Talk:Muath al-Kasasbeh

Requested move 3 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. Incorporating the discussion below (now moved into this section), the consensus appears to be that the lowercase version is more appropriate per our MOS. Number 57 11:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Muath al-Kaseasbeh → Muath Al-Kasasbeh – Name Correction Bahaa.khamees (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the name should be changed to "Muath Al-Kasasbeh" 108.27.38.227 (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, as in article, uncontroversial. Rothorpe (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

But wrong, see below. Rothorpe (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Title of article

Why is he Muath Al-Kasasbeh, rather than Muath al-Kasasbeh? All RS I've seen use Muath al-Kasasbeh. Just curious. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I just came here to ask that very same question. All the sources I have seen use the lower-case letter "a" for "al-Kasasbeh". Why is the capital letter "A" used for the page title? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLD – I've moved it. One source, Sky News, uses Mu'ath Al Kassasbeh. Rest don't. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Decapitalisation of the definite article ("al-") is, in fact, part of our Manual of Style conventions for Arabic. The article is at the correct title now and should not be moved even if news articles capitalise the "al-". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone has changed the name in the article from "Muath" to "Muad". It's not consistent with the title of this Wikipedia article: "Muath al-Kasasbeh". 108.27.38.227 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Common name appears to be "th". "d" and "dh" are less common. Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 5 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.

Retaliatory Executions

There are widespread reports in RS media outlets that Jordan has executed at least two persons in response to the murder of Al-Kasasbeh. I am not going to add anything until we get more details but this may end up needing its own section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be added, in my opinion. There are many, many RS's on this topic. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

February or January death - consensus

People keep changing the month of death from February to January. What should be done? (The January date is based on the Jordanian government's claim.) 108.27.38.227 (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Clearly Jordan doesn't want to admit that they were wrong to demand proof of the lieutenant's existence in the month of February or they could have avoided the horrific death of their airman by these barbaric animals who call themselves agents of Allah and adherents of the "religion of peace". The date of death should be February 3, 2015.71.103.10.69 (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what we call OR and POV. We need RS refs, not editor conjecture. Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

what evidence do you have that the lieutenant was barbarically murdered by these savages in early January? Please site your sources.71.103.10.69 (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple WP:RS say he was murdered on 3 January 2015, e.g. The Independent, New York Times, The Guardian, I'm sure you can find more. Now, it is true that all these sources attribute the information to the Jordanian government. However, there is no suggestion in any of these sources that the Jordanian government is mistaken in that information, so the article should say 3 January 2015 as date of death. (If, in the future, reliable sources emerge supporting a different date, or casting serious doubt on the current date, the matter can be revisited then.) SJK (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It is also highly unlikely that if there were some doubt about this that we would not have heard about it from one or more western intelligence services. In the absence of any reliable evidence to the contrary we should stick with January 3rd. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times is not a reliable source.71.103.10.69 (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't look that carefully, but from what I saw all those sources actually said is Jordan said he died on the 3 January. They don't appear to present any specific doubt about the claim, but they also aren't presenting it as a definitely claim based on their own research he died then. That said, I'm not suggesting we change anything, c 3 January seem fine. As has been said, there's no one who appears to have specifically disputed that date. Notably, ISIS themselves seem perfectly willing and able to use social media to dispute stuff it they feel the need to. There's also been no partcularly credible alternative date emerging. The idea he was killed on the 3rd February doesn't seen that likely. AFAIK, the video was released on the 3rd February possibly in the evening Iraqi time. As several sources have said, the video appears to have been slickly produced and having watched some of the earlier scenes I would agree with that. From the small amount I saw, the horrific murder itself apparently happened during the daylight hours, so if it did happen on the 3rd February, this leaves very little time between the murder and the video being released. While there is a slight chance the whole video was produced in a few hours, this doesn't seem particularly likely. A somewhat more likely possibility is the murder scenes were added after most of the video had been produced, it wouldn't surprise me if they have less production behind them since it sounds like the horrific murder it self was intended to be the focus of that portion. But even this doesn't seem that likely. Further although I have little idea how ISIS distrubtes these but I have strong doubts they upload them from anywhere close to where they're carrying out the murders. Perhaps they use VPNs or other private networks to distribute them, more likely some form of sneaker net. All this ultimately points to it being unlikely the video was released so soon after the murder. It doesn't have to be a month later, but 12 hours or less after the murder, probably not. Nil Einne (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

For now, I think that using the "c." ("circa") symbol on January 3rd is fine. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No mention of torture?

Is it okay describe the execution as torturous? Moaz Kasaesbeh was burned alive and the video uploaded to shoebat (after watching the video I'd rather be water boarded for 4 hours in a row than watch that video again). I just feel like "execution" makes his death seem ho-hum and on par with death by lethal injection, electric chair, or a common abortion procedure. After watching the video, his clothing and hair is seen to be soaked in petrol or kerosene. 71.55.24.101 (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure about torture without an RS source to cite. But I do agree that the term "executed" probably should not be used here as it implies at least a modicum of legality which I have not seen any RS source supporting. I have changed the section heading to "Murder." -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The "shoebat" link appears to be Walid Shoebat at [1]. This is not nearly as long as the video I cite at [2], which runs 4 minutes 54 seconds. However, I just read an article in the Daily Mail that says the original video was 22 minutes and is being played on a loop to cheering crowds in ar-Raqqah. [3] So we still need a better original video link even than The Post to truly get the full picture.

All hyperbole from someone who obviously has never been water boarded aside, what this video ought to inspire in people is an urge to check the smoke detector. It's unusual to film this, not so unusual for it to happen by accident. Wnt (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

-- For those with strong stomachs: [4] I do not feel that a comparison to burning by accidental fire is approriate here, although the physical, (bio)chemical and fysiological processes remains identical. Mfhulskemper (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I am no scientist. But, I have to assume that the addition of gasoline is also a significant difference (between accidental and intentional injury by fire) . Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - this seems (at least superficially - I don't understand the Arabic and alas neither has subtitles added) to be the same as the one released on Fox News [5]. The extra content is a combination of an apparent debriefing about how the attack took place, from what countries, an attempt to justify the burning by showing civilian casualties of some raid (I don't know if it was this one or not), and at the end, a long list of Jordanian trainers and pilots targeted with a 100-dinar bounty. Though it doesn't sound like a lot of money, I suspect this last part does a lot to clarify why the Jordanians were so remarkably ticked off, above and beyond the sheer torture aspect. This really is worth exploring further, though perhaps not in this article. Wnt (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Word choice

I hate to be pedantic in this case, but I will. Only in the goal of improving the article. In this article, sometimes it says that he was "burned alive", at other times that he was "burnt alive". Is there any difference in meaning? Is one correct and the other incorrect? I think it should be consistent. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)~

Both are correct. Which do you prefer? Rothorpe (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No real preference. If I had to choose, I'd select "burned" over "burnt". My real preference is consistency. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Could be because you're from Connecticut. I'm English, so I prefer 'burnt'. But as you brought it up, and are presumably volunteering to make the changes... Rothorpe (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Burned is a verb. Burnt is an adjective. While he was alive, he was being burned. After the fire went out, he was burnt. Here, the emphasis is on the actions of the event, not the corpse's condition, so "burned alive" works best. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe that you are correct. I knew there was some distinction between the two words, but I could not put my finger on it. I thought that "burnt" didn't quite sound right. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Burnt is also a verb in UK English, as an alternative to burned. We also say learnt as an alternative to learned. As the -ed form is understood by all English speakers, that is probably the most appropriate for an international article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon.baldwin (talk • contribs) 22:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Good points. Agreed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Why was he flying over Syria?

Was he bombing it spying on something or was he part of something.....normal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.68.222 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent question. If anyone knows, this would be good information for the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Bombing raid on a brick factory, part of the American-led_intervention_in_Syria. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably had a lot to do with why he was burned instead of beheaded. Eye for an eye stuff. If he was merely spying, they might have merely taken his eyes. Also, bombing is completely normal in a strategic bombing campaign. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Family

The article states: Al-Kasasbeh was one of seven children. I read that he had seven siblings, thereby making him "one of eight children". Does anyone know for sure? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The current source citation in the article says "During his last year in high school, [Muath], the fourth of eight children and the third son, had been planning to go to medical school in Russia, as his mother had long encouraged." So you're absolutely right, the article should be corrected to say that he was one of eight children. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the change. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Murder

The section on murder, essentially, goes into all of the details of his murder. Then, in the last sentence, it ends with "Goto was later beheaded on 30 January 2015." That makes no sense, and it has no real context. It's jarring and out of place. Can someone figure out a better place to put that info? Or rephrase it so that it makes contextual sense in the "Murder" section? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Immolation details

-- I've gone ahead and removed the grisly details of this man's murder. Methinks this is not encyclopaedic content, but belongs to the horror story department. As such, I would deem it out of place on WP. If anyone is interested in the gruesome details reported in the now-deleted paragraph they can be found in the references which I have left intact. Reverts without strict arguments as to why this should be included will lead to an application for a templock and moderator intervention. Mfhulskemper (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Restored the details. Of course it is "encyclopaedic". We report what the RSs state. That is the test. You may dislike all manner of bad things that RSs report, and that WP in turn reports. That's not reason to delete it. It's your POV, but it is not reason to delete properly sourced RS-supported material. You don't have to buy the newspapers, or read the WP articles, but you are not in a position to destroy them. Once we start allowing editors to force their own POV on what RS material they like (so its OK to reflect), we will be in trouble. Your deletion is not supported by wp guidelines. Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I watched the entire 22 min on FoxNews. They were roundly criticized for showing the whole video even though they labeled it graphic content. I think it is inappropriate to give SO much detail here. Also I question the way that the details on the other pilots named at the end is listed. Is it conjecture that this man named them and gave details of where they work (and surely it was where they live since the locations in the video are not airbases but spots in towns). Also repeating the offer of a reward is pointing people toward committing murders. Legacypac (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It is obvious that he would have had a slow and excruciating death. No need to draw out the details here like a snuff film. WWGB (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that some detail is appropriate, if only so those who are not inclined to watch Da'ish's snuff film can learn of them. I do not think anything currently in the article is too graphic. - Nunh-huh 21:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Nunh-huh -- what's at issue are the seven sentences Legacy deleted here. Starting with "One militant lights a torch, and then with it lights a line of fuel in the sand leading toward the cage holding the pilot." All RS-supported material, reported in RSs -- including, largely, NBC News.

I stand by what I said above. If the RSs report it, it's appropriate for us to report it. We should not impose editor POV as to "what is appropriate" to report, in place of NBC, etc. "RS judgment". Once we start doing that, we might as well prepare for deletion of articles on porn stars, the Holocaust, Darwinism, and art reflecting naked people -- because individual editors don't like them as well.

As WP:DONTLIKE states:

"While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see Just unencyclopedic ...). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also Pointing at policy.)"

I'm OK however, on reflection, in our not reflecting the bounty -- if that is the view of the editors -- as there is a safety aspect to consider. Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't you think, that the kind of person who might be motivated to act on such a bounty, is unlikely to get their information from Wikipedia, and if they read it here, they have almost certainly heard it already somewhere else? Wikipedia is hardly some Jihadi hangout. The people who hear it first here are those least likely to act on it. So the actual risk of Wikipedia reporting on it seems minimal to me. SJK (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Definitely we should not censor, but let's keep our sense of scope and not drown the reader in minutiae. An encyclopedia article summarizes the sources; it can't accomplish anything if it repeats them all word for word. So the description should be brief - lines in [6] about the torch and the hand sticking out of the rubble seem like they aren't really necessary. The part about how he jumps around for more than a minute... that is of more fundamental interest, since we need to communicate generally what happened and so far it appears that burning someone to death slowly over a much longer period would be well within ISIS' physical and moral capabilities. Likewise we should communicate the general idea that ISIS put out a list of bounties, but there's no encyclopedic use to listing the names and addresses of everyone they threatened unless and until we start seeing reliable sources run through the list. If and when they're out giving interviews and eventually turn up in key counterterrorism companies or organizations, then we should give the list, but if there's nothing for the reader to follow up with we can leave it to the primary source. I doubt we have to worry much about random Islamists reading the list on Wikipedia and showing up at those addresses, since I imagine what they would encounter after prying open the door would be like a rat trap, only larger. :) Wnt (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:People executed by burning

This article is classified under "Category:People executed by burning". Is that appropriate? I think of that as a category of people who have been executed in the legal sense. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Calling it an execution gives legitimacy to the terrorists who murdered him. ISIS is not a sovereign state and cannot legally perform a judicial execution. This was nothing more than barbaric murder done by savages.71.103.10.69 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 Removed.WWGB (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree with this, though admittedly it is a matter of personal POV. To someone who opposes the death penalty, the distinction between execution and murder (or killing as a religious rite or sacrifice) already seems rather fuzzy. And to say that ISIS is not a sovereign state relies on a concept of international recognition that is often ambiguous. (Did the Taliban execute people? Could Taiwan execute people?) And especially in this case... what kind of "legitimate" sovereign state executes people by burning anyway? I might argue that even ancient nobles who did so deserve comparison to gangsters and thugs, not modern nation states with a pretense of honor and justice. This is a big can of worms, really. Wnt (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said in my original post, the term "execution" indicates a judicial punishment that resulted in a person's death by, in this case, burning. The term "execution" does not (or, rather, should not) apply to incidences of murder. A person's views on the death penalty have nothing to do with this. Even if I were to disagree with the death penalty (which I don't), I could still concede that the death penalty is a judicial punishment meted out by the judicial (court) system. I did not yet do so. But, I'd be interested to see what other articles got classified as "Category:People executed by burning". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Is sharia law really that different under ISIS than in other Islamic regimes like Saudi Arabia? I would expect whoever ordered the burning would be called a judge of some sort. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Calling a person a judge does not make them a judge. I can call myself President of the USA. That does not mean that I am President of the USA. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

But if you presided over the USA, even without the proper papers, you'd be the de facto president. ISIS is the same way. They hold certain territory, and have established certain rules there. When they catch someone breaking those rules, they detain them, judge them and sometimes execute them.

It doesn't matter whether outside authorities, media or riffraff consider it "legitimate". They have no jurisdiction in this territory. They're certainly trying to take it, but might makes right, and currently, ISIS has given itself the right to impose law. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the sentiment that Al-Kasasbeh's barbaric killing was not "legitimate" in any sense of a sovereign government or properly recognized legal authority; that said, what happened is still consistent with the concept of an "execution". While the legality of the circumstances may vary, the one thing that all executions have in common is that the person being killed is helpless and unable to stop the event, while the person or people carrying out the act is in total control of the situation and can kill at will. Thus, at one end of the spectrum, the state may be said to "execute" a condemned convict for a capital offense, while at the other end a depraved serial killer who murders his victims by tying them down to a bed and suffocating them with plastic bags might also be described as carrying out "execution" style killings. If you do a Google News search for "ISIS executes", you'll see plenty of results where news sources describe murders and killings by ISIS as executions. Thus, while I personally find Al-Kasasbeh's murder disgusting and horrible, I don't think we can say his killing wasn't also an execution. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You raise some good points. Nonetheless, of course, this is a matter of semantics. Your post references "executions" versus something else called "execution-style killings". So, my read on it is that (in the latter term) the killing is in the "manner, form, and style" of an execution, yet is not an execution proper. Otherwise, it would not be referred to as an "execution-style killing"; it would simply be called an "execution". So, in other words, it is not an execution, but it "resembles" an execution. Under your theory, an "execution-style killing" is an actual execution, proper, carried out in the style of an execution. That does not make sense. That's like calling a college a "university-like university". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose part of my reaction here has to do when I raised the question of whether ISIS is really recognized as a government at the Humanities Refdesk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2014_November_16#Counterfeiting_coins_of_The_Islamic_State . If they are truly not a state, and not in a position to register trademarks let alone sue over them, it ought to be perfectly safe to make counterfeit ISIS gold dinars out of depleted uranium and gold plating, provided that you tell the people you sell them to what they are made out of. (What they do with them, who knows?) But the balance of opinion there was that ISIS is actually protected under U.S. law as a foreign government. The failure to 'recognize' them diplomatically is a rather nuanced affair; after all, if the U.S. does not formally recognize Taiwan does that mean they need to be excluded from any category of executions? The bottom line though is that the killing of this man was not done by an individual psychopath, nor even a gang (admittedly, the Mexican cartels are a problematic border case, since the media would universally deprecate them as isolated criminals even though they hold de facto sovereignty over territory); it was done by a large number of people occupying an area and pretending (like they all do) to dispense 'justice'. Wnt (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For Joseph: You make reference to a "execution proper". Is there something you can cite to that says executions are only executions if a recognized sovereign or legal authority carries them out? Dictionary.com defines "execute" as "3. to inflict capital punishment on; put to death according to law", but also as "4. to murder; assassinate". Merriam-Websters defines an "execution" as "2. a putting to death especially as a legal penalty", which implies that its usually used as a legal penalty, but might not be. Numerous headlines make statements about ISIS executions, like "ISIS Executes Three Chinese Uighur Fighters Accused Of Defection" or "ISIS Executes Jordanian Pilot Muadh al-Kasasbeh", or "ISIS executes five Iraqi officers in central Mosul". In light of this, how can one say that the concept of "execution" only applies to killings when a recognized legal authority carries out the act? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, this is a matter of semantics. All words in the English language have multiple meanings. The most common definition of "execute" is the one that refers to legal punishment. Sure, other definitions exist. Less prominently so. Now, I can say that I "executed" a spider in my house, when I stepped on it. But that doesn't mean that it's a "real" execution. And, as journalists take great liberty when they write news reports, they are not dispositive of the issue. By your logic, every murder victim is a victim of an execution. I doubt that all murder victims on Wikipedia are listed in the category "executions". I will bet that category is filled with death-row inmates executed by the States. Is Nicole Simpson listed in the category of "executed people"? Why not? Is Laci Peterson? Is the Black Dahlia? Is Sharon Tate? Why not? Because they were murdered, not executed. Perhaps, we need to rename or re-word this "Category" to remove the ambiguity? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Those three were murdered because they were killed within US jurisdiction. Per the law in force there, their killers were tried for murder. The Black Dahlia killers were at least pursued, pursuant to law. The law decided to execute Manson, despite all the things he didn't do, but then changed its mind about executing anyone. It's that court's right, and the court's right to let O.J. walk. Doesn't matter if it was noble or good.

This pilot was executed because he was attempting to murder soldiers within ISIS jurisdiction. That's apparently punishable by fire, and it's that court's right, too. A few years ago, it would've been the Syrian court's right, but somebody figured the power was better off with the people. Assad kept calling the "rebels" terrorist scum, but the West called his rule illegitimate and his story incredible. They're still not on the same page, but at least they found something in common.

If the coalition insists neither the sitting government nor the rebel government are legit, who's supposed to be in charge of justice in Syria? America? The UAE? Britain? Jordan? How would that be legal? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(For Joseph) That's not my logic; most murder victims are not victims of an "execution". What I said was that the one thing all executions have in common is that the person being killed is helpless and unable to stop the event, while the person or persons carrying out the act are in total control of the situation. If I decide I want to try to murder you and I come at you with a weapon and you fight back or attempt to flee (or even decide to willingly just stand there and let it happen), there are many possible outcomes and practically nobody would regard it as an execution. If someone is instead confined, rendered powerless, handcuffed and bound, put on their knees, then shot in the back of the head (or hung from the neck by a rope until dead, or tied to a stake and set ablaze), most people would probably consider that the style in which they were killed was an execution. As an aside, I know you weren't being serious when you brought up stepping on a spider in your house, but we should note that the real reason why that's irrelevant is that the killings of animals are never thought of as executions because they're not human beings, even if the way it is carried out has parallels to a human execution. Moving back to your argument, I do agree journalists do sometimes take liberty with their stories, but Newsweek calling Al-Kasabeh's killing an "execution" by ISIS does lend support to the contention that this killing is commonly being considered an execution. His death is also not an either/or equation; we don't have to decide that the killing was "more like a murder" or "more like an execution". It is both at the same time -- Al-Kasabeh was both "killed by ISIS" and "executed by ISIS". At this point, however, I think it would be more constructive to ask that you define what you feel is specifically required for an execution to be "real", as you put it. What do you consider to be the parameters that must be present for the killing of a human being to truly be an execution? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Use of common sense. A person is accused of a crime; is found guilty of that crime in a court of law; the court of law imposes a penalty of death; the penalty is carried out. That is what I consider an "execution". To think that ISIS followed these processes (or came even remotely close) is very silly and lacks all common sense. They plucked the guy out of the water; held him captive for a few weeks; and murdered him. This is really up for debate? Wow. What crime did the pilot commit? When and where was his court hearing? When, where, and how was he convicted of said crime? Which judge imposed a death sentence? Come on now. I can hardly believe that I am typing these questions. Has this world gone mad? That guy did not commit any crime, nor did they even accuse him of such. They killed/murdered him because he represented some idea that they opposed. He was used as a symbol (of their opposition to US-led air strikes). His murder was symbolic. It was used to "make a political statement". It was not a judicial process. It was not used to punish a criminal for a crime committed. A bunch of thugs walking around with machine guns and murdering everyone in sight is a kangaroo court, not a real court. I find it hard to believe that (some) people don't know this. It's more than obvious. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The pilot isn't just a symbol. That's a bonus. First and foremost, he's a guy who tried to kill the people who caught him. They were opposed to the idea of letting that go. The message is "If you try to set us on fire, we will set you on fire." Basic Hammurabi stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not true. They do not know – neither did they allege – that that specific pilot killed anyone on the ground below. He was part of a larger group that did so (the Jordan military, I guess). So, this particular pilot – whether or not he killed anyone – was used as a "symbol" against the entire Jordan military and/or the entire country of Jordan. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

He tried to kill them, regardless of who he did or didn't kill before. In the link above, they allege all bombers bombing in this bombing campaign are indeed bombing people, and I think you're the first person I've heard from who suggests that isn't their primary job. If they could have burned the whole fleet, they probably would have, but this pilot was the only one who fell from the "You can't touch me!" zone. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I am certainly in line with your reasoning that Al-Kasasbeh wasn't afforded any of the protections of conventional legal systems and the kind of meaningful judicial processes we enjoy in Western democracies. He was a military pilot on a combat mission to bomb a brick factory, following lawful orders and operating well within the customary laws of war as a combatant. After his capture, he was prisoner and should have been protected as such. Obviously, whether the "Islamic State" is signatory to the Geneva Conventions or not is irrelevant and nobody should believe Al-Kasasbeh was really a convicted criminal or other such Jihadi nonsense. I thank you for your sense of humanity. However, now that you've expressed your opinion as to what you feel is required for an execution to be "real", can you point us to an authority or reference to indicate that only a properly convicted criminal, tried in a recognized legal system, sentenced to death by a judge and put to death by a recognized state in accordance with its laws can be said to having been executed? We have reliable secondary sources saying that ISIS executed Al-Kasasbeh, hence we need something more substantive than editor opinion to say this wasn't a "real" execution. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So far as I know ISIS practices Sharia law, which is to say, their executions have the same legitimacy as those done by Saudi Arabia, Iran, or various other Islamic paradises about the world. Wnt (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I know nothing about Sharia law. And I don't have time to read the article right now. But, does that form of "law" allow anyone, anyone at all, to willy-nilly call themselves judge, jury, and executioner? And to willy-nilly kill anyone with whom they disagree? On any perceived or contrived reason, whether legitimate or illegitimate? I'd guess not. But, again, I know nothing about Sharia law. So, I may stand corrected on this issue. If, however, that is the case, why can't I myself personally go out and willy-nilly kill anyone that I want, then contrive some "reason" or "justification", and then just call my actions "Sharia law"? Ridiculous. Obviously. All that being said, I disagree that this is an execution in any legitimate sense of the word and/or the manner in which most English-speaking people understand the word. Nonetheless, I have no problem abiding by consensus. Which I don't yet see. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

The difference between ISIS and anyone at all is that ISIS worked hard to capture, establish and defend the territory they operate within. They became the bosses. Same with any body which imposes capital punishment. If you tried to impose your law, you'd be way overmatched by the government in force where you did it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that there are plenty of sources stating that ISIS "executed" Al-Kasasbeh, I don't think there is much policy support for the contention that it's not a usage in which most English-speaking people would understand the word being used this way. As another aside, I took a look at Category:People executed by burning for the first time just now, and went to the first subcategory on the list, Category:American people executed by burning. I then clicked on the sole entry, William Crawford (soldier). If you read about how he died, it has some direct parallels to what happened with Al-Kasasbeh. Crawford was not at the Gnadenhutten massacre, but he was captured by angry Native American tribesman who executed him by burning him to death (after they tortured him). Likewise, Al-Kasasbeh committed no crime but essentially met the same end in a conflict between two groups. Do you see the similarities? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that earlier. But, that does not necessarily mean that William Crawford (soldier) is categorized correctly. In fact, I am quite sure that his is a very low-traffic article with few, if any, eyes on it. I have never heard of that guy, and neither has anyone else. Since 2009, his article has had 50 edits. That is ten edits per year. That is one edit per month. Hardly a reliable barometer. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(See response below). AzureCitizen (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

And, a further point. Are there not many, many sources out there from legitimate scholars and such (on the subjects of Islam, Muslims, the Koran, etc.)? And are not these legitimate sources saying that this incident is not at all in line with Islam principles, the Muslim faith, the teachings of the Koran, etc.? Is that not what I have seen and read out there? None of those scholars on the subject are referring to this as a legitimate execution. They all call it murder. Am I not correct? Our article, itself, states: ISIL said that the killing could be justified by Islamic law. Clerics and leading figures of the Islamic world roundly condemned it as murder. So, the scholars and experts call it murder (not a legitimate form of execution). And some psychopathic whackos say: "Oh, no, this is legitimate, honest it is. You gotta believe us." And their (self-serving) words trump that of the others (the experts)? Come on. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

While you know I already sympathize with your sentiments, it's probably irrelevant that Islamic scholars and others are decrying it as murder (and here's another ironic headline: ISIS Executes Imams for Condemning Burning of Jordanian Pilot!). Al-Kasasbeh was plausibly "killed", "murdered", and "executed" (besides being "martyred", if you ask the Jordanians); they all apply in various degrees. All of these assertions would be commonly understood and accepted in the English language in their meaning and there is plenty of unrefuted sourcing to support adding the category. I gather you want to hinge the argument on whether or not we can conclude Al-Kasasbeh's execution was legally "legitimate" or "illegitimate," but the category is simply "executed by burning". The category does not appear to require that sort of determination, and it already contains parallel examples like William Crawford. Or am I missing something? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I noted up above: it does not necessarily mean that William Crawford (soldier) is categorized correctly. In fact, you are making my point for me. Out of the gazillions of Wikipedia articles, there is a grand total of one in the category "Americans executed by burning". What does that tell you? In any event, we clearly disagree. And I am amenable to abiding by consensus. Which I do not yet see. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Americans executed by burning" is one of 55 subcategories; many of those subcategories are lightly populated, but at least one of them is extensive ("British people executed by burning," which have over 200 articles). Nonetheless, I doubt you see any of that as being persuasive given the positions you've expressed previously that Al-Kasasbeh's killing is not a "real" execution. We can set that aside again; let's return to the sourcing vs opinion aspect instead. On the one side, we have reliable secondary sources like Newsweek saying "ISIS executed Al-Kasasbeh". On the other, we have your opinion that it wasn't a "real" execution because of who carried it out (the legal status of ISIS, etc). You are unable to point to an authority or reference that backs you up in that regard. We don't have unanimous agreement in this thread, but three editors side with the reliable sourcing while one sides with their own opinion. Is that a fair summation of the situation? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not a fair assessment. Look at the initial three or four entries in this thread. I suggested that the word/category "execution" was inappropriate. Others (plural, not "other" singular) agreed with me. And, in fact, someone else (other than me) actually removed the category. After that initial activity, the thread has basically been a back-and-forth between a small number of editors (two or three, perhaps). Is mine a fair assessment of what has transpired above? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's take a closer look at that then. First, an IP posted a comment agreeing with you, stating that calling it an execution would give legitimacy to terrorists and that it was a barbaric murder done by savages. That was the only edit they made. Secondly, and lastly, another editor posted a single word: "Removed". Obviously, they agreed with your position just like the IP. However, again, neither of them have contributed anything further to the discussion, and neither of them have provided anything further in the way of sourcing, authorities, or references that support your opinions that Al-Kasasbeh was not "executed" when he was killed. Is that a fair assessment? Am I leaving anything else out that you deem important? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you quite "cherry-pick" your assessments and observations. Those other two editors clearly agreed with me. They took action. And then, they presumed the matter was over and done with. And left the page. I can only assume that if they did come back into the discussion, they would side with me. Doubtful that they would make a 180-degree turn. Do you not agree? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the portion above where I said they agreed with you, but that wasn't the relevant thrust of my point. What I was getting at is that they only made a single comment (with the non-IP writing only a single word, "Removed"), and haven't contributed anything more to support your "side" as you put it. They didn't stick around to continue with the consensus building process. They certainly haven't referred us to any reliable secondary sources or authorities that would support your position that Al-Kasasbeh wasn't executed. If they would return and do so, that would be great - it might bring up something new for us to explore. Without new input, however, we have a situation where the sources support "executed by burning" and there are no references or authorities to refute it. Do you have anything else to counter that with, other than personal opinion that he wasn't "executed"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, your point was: "Although they agreed with you, they did not provide any sources." So, yes, I got your point. As I said, these two editors chimed in, agreeing with me, right off the bat. Then, they never came back to the conversation. They probably assumed it was over and done with and, hence, never rejoined the page. They probably assumed it was such an obvious point, that there was no need to come back and defend the position. In any event, this discussion is really just you and me, in a back-and-forth. So, I am willing to abide by consensus. When I see one develop. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Restating again what I said in closing above, reliable secondary sources say he was executed. No sources, references, or authorities have been presented to show that he was not executed. If we have sources saying he "was executed," and only personal editor opinion expressing that he "wasn't executed," the addition of the "executed" category should be permitted. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

And, as I said, when a consensus develops, we can both agree to abide by it. Also: do you really expect a source to say "he was not executed"? Isn't that just plain silly? Why would a source – any source – make a claim, in the negative? That's like a source stating: "Justin Bieber is not the President of the USA." No source is ever going to make that claim, even though it's 100% true, without dispute. Sources do not refer to the negative (i.e., telling us what did not happen). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I've been saying; of course there is never going to be a source out there that says "ISIS did not execute Al-Kasasbeh". When I say "no sources, references, or authorities have been presented to show that he was not executed," I mean that you haven't presented us with any sources, references, or authorities that says that someone is only "executed" when the proceedings taking place therein in are somehow "legal" or "legitimate". You've drawn a distinction that you can't back up with anything other than your own personal opinion. If you are going to continue to refuse to accept reliable secondary sources like Newsweek that say "ISIS Executes Jordanian Pilot Muadh al-Kasasbeh", you should provide your own references or authorities countering it. Why is it that you think you should not have to produce anything other than your opinion that they didn't execute him when reliable secondary sourcing has been provided to you saying that they did? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

As I have said many times, this is a matter of semantics. Sources may use the word "execute". And they are using it as a "sensationalist" substitute for the word "murder". They are not using it in the legal sense that I am referring to (inmates on death row getting executed by lethal injection by the State of Texas, as an example). Furthermore, I am saying that if the category is entitled "execution by burning", that strongly implies the most common use of the word "execution" (i.e., legal killing by the government). If we wanted to include all murders (by burning), why is that category not entitled "Murder by burning"? I would think that murder is a far more common, everyday word. No, when they created that category, they specifically opted for "execution" and not "murder". And my read is because that category contains people "executed" in the primary dictionary definition of "executed" (legal punishment by the government). Not merely people who were murdered. Otherwise, the short and simple word "murder" would have been used. Why is the word "murder" not used in that category? There must be a reason that "they" (Wikipedia editors) chose to go with a narrow and specific word (execution), as opposed to the broad and general word (murder). If your theory holds up, then Wikipedia will not object to changing the name of that category to "murders" by burning. And then, I think that this Jordanian pilot's article would be correctly categorized. And, furthermore, as I have said many times, this is just a discussion between two people (you and me). We need others to weigh in, to get a consensus. And, although I might disagree with that consensus, I would abide by it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Two people, eh? Hulk still agrees we should follow the sources, unless we have sourced reasons to not. In my opinion, we should also not outdent this. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, two people. Can you not see that? The vast majority of this conversation is a back-and-forth between two people (me and AzureCitizen). A few other random posts, yes. From you and one or two others. But, negligible in the overall discussion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You and I may be the main contributors, but you would have to concede that InedibleHulk is still participating and concurs with the rationale that Wikipedia follows the sources, not editor opinions, etc. As InedibleHulk also appears to be making wry commentary on the value of opinion and outdents, I will continue the conversation below so that we can get away from this tightly columned text. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, it is quite telling that all of the "execution by burning" categories are lightly populated. And, the British one has 200+ entries. I suspect that, during the reigns of kings and queens in British history, these were "real" executions, as I have defined them above. In Britain, in the old days, a king/queen can and did have people executed often. Executed, in the legal sense. So, it is indeed telling that all others are lightly populated. And the British entries, who use the term "correctly", have 200+ articles. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, they're certainly distinguishable from mainstream Islam... sort of... Wnt (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(continued from above) Your thoughts about why the category was named the way it was is duly noted and we can further explore what we think the motivations were of the category's creators and/or if the category should be renamed or revised, but the enduring point of disagreement here continues over this contention that someone can only be considered to have been "executed" when it is a legal killing imposed by the government. Nothing has been produced to back that up. You have rightly pointed out that the most common usage of the term is meant to refer to the aspect of being put to death as legal punishment, but the wider user of the term encompasses more than that and the sourcing amply indicates that ISIS is executing people left and right as they continue their reign of terror. For that matter, and for all practical purposes, ISIS is the de facto government in Raqqa and clearly exercises its jurisdiction therein as it pleases. Hence when its orders someone put to death, it is certainly "legal" within the operating boundaries of their self-styled construct, isn't it? Not that much different from Sharia Law in some third world countries and failed states, as others have pointed out. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, to quote Harper lee: I have said all that I have to say. There is nothing else I can add, and my opinion is clear. I can't add anymore comment, without repeating myself. I would like to see more input, other than just two or three people, so that we can get some meaningful consensus. How can we get more people to weigh in? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comments are the usual way. I wasn't trying to be wry about outdenting or opinions, just wanted to finally see a conversation get down to one word per line. I think that was the second closest I've seen. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-neutral point of view

The section entitled "Murder" needs to be changed to "Death" for a neutral point of view. 108.27.38.227 (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anybody in the world, bar perhaps the IP, would dispute that Muath al-Kasasbeh was murdered.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Jeanne Boleyn, I most certainly agree with you. However, unfortunately, some people think that his was a "valid" legal execution, as opposed to a murder. See above section in this Talk Page. My opinion is to keep the section with the "Murder" title; it need not be changed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Having read the above discussion I am only re-enforced in my decision to spend less time editing Wikipedia. Only here would anybody dare consider the burning alive of a human being in 2015 by terrorists a "valid" legal execution.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

For those who oppose the death penalty, or even those who demand it be done only within certain international standards of human rights, this is not an either-or. It is common for a DP opponent to call an execution "judicial murder" in the U.S. ... let alone elsewhere. I would suggest we follow the sources on both counts - if they call it murder and execution, let's not override them based on a logic that is not universally believed. Wnt (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

One thing everyone agrees on, including the sources we use, is that he was killed. I've retitled it, avoiding both the implication that it was by the law and that it wasn't. We haven't seen a death warrant, but we haven't seen an arrest warrant. You'd think if someone committed a murder, they'd be wanted for murder. The US has explicitly said they won't investigate, and I haven't heard whether Jordan or Syria will. Until charges are filed, it's more of an emotional word than a fact.

But did they kill him? Absolutely. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Why does the "murder" section need to be renamed as "killing"? You will notice that this article is included under several categories of "murder" (three or four, I believe). Are those, then, all invalid? And need to be removed? He either was murdered ... or he was not. We should be consistent. Why can we claim that he was murdered, by including him in those three or four "murder" categories? But, then, at the same time, within the article, we can't call it a "murder" and we need to use the euphemism of "killing"? This makes no sense. This is inconsistent and contradictory. Are you saying that all of those three or four "murder categories" need to get deleted? Thanks. This article is included in the following "murder" categories: Category: Jordanian people murdered abroad; Category: Murdered military personnel; and Category: People murdered in Syria. Inclusion in these categories clearly indicates that we at Wikipedia consider him to be murdered. As such, why do we need to "waffle" on that fact, in the article proper? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

They've been deleted for consistency. Thanks for pointing it out. I usually don't look at categories. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are you deleting them? Isn't that why we are here? To discuss this matter? I, for one, think that the "murder" categories are appropriate and need to stay. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You said they either needed to all stay or all go. I've pointed out how they can't stay. So they all went. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And what if my reply was analogous to yours? They either needed to all stay or all go. I've pointed out how they should stay. So they all were put back in. How does that work for you? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it'd work. You'd need some sort of source at least discussing the possibilities of prosecution, and preferably mentioning an actual criminal investigation, before you could reasonably say "murder" is anything more than rhetorical. Even then, I've shown you the guideline we have on waiting for convictions. I can't stop you from editing the article, but I think it'd be best if you found something that points out, clearly, why it should stay. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are you "inventing" Wikipedia requirements out of whole cloth? Are you claiming that there are not a gazillion reliable sources calling this a murder? Is that your claim? And, who says that we need some legal "proof" from a court before we can call something a "murder"? Seriously. Where are you getting this stuff? You are making all of this up, out of whole cloth. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, whole cloth. If you're still asking who says, you're unbelievable. A gazillion sources also call it a "savage" or "barbaric" murder, and are 100% behind the coalition killing them all. Wikipedia has a WP:NPOV policy, the news doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And, of course, you did not answer my question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Why am I inventing things? I'm not. Am I claiming there aren't a gazillion sources? Technically, yes, but no, I don't claim there aren't a lot. They say a lot of biased things that don't work for encyclopedias. Who says we need legal proof? WP:BLPCRIME. Where am I getting this stuff? There, and a bit from journalism ethics class.

Were those the questions you meant? And am I clear yet? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The Jordanian air strikes would indicate that they deem his killing murder, however it would be rather difficult to arrest the actual murderers seeing as they were masked!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Jordan is part of the coalition that has been bombing ISIS for months. That they continue to do so only indicates that they haven't been scared away from the ongoing conflict. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm back after a short break; as Wnt put it earlier, this really is a can of worms. If I'm reading InedibleHulk correctly this time, his point is that the legalities and technicalities are uncertain, hence it's better to name the section "Killing" (on which there is 100% agreement) as opposed to more specific concepts such as a "murdered", "martyred", "executed", etc., which have emotionally charged or "feels right" components in addition to the legal/technical aspects. Joseph points out that several categories have been added using "murder" and is arguing for consistency, although we still have disagreement on this page as to whether Al-Kasasbeh was murdered but not executed, or executed but not murdered, or both murdered and executed. When I gauge the subject, it certainly seems like both to me in the visceral sense, and there are plenty of reliable sources calling it both as well. Since the debate in the thread above focused on the position that we should exclude the "executed" category on the technical claim that Al-Kasasbeh's killing wasn't a true, real, "legitimate" execution (i.e., the Western legal concepts of a trial and conviction with a death sentence levied by government authority), let's examine the opposite technical claim. What would the argument be for why we would should consider Al-Kasasbeh's death to have been a murder in the technical and legal sense? While it certainly feels like he was murdered to me (and probably everyone else participating in this discussion), can someone make a precise technical argument that would hold up under the jurisdictional issues involved here? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Only a quick reply at the moment, since I have to run. But, to answer your question of "why": aren't there a million sources calling this murder? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources in abundance, from saying "ISIS murders", to "ISIS executes", to "ISIS kills", etc. Since the technical aspects of whether or not it was murder are coming under scrutiny here, what would the legal argument be? Please take your time and respond when you've got it worked out. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Why are we making legal arguments? I am confused on where this conversation is heading, at this point. Why are legal arguments important here? That being said: I don't know much about ISIS. But, is it not a fact that "the rest of the world" (besides ISIS, themselves) considers them a terrorist group and does not consider them a recognized state/country/sovereignty/government? Just because ISIS says "Oh, certainly, we are a legitimate governmental body", does not make it so. I used an example above. If I say that I am the US President, that doesn't make it so. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. When we were discussing the question of whether or not Al-Kasasbeh was executed for the purposes of category inclusions, we had sourcing saying he was executed, and you consistently argued that he wasn't really executed, on the grounds that technically/legally, it wasn't a real execution. We also have sourcing saying that Al-Kasasbeh was murdered, and for the first time on this page the technical/legal aspects of this are being challenged. While I feel that Al-Kasbasbeh was essentially both murdered and executed, you've made it pretty clear that you believe he was murdered but not executed ("legally speaking"), citing your technical/legal objections as the basis for such a position. So, as you've continued to argue that we should exclude an "executed" categorization, while you're also argued that the article warrants a "murdered" categorization and/or being regarded as such with subsection titles, what arguments would you put forth now to make the case that this was technically/legally a murder? The jurisdictional aspects strike me as the trickiest parts of that question, but I'll wait for your response. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You are not following the crux of my argument. I am sure there are many reliable sources referring to this as an execution. That is not my point. My point is that the word "execution" is used very liberally (and incorrectly) by reporters trying to create a sensationalistic headline. The most prominent definition of "execute" (per any dictionary, and per common English usage) is the one about "legal punishment of death meted out by a government". I am sure that "execute" has many, many, many other (secondary) definitions in the dictionary, just like any other word in the English language would have. So, when people read Wikipedia, and see a category entitled "Execution". they think/assume (reasonably so) that it is in reference to the prominent usage of the word "execution" (and not some other secondary definition). So, it is misleading to place simple "murders" under a category of "executions". As I said earlier, if Wikipedia editors wanted to include "murders that are not executions", why not call that category "Murder by burning" instead of "Execution by burning"? Why would they select a very narrow and specific and restrictive word (execution), over the common everyday general non-restrictive word (murder)? If they wanted the category to be all-encompassing, they would use the general word, not the narrow and specific word. And, anyone can call anything an "execution". That does not make it so. As an example, let's say that Sports Illustrated reports: "Wow, the Patriots really executed the Seahawks in the Super Bowl!" or "Wow, the Patriots really murdered the Seahawks in the Super Bowl!" They are using a metaphorical sense of the word execute or murder. It does not mean that we should then categorize the Super Bowl as an execution or murder, simply because a reliable source (for whatever reason, usually sensationalistic) calls it one. Writers often take license with the English language. Obviously. And, 99.99999999% of Wikipedia readers associate the word "execute" with its legal definition. Not just the loosely used synonym for murder. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If I'm reading you correctly, the crux of your position/argument starts with the assumption that Al-Kasasbeh's killing is 1) definitely a murder and 2) definitely not an execution, and your interpretation of the categories follows accordingly. In your view, "executed" is semantics (perhaps the sensationalism of journalists), while "murdered" is not. Based on what was discussed previously, I was hoping you might be able to lay out the case why we should conclude Al-Kasasbeh was murdered from a legal/technical position, but I don't think you're going to be able to do so. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I still don't follow you. Why are you concerned with legal arguments? Many reliable sources say he was murdered. Not to mention, common sense. If you want a legal argument, it would be this. (A) "Murder" is defined (legally) as the deliberate and intentional unlawful taking of a life. (B) Someone (unknown person) deliberately and intentionally and unlawfully took the life of Mister al-Kasasbeh. Therefore, (C) a murder was committed upon Mister al-Kasasbeh. End of legal argument. Pretty basic. Not sure why it has any importance to this conversation. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it currently unlawful in Raqqa, Syria to kill a person this way? Under which jurisdiction would assert the poor pilot was "murdered" according to its laws? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(1) Wikipedia content is dependent upon reliable sources, not the legal status of affairs in Syria (or anywhere else). (2) The fact that you (sarcastically) describe Mister Muath al-Kasasbeh as "poor" and the fact that you (sarcastically) use the word "murder" in quotes speaks volumes about you. You should really check that out and see what that's really all about. I doubt it has anything to do with editing articles on Wikipedia. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

(1) You seemed pretty convinced earlier to ignore the reliable sourcing that he was "executed" on the grounds that you believe the execution wasn't "real" (in the technical/legal sense). However, when it comes to being "murdered", you can't substantiate the legal status either and instead fall back to the way it's referred to in the sourcing; my point is that your positions are contradictory. (2) I am not speaking sarcastically about Al-Kasasbeh in my posting above; that's your misinterpretation and your "speaks volumes" comments in this thread to me and others are a failure to assume good faith. Please leave those kinds of retorts out of your postings, okay? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You do not listen. I am not in any capacity talking about sources. I have conceded about 800 times that sources have stated "execution". And I said that they are using the term improperly for sensationalistic reasons. And Wikipedia readers who look at a category called "execution" will expect it to be about the primary definition of "execution". And if we wanted run-of-the-mill murders to be included, we would have called that category "murder" (a general word) as opposed to "execution" (a narrow, specific, limited-use word). Have I said anything just now that I have not already stated umpteen times before? So, by your theory, if Sports Illustrated says that the Patriots murdered the Seahawks in the Super Bowl, then – Sports Illustrated being a reliable source – we can legitimately place Super Bowl in the "murder" categories. Do you not see how absurd that is. As to the second point. Your post (and posts in general) are bending over backwards to convince me (and the rest of the world) that "execution" is proper and that "murder" is not. So, your use of the adjective "poor" and the word "murder" in "scare quotes" can most certainly be read by any party as being sarcastic. You are "defending" (for lack of a better word) the actions of ISIS. Against the interests of the victim. So, yes, I am justified to read your comments as sarcastic. If you claim they are not, I can well believe that. But my reading of sarcasm was indeed appropriate. Whether you meant it or not, that's how it "came off". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You do not listen either, apparently. I have been arguing all along that Al-Kasasbeh's death is essentially both a murder and an execution, while you insist this is an either/or dichotomy, can only be seen as murder, and want the article written accordingly. When it comes to the technicalities and legal specifics, you apply one set of criteria to execution and a different one to murder in support of your point of view. If you think I support ISIS, that's your twisted interpretation of the conversations here on the Talk Page filtered through your failure to assume good faith. I feel horror and outrage over what ISIS did to Al-Kasasbeh, and I'm also a member of the military who will readily deploy back to Iraq (been there twice before) if/when the order come that we're sent there to destroy them. Do not presume that I am "defending" them, or claim that I'm "against the interests of the victim" in this article. Neither ISIS nor the victim's interests are relevant here. I strive to make edits that are encyclopedic, professional, and neutral in perspective. I have advocated as such at all times herein; I expect you to do the same and to refrain from commenting on what you think other editor's motivations are. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You truly do not listen at all. Wow. Last time I am saying this. My objection is the word "execution" in the category. For the 999999999999999th time, yes, I know that sources call it an "execution". Readers use the word "execution" to mean the most prominent definition in the dictionary. (THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY LEGAL ARGUMENTS! REPEAT: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY LEGAL ARGUMENTS!) And, for the 99999999999999999999th time, if "run-of-the-mill murders" are included in the category, why would we be using the restrictive highly-specific word "execution" rather than the all-encompassing and generalized word "murder"? (It's interesting how you avoid answering any questions I pose.) And, I have explained to you that my interpretation was reasonable. "Reasonable" means that there is a reason assigned to it. And I gave you my reasons. You can choose to believe them or not. Regardless of your intent, that is how your comment "came off" Whether you like it or not – and whether you intended it or not – the fact remains that that is how your comment "came off" sounding. To me, at least. And, I am quite sure, to many others. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BLPCRIME. "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." There may be a million sources, but none are capable of conviction, and none even suggest that charges will be laid. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh? What on earth are you talking about? That policy refers to Wikipedia not accusing someone of a crime. Like, for example, if I went into the Justin Bieber article and accused him or murder (or such). So, what is your point with regard to this article?  ? I can't follow what you are saying. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? What's the difference between saying Justin Bieber murdered someone and saying the relatively unknown guy(s) did it? Until a court convicts any living person, Wikipedia presumes them innocent of crimes. Murder is a crime. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I still don't follow you. Justin Bieber, clearly, is an individually identifiable person. To accuse him of murder is essentially defamation. Who is the individually identifiable person that we would be accusing or murder – and defaming – if we called al-Kasasbeh's death a "murder"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Granted, I don't know the killer's name or face. But he's a viral video star, and probably a high value target. Seems reasonable that he may be identified, or announce himself. In the meantime, many others in the video aren't so hidden and some people who read Wikipedia recognize them, even if we don't. If we would essentially convict the firestarter, per American law, we should also convict his accomplices, and commanders and ISIS as a whole. I get how when a group like theirs is slandered routinely, it can seem like a bit more wouldn't hurt them. But it hurts Wikipedia when we put our gut reactions ahead of citable facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Dude, you are truly unbelievable. And it speaks volumes that you are bending over backwards and pulling linguistic gymnastics to defend these people. That speaks volumes. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You state: "But it hurts Wikipedia when we put our gut reactions ahead of citable facts." So, again, there are not a gazillion reliable sources calling this a murder? Or you just don't like what those gazillion sources are saying? So, you convolute Wikipedia policy to fit your liking? And to support your clear agenda? Unreal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't like what they're saying, because it isn't based in fact. But the fact is they have said that, so I've said they've said it. Fair enough? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(1) "You don't like what they're saying." Reply: You do realize that your "not liking it" is irrelevant, correct? (2) "It isn't based in fact." Reply: So, you know all the facts. And gazillions of reliable sources do not know the facts. Wow. Interesting. (3) "It isn't based in fact." Reply: You do realize that one of the Wikipedia guidelines is "verifiability, not truth", correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, verify that it was an actual murder, rather than a rhetorical one. Otherwise, we'd open the floodgates to claiming they're also scum, evil and dogs. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to verify anything. That's why we use reliable sources. If your argument truly is that reliable sources do not call this a murder, you have a losing argument. I am not sure how you don't see that. I actually think you are just playing cute and coy here. Enjoying verbal gymnastics to portray this as if ISIS did not commit a murder. LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we use reliable sources. But we use policy and guidelines in determining what should be taken from them. When you need to get clicks, demonization works. Wikipedia doesn't need clicks. It's always at the top. People come here for facts, not rhetoric. The fact of the matter is no prosecutor, detective, soldier, cop or other authority figure has even mentioned pursuing murder charges. Only reporters. Like you say, calling yourself president doesn't make it true. Likewise, a reporter alone calling something murder means nothing, aside from "fuck those guys". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Compare Kandahar massacre with 2014 Peshawar school massacre. Sixteen murders in one, 145 killings in the other. The media were more outraged at the latter, but it didn't matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Describing the murder as a killing is why Wikipedia is pretty much deprecated everywhere these days. Murder is the deliberate taking of a human life, killing could come about from a fall or banging one's head against a table. What could be a definitive article on the murder of Muath al-Kasasbeh has been turned into a wussy PC farce. A shame both for readers and this brave man's memory.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Murder is the unlawful killing of another person. Which law did they/he break? Would you call it murder when your brave pilot and his crew drop bombs from too far away to reach? Or is killing somehow only illegal for one side in a war? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, dude. Keep defending ISIS in this situation. Keep embarrassing yourself. And if you want to know what laws they broke, implying that they broke none, I am quite sure that there are laws in place for handling prisoners of war. I am pretty sure the laws do not allow you to take a prisoner of war, place him in a cage, and burn him alive. Or, geez, maybe I am wrong about that. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The laws on handling prisoners (at least the most standard ones) are part of the Geneva Convention, which ISIS didn't sign. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, OK. You are right. ISIS can do anything in the world that they please. And if they say "we didn't break any laws", then we take them at their word that they are correct and that they didn't break any laws. They have freedom and license to do anything that they please. Including the commission of murders that we can't call murders because ISIS says it is not a murder. LOL. Yes, dude, you are 100% right and I am 100% wrong. Not sure what I was possibly thinking, here? Geez. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

They definitely can't do anything they please. Even being a "suspected militant" often gets them (and people near them) bombed (and sometimes subsequently burned alive). But there's no arrest first, no indictment, no trial, conviction or any of that. And their killers likewise only have to worry about being killed in turn for punishment. There's a simplicity to war that doesn't exist in the courts, and things like murder only exist in war if the courts step in. So far, they haven't. You're not totally wrong, but wrong enough. Don't take it personally. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. A clear case of murder. And people are using all sorts of linguistic gymnastics to claim it is not a murder. Unreal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• There is strong RS support for calling it murder -- and we follow the RSs. Some RSs also call it execution, but I'm convinced by the above arguments, and the number calling it murder, that murder is the better word. Killing is too soft and opaque, as it lumps it together with legal killings, as in self-defense. So murder seems best. Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you. Apparently, some editors think we need some form of legal decree from Syria before we can "officially" call this murder. Unreal. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• With regard to the title for the section in which the killing is described, I think the article should use either "Killed" or "Burned to death". Like other articles from the category Killing of captives by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, either of these provide a section title that can't be rejected based on point of view or opinion. Here are examples from other articles in the category that are likewise NPOV compliant and could never be turned into an issue: "Beheading" (James Foley), "Kidnapping and beheading" (Kenji Goto), "Death" (David Cawthorne Haines), "Beheading" (Alan Henning), "Death" (Kayla Mueller), "Kidnapping and beheading" (Steven Sotloff). Is there a good reason why we would want to have a section title that can draw POV objections? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

AQAP Twitter account?

We use The Daily Mail to say an AQAP-linked Twitter account says this was "conclusive proof of Isis' deviance", but that doesn't show up in a Twitter site search. There's a fair chance it was written in Arabic, but Google's translation, "دليل قاطع على الانحراف إيزيس", only finds this Bahraini, and the words aren't even in order.

Anyone have any clues as to whether this is legit? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Asking here, Google, the Reference Desk and the story's author didn't find anything. If anyone sees any reason that this shouldn't be discounted, speak now or forever hold your peace. Or revert me anytime after I delete it, with some sort of explanation. Either works. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Guardian article

There's an article on the Guardian newspaper website detailing the conflict between ISIL and Al-Qaeda - located here. Among other things it states that Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi was involved in the negotiations to free the pilot and that he received an encrypted file from ISIL a few days prior to Feb 3. ISIL sent him the password on the 3rd; on decryption, it was revealed to be video of the pilot's immolation. Can someone figure out how to fold that info into the article? Tabercil (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hamas

@Bad Dryer: the source you added is an exact copy of the original source, which further questions the integrity of such allegations.

It's actually not an exact copy, but the second source is clearly based on the first one (and is so attributed in its text) . Why would the same author being published in multiple independent venues question the integrity of the statements, rather than reinforce them? Bad Dryer (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not following... Its not the same author?--Makeandtoss (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, indeed two different authors, with one basing his article on the previous article- but again - that would seem to reinforce the credibility - source A being picked up and repeated by independent source B - rather than questioning it. Bad Dryer (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary! If I now release a fake quote into the internet in an article, and then someone largely bases his article on mine, that doesn't make him more credible--Makeandtoss (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that a reliable source picked up a quote and doesn't question it makes that quote more reliable . You need to read WP:RS to better understand how things work here. Bad Dryer (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Does not question it, would also imply that the 'reliable' source is not reliable after all.--Makeandtoss (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not how the reliability of sources is determined. Read the link I gave you. I've added a 3rd source, BTW, which gives the original. Bad Dryer (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Daesh?

this article sees the so-called Islamic State referred to as ISIS, ISIL, and Daesh. while i personally support the terminology "Daesh" i don't know that this is encyclopedic as to the best of my knowledge - despite it's increasing usage - it's simply pejorative. is there consensus on a term to use? Nucas (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muath Al-Kasasbeh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206072946/http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/middle-east/60008-150204-king-abdullah-lands-in-jordan-following-murder-of-pilot to http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/middle-east/60008-150204-king-abdullah-lands-in-jordan-following-murder-of-pilot

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muath Al-Kasasbeh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205120154/http://old.mehrnews.com/ar/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=1849387 to http://old.mehrnews.com/ar/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=1849387

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 November 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) Wug·a·po·des​ 08:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Muath al-Kasasbeh → Muath Kasasbeh as "al-" is redundant. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)—Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 17:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Relisting. It is not immediately clear why "al-" should be treated as redundant. Dekimasuよ! 17:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree that it is not specified why the common prefix in Arabic romanizations, "al-", is "redundant". There is nothing in translations to suggest any repetition of the definite article "the" ("al"). More importantly, the sources used in this article all appear to refer to the subject using "al-". That should be the clincher – the prefix should not be removed. "Al-" is part of the COMMONNAME in reliable sources. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 17:36, 26 November 2019 (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.