Jump to content

Talk:Steven Sotloff/Archive 1

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

Phrasing

The last part of the text states that military effort is "stepped up". I can't seem to find any indication in the reference link, that efforts have increased, which the phrasing seems to indicate. Also maybe a stretch to "set up" a scenario where a large scale military operation should be influenced by one civilian hostage. Meaning that the phrasing actually buys into a premise or causality that the terrorists wish to market with their video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.66.113 (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Move?

Should this article be titled "Steven Joel Sotloff" or "Steven Sotloff"? Which is more common? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, "Steven Joel Sotloff" certainly gets a lot of hits on google news. So I'm in favor of not moving it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Just by searching "Steve Sotloff" the 3rd or 4th link is this article so, It may not even be nessecary.User:JhonsJoe (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be moved to "Steven Sotloff". That's the most common usage I'm seeing (6:115:1 over "Steven Joel Sotloff" if you go by GHitsGoogle News hits.) More importantly, his contributor page [1] and bylines at Time are as "Steven Sotloff". So is his Twitter account. [2] I would move the article per WP:NCP, but Steven Sotloff has a couple random edits that prevent it. IRW0 (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
To me that'd indicate "Steven Sotloff" should be the title & "Steven Joel Sotloff" should be the redirect. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps an admin will come by and move it. WP:NCP is pretty clear that it should be "Steven Sotloff". The one objection is based on the current name having some WP:GHITS, but even by that flawed metric it has far fewer. IRW0 (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with name change. -- GreenC 00:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

It would be nice to have at least one picture of Steven Sotloff on this article. I tried to put up two ut apparently they were not properly licenced. It would be nice if someone where to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JhonsJoe (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is without official confirmation of his death, it's difficult to justify Fair Use. I suspect confirmation will be made today internally, the family notified tonight, and the news announced tomorrow or Thursday, short of some other difficulty. If we don't get confirmation by the end of the week might want to put him back as still alive. -- GreenC 20:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Is the current picture (from James Foley's execution video) appropriate? Is there really no other picture that is closer to fair use than one where the source is ISIS?Myopia123 (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree ! Why this picture ? PomX (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: moved. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Steven Joel Sotloff → Steven Sotloff – The news results are overwhelmingly leaning towards this shortened name. Hoops gza (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the thread above, wouldn't it be easier to submit a non controversial move request? It could be done in a matter of hours instead of days or weeks with RM. -- GreenC 00:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Green Cardamom - I've tagged Steven Sotloff with {{db-move}}. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

No source for DOB

There's no source for giving May 11, 1983 (age 31) as Sotloff's birth date. 108.58.107.174 (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/02/steven-sotloff-profile_n_5755502.html I have edited this article in the last 24 hours, so somebody else can add it.

Politico article / Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya

An article on Politico.com by Oren Kessler said:
Steven first sent me a Facebook message in September 2011, while reporting on the final throes of the revolution in Libya. He introduced himself as a journalist and a graduate of the same university (the Interdisciplinary Center, or IDC, in Herzliya, Israel) and same program (government) in which I had done my master’s degree. At the time, I was Arab-Affairs correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, and he had recently written a dispatch from Egypt for its sister magazine the Jerusalem Report. “Hey Oren, I’m also an IDC grad,” he wrote. “Good to know there’s a good regional reporter for The Post.” Here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ixEDcm7UZe8J:www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/mourning-my-almost-friend-steve-sotloff-110525.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#.VAa4u1YQuRU


NOW, the name of the Israeli university has been deleted from the Politico.com article: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/mourning-my-almost-friend-steve-sotloff-110525.html#.VAa5HlYQuRU

06:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.58.107.174 (talk)

"The current version doesn't include that information anymore" (to paraphrase) isn't a valid reason to use an old, cached version of a reference that was updated to remove that information. (The cached link is the same as the current version for me, too.) I have no issue with the content (it appears to be correct information), but this is not a valid reference. Also, Sotloff himself saying that he was an IDC grad (in the version you pasted) is not sufficient to establish that he was, even if it was still in the article; it needs a secondary source. There are proper refs that do so, such as this one: [3] IRW0 (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Learned Arabic (also spoke Hebrew and had dual citizenship)

Somebody is calling for clarification. The information is sourced at the end of the sentence, but perhaps it could be clarified with other sources. Apparently he also spoke Hebrew and had dual citizenship: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-slain-journalist-steven-sotloff-remembered/ MeropeRiddle (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Time magazine contributions

His contributions are available here: http://world.time.com/contributor/steven-sotloff/. They could be added as external links.MeropeRiddle (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

IRW0's edits

ERW0's edits are not acceptable.

  • ERW0 removed the sourced ethnicity. It is now empty. The fact is that Sotloff was Jewish. His grandfather was a holocaust survivor. He was Israeli. All this IS LISTED in the opening section (or what should be the opening section) of the article! AND IS WELL SOURCED. He prayed daily to Jerusalem and fasted on Yom Kippur during captivity. That too is well sourced. If we are already at it: He played in an American-Football team, and participated in the Pre-Maccabia games again in 2013 in Israel! (according to the Hebrew YNet article not fully translated to the English one).
  • ERW0 removed my source about his stay in Yemen, and about his studies of Arabic. For no reason. They were all well sourced clearly by al-Jazeera (written probably before his Jewish ethnicity was exposed... )
  • ERW0 removed the year and mention of his immigration to Israel. That was well sourced. (I now read in the Hebrew YNet article that he studied only from 2006-2008 in Herzlia, left the country after completing his studies in 2008, and returned here in 2013 participating in the pre-Maccabia sport games)
  • ERW0 added a "citation needed" about Sotloff being in Qatar in 2010, although that is exactly what is stated by al-Jazeera in the ref!
  • ERW0 removed the information about al-Fuqra, and put back the false, or at least misunderstood, information as if SITE Intelligence Group put up the video themselves. I gave a good source for that information as well. SITE itself. But you can read it on almost all the outlets that mention SITE (except the conspiracy theorists who are "proving" with the false information their point that there never was a beheading, or that there is no ISIS.
  • ERW0 removed all information about the doubts as to the actual date of beheading, although that as well has been well sourced.
  • ERW0 removed all information about the two released hostages and the references to them.
  • ERW0 by reverting my edits, removed the mention of Sotloff's heroism - prayer and fasting, while in captivity.
  • ERW0 removed the transcription of Sotloff's last words.
  • ERW0 removed all my hard work in the External Links/Images section, after I had discovered the full extent and sources of the images of Sotloff online and attributing them to the correct source.
  • ERW0 removed the external links section of obituaries that I had added. For no reason.
  • ERW0 pushed back the sections which I located where they were due, and reverted my grammatical corrections such as "Jewish faith and Israeli citizenship" instead of "Jewishness" which is street talk. The text now is skewed.
  • There are probably countless other sources and information which I gathered and pieced together, which are now lost.

Please ERW0 or anyone else that cares. Put everything back! I will not work hard on this again, and there was no reason for your reversion. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

    • While I agree with some of ERWO's edits, I do think that taking the initiative and start massive editing at this level is a little too much. I urge you both to talk it out and reach consensus regarding what should and should not remain in the article. Stating each part point-by-point is an excellent start.Myopia123 (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem was not specifically the content, but how you performed your edit. (Some of the large quotes/memorialization/etc are likely not appropriate, but that wasn't the reason I reverted.) That edit undid all intervening edits in over 3 hours since your previous edit: a total of 21 edits by nine separate editors. [4] It is simply not reasonable to undo so much other work. There is certainly material from your edit that should be readded, but please do it in a reasonable fashion, e.g. add it in piece by piece.
As for your list of specific points...again, most of them were other people's work that I restored (so you need to direct your questions at those editors instead of me), though several of my own edits were included. Please read the original edit summaries if you have not, as I think some of your points have been addressed.
The issue with Qatar is that it's Sotloff's own essay (not AJE) that says "I now find myself in Qatar, enjoying a stopover before my several month stay in Yemen to learn Arabic." This is an entrance essay, not a scholarly work, and the tone reflects that; it can be used, but cautiously. (I'd hoped someone would find a secondary source for his location.) Something like "In a letter written from Qatar and dated May 29, 2010, ..." could work. But it is original research to simply say that Sotloff was in Qatar on May 29, 2010, based on your reading of his essay. IRW0 (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see now that there was a whole deal done between two edits of mine. (the reason ERWo reverted a giant amount of my work) I will now carefully go through them and add proof and specifics to each fact. Argh! I was in the middle of working on a completely different topic in science that interests me much more than terrorists and their crazy behavior.
Its just that I read about his praying and Yom Kippur fast, and saw it missing here, so started researching. The more I read, the more I was surprised to see and discover his articles about Libya. At the time I was following the Libyan uprising (was that early 2012 or even before?), and had concluded that (at least) CNN is skewing the picture, and that the US was trying to clean up Al-Quaeda as if they don't exist anymore. This was after I saw the hospital atrocity, but noticed that the bodies were clearly dark colored, so it was clearly the Ghadaffi Mercenaries who were murdered. But it was being portrayed as an atrocity by Ghadaffi. I never thought Ghadaffi is a great guy, and knew he supported terrorism, but something was wrong with the picture. When I heard that Arwa Damon and Anderson were packing their bags and moving to Syria, together with the Al-Qaeda commander (forgot his name, his organisation was named something like Qatlat El Lubiya) I was sure we would soon see images of hospitals and atrocities done by Assad. Since both are vowed Israeli and Jewish enemies I tried to comprehend what's going on. Why was Israel supporting the Anti Assad movement, although these guys were Al-Quaeda that brought down the twin towers? Was Israel continuing in its "And good luck to both sides" attitude from the Iran-Iraq war?
This is all great stuff and very productive for the conspiracy theorists. Its just that after you discover the truth, its usually disappointingly non-fantastic. (Like finding out that there is back-light from the ground on the moon, that there is clear evidence in all of the videos that the twin towers fell slower than free fall, and did not collapse flatly, or that Thermate makes a loud boom and Thermite has no power - or the other way around, and that no aluminum was found in the paint spots in the dust. That there is a simple explanation of how the great pyramid of Giza was built and what the granite chamber was for. etc. etc.
But then propoganda (and all newspapers are sided one way or another - so all newspapers are propoganda) is always biased and therefor the conspiracy theories about them are always true. Except when it comes to RT accusations against the BBC, when you discover that the so called conspiracy and faked videos of the Assad gas attack, where not MADE by the BBC but in fact the BBC were the ones who RAISED the questions in the first place. (We have a Hebrew saying: Zo Nevvella Vezo Terreffa - this one is a carcass and the other is dead prey)
Anyway, I started watching all the information (and misinformation) about the Benghazi attack which at the time I did not really follow. Now I learned all the names and watched all the different sides and how they portrayed what happened. It seems that Yoel Sotloff (as I'm sure he was called here, in Israel) had a lot to do with that part. May he be remembered for the good, either way: As a loving person, who keenly showed the human side of the picture with kids of all denominations everywhere he went, or as an Israeli spy or emissary, following the meanest and most dangerous people on earth.
So again, I'll re-enter as much as possible carefully, and as time allows. And sorry IRWo for the tone.
Could you put up a personal page, so its not like your just another IP. Write a bit about your edits and contributions? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder this article is under a 1RR sanction. -- GreenC 03:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Alma Mater

I noticed that the Alma Mater was changed. It seems reasonable. I had noticed articles that stated he attended a university in florida, but there was no record of his graduation. Most definitions of Alma Mater refer it to the school that one graduated from. I see the article was updated to reflect that from an IP user. I just wanted to add it to the talk page, in the event somebody wanted to discuss it further.MeropeRiddle (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Schooling dates

108.58.107.174 (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

People's edits crossed out?

When looking at the Steven Sotloff: Revision history, I see a lot of people's edits are crossed out. What does this mean and who crossed the edits out? Thanks. 108.58.107.174 (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The greyed out edits are showing as RD5, and it is a puzzle when it involves a large amount of edit history. Please could someone explain this? The revdelete action was by User:Nyttend.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Identifying information had to be deleted for privacy reasons. The revisions containing the information had to be deleted. Similar revdels were performed at other pages where the same information appeared. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The identifying information is question is the name of the next potential victim after Sotloff. The family of the individual has asked that his name be left out of the press, and apparently the British press (and now some American) have been complying. The name is out there though, RSourced, and arguably notable.~Technophant (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
See also User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Section_removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but not every edit in that span included the personal information-I certainly didn't edit anywhere around there. What the heck is really going on?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure all the edits in that span were actually deleted? It may be a technical artifact of how it appears in the history. Edits I made in that span are still in place, they were not deleted, even though it looks that way in the history. -- GreenC 14:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The answer is that Wikipedia does indeed censor. Despite this: https://en.wikipedia.org/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)MeropeRiddle (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"A second message to America"

Could somebody please reword the beginning of the Kidnapping and death section.

"On September 2, 2014, the SITE Intelligence Group[39][40] discovered the video of Sotloff's execution on what they called "a file-sharing site" entitled "A Second Message to America" and released it to their subscribers.[41] The video was delivered as a "second message to America" to halt airstrikes in Iraq,[42] and shows Sotloff's beheading execution by a masked man, apparently Jihadi John, the same person who killed James Foley."

I had already added, "The video was delivered as a "second message to America" to halt airstrikes in Iraq,[42] and shows Sotloff's beheading execution by a masked man, apparently Jihadi John, the same person who killed James Foley." and the information that as added in front of it is slightly redundant. It should be reworded to not included the same phrase twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeropeRiddle (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done my best to fix it up a bit: see if you think this helps. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Execution

I suspect that Sotloff was executed at the same time as James Foley. Descriptions and stills seem to be the same, plus the "teaser" preview we had to this at the end of hte Foley video. Haven't seen the videos though. ~Technophant (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, just wait until the tinfoil hatters have caught up with this. The screenshot here shows almost identical weather and lighting to the Foley video.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no official confirmation the video is authentic. Normally I'd care but in this case it seems foregone. -- GreenC 20:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The video is a carbon copy of the previous one. It was very likely shot by the same crew, with the same equipment, at the same time as the Foley video. People are already saying this on the message boards, and experts will probably be hired by the media saying the same thing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Ummmm, I have been very skeptical about the James Foley video, but watching this at [5] I can't help but think it is real. He specifically mentions the new "Islamic State" term, I think details of the bombing?, and the video is clearly referencing the previous one. Even the sawing seems more real. There's no way I could argue that this is an archived mock execution like I did with the other one. Note: this isn't meant simply as forum discussion; I intend to link this publication which contains the video; my interpretation may be different but the encyclopedic need to analyze remains. Wnt (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Analysis says that due to the executioners mentions of recent events and the newly grown hair on Sotloff and other factors they have placed the date of filming to be withing 72 hours of release. ~Technophant (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Given that he had more hair than the previous video & that the US airstrikes (which happened after Foley's beheading) against the ISIS siege of Amirli were mentioned, there's no way the beheadings happened on the same day. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sotloff's hair is longer in his beheading video than it was in the James Foley video[6]. Clearly at least a few days apart.Myopia123 (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Why isnt there any blood when they cut his neck and why isnt any weed moving in the background? I also noticed the shadow of the weeds isnt pointed in the same direction as the shadow of the man. I thought that wikipedia was a non profit organisation with only real info. I havent seen any proof of him dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.183.26 (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda video

Do we need a lengthy video synopsis that couldn't be done in a sentence or two? It quotes in full the propaganda Sotloff was forced to say taking up 1/3 of the article. Is this propaganda so important to Sotloff's biography and life it needs a repetition here and not just briefly summarized? Comes across as distasteful at best or BLP at worse. -- GreenC 13:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted it as a BLP violation - WP:BLP mentions "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. In the absence of confirmation of death". Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Normally theres no need for a word by word synopsis (because the source material is widely available or copywritten), however this global censorship of this video on media sharing outlets like Youtube, and the implied legal threat of being a terrorist sympathizer if you download and view it, I think this synopsis is important. It will reduce the need for people to seek out the video and answer a lot of unanswered questions. Also it's WP:OR to say that he was forced to say it. Foley's message was delivered with a surprising amount of personal conviction. ~Technophant (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
YouTube can't "censor" anything. It's a private company and does whatever it wants (under the law). Not allowing YouTube to remove content it wishes would be censoring, only governments can censor. It's probably best not to edit Wikipedia according to ideological positions of censorship. -- GreenC 14:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I added the reference to the original video, and to me this seems sufficient. Yes, it is clear that whatever speech Sotloff was made to say is pretty much irrelevant to the story of his life. In the article on ISIS, once people figure out how to split it up into parts, we should have a quote like that, because it's their quote. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Editor User:Andrews Darlene1

Indefinitely blocked now as a sockpuppet of User:Russavia. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Where to put fact that he was Jewish, Israeli citizen?

Moved this info from first sentence. Reason is that it needs explanation, it is significant that he traveled and worked not an an Israeli , but as an American of Chechen ancestry - because his life would have been endangered by traveling as a Jew in the countries where he worked. Problem is, explaining all of this in lede takes space. Either we add explanation to lede, or move the Jewish/Israeli info to background/early life.ShulMaven (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are MOS:IDENTITY and WP:LEAD. We don't need to explain his identity in the lead section because the lead is just a summary of the article and not expected to explain everything. He was an American-Israeli even before he worked in the Middle East. The question for the IDENTITY guideline is if he identified as American, American-Israeli or Israeli *before* he was captured (pre-capture the Israeli identity was suppressed for safety reasons). -- GreenC 21:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

From [7]: "Journalist Steven Sotloff, who was beheaded by the jihadist group ISIS, was a dual American-Israeli citizen and studied in Israel, Israel’s Foreign Ministry said". Lots of other refs such as [8] [9] [10] support that, but I found very few the other way around. Based on that information, and him seeming to have stronger ties to the U.S., I think he should be listed as "U.S.-Israeli" in the lead, and in the infobox it should list "United States" before "Israel". (I also agree "Jewish" probably shouldn't go in the lead sentence.) IRW0 (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There is some interesting background detail here: [11][12] This can be a real biography with detail like this, not just an atrocity. Wnt (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Sotloff/Archive_1&oldid=1084083095"