedy deletion: see WP:G9. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP is a censorship policy. There is nothing inherently negative about calling it that, and silly to pretend it's not censorship. (It's designed as a good form of censorship.) The question is whether or not the censorship is appropriate in each case. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. IRW0 (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you should check Jihadi John and James Foley as well. If I remember correctly, they also contain information about the person that I think you are referring to.Myopia123 (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, if at some time in the future the reasons for this protection of info are no longer a concern, would the information be reposted or is it removed for good?Myopia123 (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be reposted once the current situation has concluded. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe someone is very keen on reposting the name in question on both this and the Foley pages. It's turning into a bit of an edit war.Myopia123 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

And now they're blocked. They also created an article on the person in question (twice!). As a note, I've also removed the last two paragraphs from the death section: I'm a bit surprised no one else had already got that. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for removing the name, since it is in many, many media; and I certainly don't see consensus for removing 1600 characters of sourced information about the person that covered much more than the name. Citing the block is citing a "consensus" imposed from above, not any consensus here. Wnt (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This article was already suppressed, but due to the suppression, it can't be seen. It can be suppressed at a level where the history is shaded funny and crossed out, and it can also be suppressed further where you cant even see it. When it is suppressed to that level, people don't know it was there, there is no ability to see that it was removed by an oversight team, and therefore it will continue to get added by a multitude of people, who most likely in good faith are adding relevant information in the public domain but not considered appropriate to add here by an oversight team member interpreting a rule that justifies their action despite it not necessarily actually being an obviously referenced guideline of oversight action. THat being said, that was why I put this section here. So everybody would know there is information that shouldn't be entered, because it will get removed, and we can't talk about it or debate it anywhere.MeropeRiddle (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What? How can one rationalise that, the name of the third hostage can be read in Le Monde, The Guardian, Der Spiegel and The New York Times: [2] , but here it must be suppressed? Without consensus. Simply surreal. --91.10.55.83 (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason is that the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office has asked British media not to print the name, regardless of what the rest of the world does. I presume, and have seen allegations in non-reliable sources, but not real evidence, that the DA Notice system was invoked. As a loyal and subservient organ of the British government's not-an-official-war propaganda, and defining WP:NPOV as what the British government feels is best for us, Wikipedia apparently has the duty to participate in this blackout no matter how little sense it may make. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• There's a conversation regarding this at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 115#Guideline_for_crime_victims_of_world_wide_significance~Technophant (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

So simply go to those news outlets to read that specific name, if that is what you want to do. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we don't need to "break" the latest "hot" story. There is NO need to report this name on Wikipedia at this time. If the time comes, sadly, we will publish it. Please ponder the dire implications of your desire to rush this name into an encyclopedia. Even if it is 1/100 % of responsibility. Restraint is best. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: There are no "dire implications". His wife has talked to the media recently and did not repeat the request to keep his name out of the media. She wanted people to know what kind of person he his. We are dishonoring his memory by not writing about him.~Technophant (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I would be more persuaded by talk of dire implications if it hadn't been the damned terrorists who gave us the name in the first place. We're clearly not trying to keep secret information out of their hands. This appears to be a case where we're being told that it's in the national interest to put some "spin" on a story. I don't know what they're afraid of, but the thing is, it's always going to be allegedly in the national interest to put a spin on any story. Wnt (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a related discussion going on regarding this matter at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 115#Guideline_for_crime_victims_of_world_wide_significance.~Technophant (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Censoring sources

An editor Dr.K, who appears to be specializing in reverts, deleted the URL for a source cited in this article because the name was in the URL. I see no consensus to exclude the name, and I do not believe that WP:BLPNAME requires us to exclude the URL. But let us see what those pushing for removal are asking for: is it deletion of sources with the name in the URL, sources that provide the name, talk discussions (like this one) referencing diffs that provide the name, or indeed, the Steven Sotloff article itself because any idiot who "googles" that name will quickly happen upon the other? Wnt (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt: Can you please explain why the personal attack who appears to be specializing in reverts? And can you please remove this attack so that we can have a civil discussion? Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree - Wnt needs to stop commenting on other people in this way. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Doug. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Roughly 1/3 of Dr.K's past 100 edits are marked "revert" in the edit summary. I did not say improper reverts above, leaving that to future evaluation; I have not analyzed them. I'm more curious whether Dr.K was running some kind of script that automatically recognized any addition of the name in Wikitext for reversion, and if so, who arranged for that to happen. Wnt (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that you have to agree that we are not here to analyse the statistics of my edits. If that's what you want, this is not the place to have the discussion. So, one more time, will you please remove this irrelevant comment regarding my editing patterns from this thread so that we can concentrate on matters of substance, not personal comments. Thank you again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I am asking where did you get the notion there was consensus to remove a reference URL? And was this suggested by WP:Twinkle or some related script/bot? Those seven words in my question aren't a big deal; I just want to know if there is some automated Wikipedia mechanism playing into this issue that we need to know about to resolve it. Wnt (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You forgot the other words in your edit, the ones I requested that you retract as irrelevant. I think you should recognise that attempting to label other editors is not on. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a related discussion going on regarding this matter at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 115#Guideline_for_crime_victims_of_world_wide_significance.~Technophant (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Technophant for pointing this out. As a general remark, not directed at you in any way Technophant, I thought that with the dozens of revdels to this and related articles, also on Jimbo's page, noticeboards etc. as well as the related discussion at VP, it would be known by now that there is no consensus that the name of the remaining hostage should be included in any article. But apparently this is not the case. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Your removal is the only case I'm aware of by any editor in which a source link was removed, rather than text of the article. Wnt (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The name was visible as part of the url through a diff and also in article editing mode. In addition the link led to an article which featured the name of the hostage in its title. Given that all previous occurrences of the hostage name were oversighted, I considered the revert of the url containing the name of the hostage to be in the same spirit of caution, although obviously not nearly as watertight as oversight. At the time, I considered that it would defeat the purpose of keeping the name out of the article, if the name were still present in the article albeit in the form of a link and clickable to an external name-identifying source. I consider my revert to be part of a process in which we have to ask ourselves how close do we want to come to actually identifying the name of the hostage and how easy we want to make the process of the identification for the readers of Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

What's surreal here is that many, maybe even most of the sources we can cite for this article will make the name incidentally available. Having the link defeats the purpose, sure. So does linking to another article that mentions it in the text. So does listing the name. There is a real feeling of the sort of British censorship that legendarily banned any mention of the existence of a large visible building in the middle of town. I should add that despite your lack of reply, it's come to my attention that there is some sort of "edit filter" being used (I remember supposedly this was for spam, but that's how censorship works... some flimsy excuse never really limits it): [3]. Also as usual for censorship, I'm not even allowed to read it; what is censored is always secret. I am still curious whether this is what called this reference to your attention. Wnt (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's rather amusing that the Wikipedia censors cannot censor the links still appearing on Google [4]. WWGB (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the good news is that apparently this "edit filter" is being used to scrutinize additions (as I suspected had been done here) rather than to block them entirely. Nonetheless, until I know what those doing the scrutiny are being told about what the motivation is, I don't know if they are being used to fairly evaluate the edits. Wnt (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit filters were never meant to catch spam, we have MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist for that purpose. Some filters do block material as "Abuse filter", its original name, is designed in part to deal with vandalism. I have no opinion on this but until a decision is made I'm backing Oversight. So far as Google goes, it normally takes several days until its caches are purged. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding, as it stands now, is that we are not to use or name or sources that name the British aid worker. With that understanding I've "rescued" the page and placed in my userspace as User:Technophant/2014 Islamic State kidnapping of British aid worker which I welcome other editors to help develop. It's going to take some work finding sources that don't use his name. BBC, and MSNBC are two places I know that are agreeing to embargo. ~Technophant (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Why is there any need to write an article about someone you can't even name on Wikipedia? You could just wait until there is consensus to use their name (which I'm sure their will be at some point) but I guess you just feel the need to make a point. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It has the appearance of challenging Oversight's authority and making some kind of point. -- GreenC 01:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:POINT applies in this situation. I'm compromising between those who want coverage in the area (not just a few editors, 10's of thousands of readers) and the ruling of Oversight, which has never been officially stated.~Technophant (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a silly waste of time, since the page will never see article space as it is. If you want a draft ready to move to article space once there's a final decision, you'd be better off to draft it in a file on your computer. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

When you're dealing with people who are completely insane, everything is a point. It's like hanging out in a meth-head's house. Maybe looking at his dead wife's picture is making a point, maybe turning away is a point. I mean, everything in this article and in this discussion take you straight to the name of the next hostage and reams of biographical material about him. So does this hopeless little lump of a draft article based on the most censored sources. Logic is a disability here, because we're not allowed to know what it is we're not supposed to figure out. Anything that distracts from how reporters are supposed to write articles is unwelcome. You want to make a point, how about deleting Gao Zhisheng because the Chinese government advised it was counterproductive to talk about him.^[5] I mean, if you let that guy go back to a low-profile existence as he "apparently wants to" maybe they won't torture him, and doing no harm is our first and only priority, right? Wnt (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is now sourced and moved into drafts. I believe it is ready to be reviewed and moved into mainspace. I'm having a crisis of consciousness here. How far is too far? I've been researching the reaction of British officials to the Steven Foley video. I found multiple articles saying Viewing or sharing beheading video could be a criminal offence. In in the interest of not causing harm I certainly want anybody to end up with a criminal investigation from following a link in one of our articles, and I just now removed is a link that has the full video here. There needs to be a full policy discussion regarding how much we should, or shouldn't show regarding Al-Furqan Media Productions (original, Arabic) and Al-Hayat Media Center (English) media releases.~Technophant (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of a "full policy discussion" (read, policy) against the video, there is no justification for giving Britain carte blanche to censor whatever it likes. Especially when the claims of illegality are not backed by any prosecutions as 1 in 4 Britons viewed the last one they were threatening about. [6] I don't understand why you would take this step after a week during which the article was already obviously being heavily censored. Are we really so low here that only a few official British-certified government propaganda sources can be used? Wnt (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, I would suggest getting clearance with your contacts at Oversight before moving the article into mainspace. They may need some time to discuss. Otherwise we will be in the same situation with a possible AfD, notification at ANI, immediate action required due to safety concerns, possible blocks for overstep, etc.. this is a highly charged topic involving many editors and administrators, not just the (seemingly minority) views such as those put forward by Wnt. -- GreenC 14:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Emphasis on the seemingly. With MeropeRiddle indefinitely blocked for "creating drama" and "wasting the community's time" by trying to find someplace where people would discuss the undiscussable, some who agree with me may have given up. While of course you are free to harangue us that printing the letter x is illegal and endangers lives if you want. It's never unsafe to claim something is banned, to say more content has to be removed, but this kind of attrition is not community consent. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia strives to be egalitarian most of the time, but not always. For more see my user page. -- GreenC 02:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: I emailed functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org 16 hours ago with some viewpoints of mine along with a request to review this draft article. I will give them a reasonable length of time to respond. ~Technophant (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Article for the video

I believe some of the material here would be more appropriate in an article regarding the film as opposed to giving his biography the additional burdon. Right now there is a large portion of the transcript and additional information that is better suited on an article page regarding the second message film/video as opposed his biography page. Thoughts?IgontusPeverrel (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless the video itself, not merely the actions depicted in the video, has been covered by a sufficient number of secondary, reliable sources, then I don't think it would form a valid article. As such, I have redirected the page you created here. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Originally the video (or perhaps the kidnapping + video) was more deserving of an article than Sotloff, though an abundance of in-depth articles has gradually reversed this. The video is still GNG-notable, and could have an article, but provided we can find room for the content here, there is no great harm in keeping them together. The main point of conflict I notice is the "note" with the speech, which obviously is the work of the captors and not Sotloff. The text, though reasonably relevant as a "long quote about the subject", might present him in a false light, though I assume nearly all readers understand that is involuntary; but it is absolutely on-target for a video article. But it is possible that we don't need to include full text since (so long as) we reference the video directly, this being a summary after all. Provided we don't come apart on the seams on some point like that, we shouldn't need to split. Wnt (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

G S Palmer moved and redirected the stub article for reason of "no individual notability". I disagree, however the article isn't ready. I moved it to Draft:A Second Message to America (film) so it can be developed further (if desired). It's hard to say what this article is about and I think there should be some leeway as to arguments as to undue weight. ~Technophant (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)