Jump to content

Talk:Jihadi John/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

RfC: Should the article assume Emwazi is Jihadi John?

Overwhelming consensus for Support. Closing early to avoid unnecessary voting. It can be re-opened (or a new RfC) if anyone disagrees. This is a non-admin self-close. GreenC 13:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the be written as if Jihadi John is Mohammed Emwazi? For example: Lead section presents Jihadi John as Emwazi in the first sentence; Infobox specific to Emwazi; Early life biography section; Categories for birth dates, etc.. treated as a regular biography of a known individual. The article name remains "Jihadi John" for now due to the recent move request discussion which brought up WP:COMMONNAME etc.. this RfC is not about the article name. -- GreenC 00:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please vote Support or Oppose

  • Jihadi John is now Emwazi as far as the reliable media are concerned. If they have got it wrong, it is not our problem:) His mother believes that it is him [1] as do members of CAGE who have had dealings with him. I'm still a bit unsure about saying that he is Emwazi without explaining how this came about.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd still rather see the subject split into a JJ article and an Emwazi article, but they're definitely the same person as far as WP is concerned. The Beeb isn't even trying to equivocate. From their most recent article: "Emwazi - known as 'Jihadi John'."[2] Bromley86 (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Same person. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, I tend to provisionally agree with the above. However Emwazi's father has apparently said: “There is nothing that proves what is being circulated in the media, especially through video clips and footage, that the accused is my son Mohammed, who is being referred to as the alleged executioner of Daesh” according to a translation by AFP (with ref from Independent here). My view is that a father and/or mother will know their own son regardless of the wearing of a mask and, at this stage, the reported comments seem really strange to me. (If all things were possible here I would prefer the article, at the very least, to be moved to ISIL's televised captive killer. However Wikipedia's so called "reliable sources" are quite happy to trounce on the memory of John Lennon for the sake of their story spins with the result of leaving us in our current situation). GregKaye 11:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not strange at all. If it were my son, I'd also try to cast doubt on it. Formerip (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
In many situations a parent might defend and cover for a son but I think that any person with any ethics for people in general and love for their son in particular might alternately plead for a personal change of heart. It may be interesting to discover more information about Emwazi "senior" and family. GregKaye 11:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. There doesn't appear to be any serious dissent about this in reliable sources. Formerip (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The father's amendment denial and this: "His [father's] lawyer Salem al-Hashash said he would from Sunday file lawsuits against those who made accusations against Emwazi senior and his family."[3] And reported that "Hashash said his client was interrogated by the interior ministry for three hours and released." If the Kuwaiti authorities really believed, would they only interrogate for three hours? Not to say JJ isn't Emwazi, but there is still some reasons to doubt and no rush as it will come out. -- GreenC 14:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
He seems to be in a minority of one. Or is he just complaining about the "accusations" made against him and his (other) family? As for the three hours, maybe the Kuwaiti officials have exercised something akin to "human rights" (and know that the eyes of the world are on them)? If he had any real evidence which could prove the innocence of his son, surely he wouldn't be "interrogated" at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
(Having said that, if the source you have is regarded as reliable, I think maybe it could be added to the article). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Reliable sources show Jihadi John is, in fact, Emwazi, so the page should be entitled "Mohammad Emwazi," not the shorthand name he's given in the media. Macrowriter (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Macrowriter, you are commenting on the proposal made in the previous move RfC, which is now closed. Please consider the exact wording of this RfC. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh crumbs. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, after first tentatively flagging the issue of his father's denials above I agree that the prevailing view is that the captive killer in the ISIL videos is Emwazi. Seeing that this is also so far seems to have been the prevailing view here I have made some provisional changes to the lead of the article which I am happy to revert / happy to have reverted should the RfC end up with another outcome.
Should it be the case that the RfC comes up with an oppose outcome to the proposal (for the article to assume Emwazi as being the ISIL killer of captives) then I propose that a RM be made to a more long winded but I think more acceptable title such as The ISIL killer of captives presented in some media as "Jihadi John". I appreciate that such a title contravenes a number of Wikipedia guidelines but, when killing aid workers etc. is not jihad and when his real name seems not to be John and when the name of a British icon of the standing of John Lennon is tarnished by this most absurd of associations then I think that there is a strong case that WP:IAR applies. GregKaye 16:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • We are stuck with mentioning the Jihadi John nickname, even if it is disrespectful to the Beatles, because it is so widely used in reliable sources. It was the hostages who created the association with the Beatles, and it was the British tabloid press, probably the Daily Mail, which invented and popularised the "Jihadi John" nickname in August 2014.[4] John Lennon would no doubt have been furious about his name being used in this way, but the article has to accept the use of this common nickname.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree (sorry, John). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Plenty of reliable sources support that Mohammed Emwazi is 'Jihadi John'. Not sure waiting for the Mayan Calendar to run out again would change this. Perhaps a section could be devoted to mentioning the doubts over his identity. Cesdeva (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I stand by my comments in the move request above, though a rename at some point seems inevitable. As far as the body of the article is concerned, however, the best secondary sources now universally treat them as the same and are reporting the opinions of those close to Emwazi that he is Jihadi John. That is in stark contrast to the previous reports about Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary, who was merely described as a suspect. The article should follow the reporting sources, and in any case it should avoid awkward prose such as that previously found in the article lead. If the identification is found to be in error, then the article can be split at that time. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Reliable sources say that they are the same person, and the article should reflect this. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is, for WP purposes, Emwazi the same as Jihadi John?

From the discussion above, it looks like the article name isn't going to be changed to Emwazi. So, can we start treating this JJ article as if it were Emwazi's bio (Early Life, parents, etc.)?

The alternative is to populate the Mohammed Emwazi redirect with the BLP stuff and keep this page for the JJ timeline (i.e, pretty-much as it is now, with just the removal of a couple of things like Education from the infobox). I prefer a split, but don't really mind as long as we decide one way or the other. Bromley86 (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't know, but we now already have Emwazi's place and date of birth in the info box. Maybe you should just add the parents back in too? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Please don't do that. Although the press is treating this case as solved, the authorities are not. There is still doubt, from a Wikipedia perspective, on who JJ is. -- GreenC 17:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
We follow the reliable sources. See wp:rs. Not "what the authorities publicly reveal". And we don't know that the authorities are not treating the issue of who JJ is as "solved", as Green suggests. We know only that the authorities have not shared that information with the public ... indeed, the authorities clearly know more than they are sharing with the public. What the RSs say, wp reflects. Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Emwazi's own mother now says she "immediately recognised" his voice on the beheading videos? And yet we're still expecting a statement from the "highest sources" that Emwazi is Jihadi John? If there ever is such a statement, it certainly wont be treated as "news". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You said that: Emwazi's own mother now says she "immediately recognised" his voice on the beheading videos, which I had also read somewhere. Did she report this to authorities upon her recognition? Or did she only admit to that fact after the identity of Jihadi John was publicly revealed? Does anyone know? It should be mentioned in the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
She screamed, "Kuwaiti investigators have been told". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The article that you linked to says that she did not tell authorities, after she realized that it was her own son. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Correct. Surprised that the shock didn't kill her. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, it was not a case of "shock". After 25-26 years, they had to know he had a few screws loose. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Your vigorous and incisive analysis of the links between religious extremism and psychotic paranoia, through the medium of the family, flaws me yet again, Jo. Or maybe you're just getting your EIDs mixed up with your IEDs? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Link.[5] BBC is now absolutely unequivocal: "Emwazi has been unmasked as "Jihadi John", who was pictured in the videos of the beheadings of Western hostages."
I suggest then we have an RfC because the last RfC (on the rename) saw editors arguing there was not enough evidence to conclude absolutely. In general, we don't make absolute conclusions in cases like this when the highest sources (government) are still withholding judgement. The press has made allegations in the past and gotten it wrong. The press is in the business of making guesses but they have no legal responsibility if they get it wrong. The government is legally responsible and accountable. -- GreenC 19:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with need for a re-run of the RfC. That's an interesting point about legal responsibility - why has no international warrant for arrest, or whatever, been issued? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there are some rewards for info leading to his capture. To entice his compatriots to reveal his location. Re: the RfC it should be worded to not conflate with a rename, since many brought up the most well known name issue. How about "Should the article be written as a normal bio with the assumption that Jihadi John is Mohammed Emwazi? Ie. info box, Early life biography section etc.. the article name would remain "Jihadi John" for now per recent RfC". Trying to keep it as simple and neutral as possible. -- GreenC 21:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I think it might be wise is someone closed the existing move request first. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you believe there is consensus in the rename request? Looks to me like no consensus to rename. -- GreenC 22:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no consensus and the discussion does not seem to be going anywhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright, how about one of us close the rename. And the other start the RfC. Since you voted Support in the rename you'd be the neutral choice to close Oppose (instructions). And since I suggested the RfC I can start it. Hope that sounds fair. -- GreenC 00:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Now closed. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to say that the artcile is now looking like it's about a single person. I suspect that someone, before too long, will want to open a second RfC about moving the article name to Mohammed Emwazi. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

BLP naming format

This is an odd one. With the Arab tendency to change names, he's had a lot of them. I've added his birth name, ultimately sourced to Kuwaiti records via The Times (but linked to The Australian,[6] as it's not paywalled). I removed his Arabic name, but it does need to be added back in. However, it should be sourced.

The other thing to consider is what to show for his Arabic name: i.e. his birth name does not include Emwazi, apparently. I suppose whatever the reliable Arabic sources say, but probably not both his birth name and current name and we need to make sure it's in the right place. Bromley86 (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


This BBC article [7] may be a source for the Arabic spelling of his current name. I don't know Arabic though so i can't easily discern where on the page it says it. Cesdeva (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Article Neutrality

I wish to challenge the neutrality of this article. In the 'NickName' section, you will find the following quote:

"The hostages have said that he was part of a terrorist cell described as "The Beatles", and that he guarded Western hostages while handling communications with their families.[7]"

I object to the use of the "Beatles" trademark name to be used in this fashion. No where is it listed where the proper permission to do so was obtained. To at least some visitors to this page, this article seemingly glamorizes this individual. In addition, I object to the statement that this individual "guarded Western hostages while handling communications with their families". Let's be realistic here, who did he 'guard' and the phrase that he is 'handling communications with their families' really seems to me to be very insensitive to the families of these hostages. This individual is an accused terrorist and kidnapper by multiple media and government sources.

There are numerous other statements in the article where its neutrality should be called into question which I will if need be make issue of later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainMan GemSongWood (talk • contribs) 05:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article is driven by what reliable sources have said. I agree that it is unfair for the Beatles to be linked to the actions of this idiot, and there is a September 2014 quote from Ringo Starr to this effect.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ian, with all due respects to you sir, you put the following statement at the very bottom of your article (the second to last paragraph to be exact):

"In September 2014, Ringo Starr, a member of the Beatles, said that he was disgusted that the militant cell were given nicknames derived from members of the band. Speaking to the London Evening Standard, he said "It’s bullshit. What they are doing out there is against everything the Beatles stood for."[64]

So you see sir, that at least one surviving member of the Beatles has gone on public record to strenuously object to the comparison of what the Beatles stood for when compared to what this individual stands for.

The disputable statement is way at the top of the article, the protest by Ringo Starr is way at the bottom of the article. Maybe if you could at least put his protest in line with, before, or blend it in with, or at least put it in the same paragraph with the objectionable or questionable content it would help on the NPOV of the article.

Thank you for the article. There are other parts of the article that I think may need to be edited (which I will raise when I get a chance). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainMan GemSongWood (talk • contribs) 11:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The protest isn't really necessary. What would be notable would be if he was happy to be associated, even tangentially, with a psychopath. Bromley86 (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I object to the use of the "Beatles" trademark name to be used in this fashion. No where is it listed where the proper permission to do so was obtained.
Since when does anybody needs a permission to write down the name Beatles "trademark" (as if we are talking about Zanussi fridges)? Hostages themselves nicknamed terrorists after the Beatles members, and reliable sources reported on that, and we call them that way. Yes, the Beatles doesn't deserve this. Do we need to care about this? No. It's what the media has been using. Is this Wikipedia glamorizing the killers? No, certainly not. It's that simple. We just report on what sources say, and they say that some ISIL terrorists are nicknamed after the Beatles members. We have no authority to judge this usage, we just have to report it, plain and simple. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Cameron, the full force of the Intelligence agencies, and the Lead

Should we cut this from the lead? British Prime Minister David Cameron has ordered MI5, MI6, and GCHQ to track and capture him.

For a start, it's pretty obvious/hysterical, but it's also now outdated. The US Senate $10m bounty is a good, solid historical point that quickly adds context (IMO) and should remain, but others might feel differently. Bromley86 (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this has a newsy tone and is not WP:LEAD material on the basis of the sourcing. It is not dealt with substantially elsewhere in the article, so it should be removed. The only trouble is that this would leave the lead too short.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Senate $10m

As it stands, a casual reader of the article will assume that JJ has had a reward of $10m placed on his head by the Americans. Whilst I don't want to discourage anyone from trying to collect that, it doesn't appear to be true.

On 20 September 2014, the United States Senate approved a $10 million reward for information that led to the capture of anyone involved in the murders of James Foley, Steven Sotloff and David Cawthorne Haines, which includes Jihadi John.[8][9]

I've removed the Express cite, but left the IBT one. Other sources ([10][11][12][13]). The key point here though is that the Senate can do anything it likes, but until the House and President okay the bill, it's just paper. The expectation was that the House would have a look at it after the mid terms in Nov, but (a) there's been no news on that and (b) there's no JJ on the Rewards for Justice website.[14] So it seems it's been booted into the long grass.

Definitely needs a rewrite in the body and removal from the lead. The question is, should it be removed altogether? It was news for one day, not widely reported and has had zero impact, other than those few colourful headlines. Bromley86 (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I've updated it. Thanks, Library of Congress! Still technically alive, and could still have an impact. Up to $5 million could mean a dollar, though. Definitely not as sexy as a non-negotiable $10 million, but possibly(?) unprecedented, if passed.
Given its current ethereal state and non-exclusivity to Emwazi, I've removed it from the lead. Not that important. Yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

John, John, John - the Jihadi, Jailer and Beatle references are more than sufficiently mentioned in the text

In Internet searches in News:

I edited the lead text to say:

"Despite the disgust of Ringo Starr,[1] the killer has been referred to in the media by the nicknames such as "Jihadi John" in reference to John Lennon."

But this was edited back to the content:

He has previously been referred to in the media by the nicknames "Jihadi John", "John the Beatle", and "Jailer John".

How is it that we can repeatedly grind out the name John in the article and remove comment from one of the friends of the John that was referred to?

Ping: Ianmacm

reference:

  1. ^ NEWTON, JENNIFER (4 September 2014). "Ringo Starr disgusted by ISIS 'Beatles' nickname: 'It's b******t. They're against everything we stood for'". Daily Mail. Retrieved 7 March 2015. it is 'b******t' that they have these names as it goes against The Beatles' ideology of peace and love.

GregKaye 20:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added Ringo's response to the Nicknames section. WWGB (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
You'll need to find a better source. I have nothing against the Mail or Standard, but your paragraph will be removed by someone (coincidentally named, given the article) if you leave those two as the cites. Bromley86 (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Because the Ringo comment isn't particularly newsworthy or surprising? Bromley86 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The London Evening Standard is not a problematic source and is often used as a cite in London Wikipedia articles. The Daily Mail is much more of a problem source and should not be used in BLP articles. The Mail is only repeating the Standard article anyway, and this is churnalism. Assuming that the Starr quote is not made up by the Standard, it has some relevance due to the great pity of dragging the Beatles into all of this. However, it is is not suitable for the WP:LEAD and should be mentioned later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
♦IanMacM♦ Really, you think that a reply from a genuine Beatle is not relevant in the lead but you will replace the barely or sparsely sourced and, I think, gratuitous "John the Beatle", and "Jailer John" references back into that text? GregKaye 17:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Assuming you're talking about this diff, he didn't add them back, he reverted your edits. As part of that process, he restored the two less well known nicknames. You've now removed those from the Lead, which makes sense to me (they simply don't have the name recognition to be there, although it's possible that my UK-centric view is skewing my perception, as JtB was the name of choice for the NY Post, for example). Ringo's blurt is absolutely not Lead material. Bromley86 (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD should give due weight to how things have appeared in reliable sources. Some people did not want to mention the Ringo Starr quote at all. I disagree here, but it is not WP:LEAD material on the basis of the Standard article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
User:ianmacm I appreciate what you say regarding giving due weight to how things have appeared in reliable sources. In articles and broadcasts that I have witnessed recently the content may start with a mention of "Jihadi John" (which, when this happens, will often be done with accompanying reference to "Mohammed Emwazi") and then the content will continue to describe issues surrounding Emwazi's situation. My worry in that this article goes in the opposite direction. I think that an imbalance of "Jihadi John" titled references may be attached to the article as editors may potentially have conducted research by searching on this name. Also, in one particular instance when I edited a content to the description given to Emwazi in the referenced article this was reverted back to a reference to "Jihadi John". The way we do things is contrary to the way things are done elsewhere. ping: Bromley86 GregKaye 11:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 26 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: No consensus to move: valid arguments on both sides, but in some cases conflated with the question of treating John and Emwazi as the same person. New RfC opened below to discuss this. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Jihadi John → Mohammed Emwazi – Now that he has been identified we should make this move. PatGallacher (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

100% agree, and will make locating Mohammad Emwazi in real life easier. Nulla Taciti (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until we have confirmation from government sources. As it is, the determination has been made by a couple investigative journalists. Granted they are reliable sources, but there are higher sources who refuse to confirm that Mohammed Emwazi is Jihad John. -- GreenC 16:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

*Support We don't have a higher sources policy, we have an RS policy - RS have named this figure - have RS been wrong before? yes, will they be wrong in the future? Yes. However our policies are not based on us second-guessing when RS will be wrong as that would be OR --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The naming of Mohammed Emwazi is a deluxe version of "sources said last night". This falls short of clear confirmation, and the distinction needs to be made if government sources will not confirm it on the record.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the length of time that security organisations, and indeed government, have admitted they have known this identity, must count for something here. With MI5 not making any denial, it is almost impossible to think this is not true. Surely the announcement in the press must have been sanctioned "at the highest level"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Security orgs usually don't make denials about rumors or claims made by the press, for obvious reasons. Rather, they don't comment one way or another. -- GreenC 17:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
There is also a problem with WP:COMMONNAME, because "Mohammad Emwazi" will not ring many bells at the moment. On reflection, I don't think that WP:V strictly applies here, but it is still a "sources said" type of identification.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester , The only reason he is notable is that he is in ISIL controlled territory and has assumed the roles of jailer, torturer and killer of captives. He is also hyped in that he has been associated with the Beatles et al and, as far as I am concerned, these defamatory associations should be severed. As far as I know ISIL have never presented him at least publicly as "Jihadi John" but they almost certainly refer to him by his name. In Wikipedia I have done a lot of work on secret identities but this is not a case of some Superman (who also has the article Clark Kent). The root association is to the actual historic character of John Lennon not to say that the Mohammad Emwazi character has never responded to "Jihadi John". GregKaye 09:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. His common name in the press is still "Jihadi John", and despite quality reporting by the Post it's still possible that isn't a correct identification. Moreover, Emwazi also seems to have given his name as "Muhammad ibn Muazzam", so we can't even know which spelling will predominate if the identification is correct. It's best to wait on this. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because while it's likely true, it still has not been confirmed by the relevant authorities. It has only been reported by some news sources. At the very least wait. There's no rush. There's still a small chance it is incorrect. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all opposing reasons given above, individually and combined. "Jihadi John" is the name we know him by. Moving "Jihadi John" to Mohammed Emwazi would be like moving Bill Gates to William Henry Gates III. – nafSadh did say 22:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Some Johns might have disagreed. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, now that the lede section has been edited to include his real name, the case to move seems less pressing. Victims' families have expressed the hope that publicising his name may bring him to justice more swiftly. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
But with a full length interview now recorded by John Sawers for BBC Radio 4's Today programme, a map of his foreign travel and pictures of him at junior school, I'm starting to think a name change is required. Yes, maybe WP:COMMONNAME trumps real news coverage, but I don't think it will be long before his real name takes over. A real name seems somehow more "encyclopedic"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Jihadi John is a meaningless name ascribed by the press. He is likely called "Mohammed Emwazi" and this is how he is now frequently named in the media. If Mohammed Emwazi is not the ISIL killer of prisoners that he is now thought to be then he can make himself known and say so. The current name is an insult to the Beatles. GregKaye 18:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I will belatedly add to this that, at a fundamental level, "Jihadi John" laughably fails WP:AT. Jihad is a doctrine regarding the defence of Islamic communities and has nothing to do with the perpetrated killings of aid workers and individuals who had only travelled to the area so as to plead for the freedom of another ISIL captive. His name is not John. GregKaye 19:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. As GregKaye states, I support the request to move. If the claim of his name as being Mohammed Emwazi were in dispute the UK and US intel services would have pointed it out in a timely manner. Also, I agree with GregKaye that the good name of the Beatles should not be misused. Why should we become parties to the news media's glamorization of this individual? Why defame the good name of the Beatles?RainMan GemSongWood (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment not really, as the intelligence services have a history of not confirming or denying media reports. We cannot take the failure of intelligence chiefs to deny this claim on the record as proof that he is Emwazi. The intelligence services have already muddied the waters by telling journalists off the record that Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary was a "key suspect", which was wrongly taken by some people as a formal identification. All we know for sure is that various people associated with CAGE have told the Washington Post and BBC News that it is likely to be Emwazi. In any case, "Jihadi John" (rather silly tabloid nickname IMHO) remains his WP:COMMONNAME in media reports.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
ianmacm, There is nothing that I have said that was wrong and I would appreciate it if you did not praise thing as such. As far as I have seen 'He is likely called "Mohammed Emwazi"'. He is the chief suspect and, even if he is in Iraq or Syria if he is alive and free then there is a possibility that he might be able to disclaim association to the various filmed killings. Two names are associated with the killer. One a fiction not even used by the group and the other the factual name of the chief suspect. The article can be structured in a way in which Emwazi can be presented as nothing more than the chief suspect with the result that we would do nothing beyond the current content of the press. This persona has nothing to do with John Lennon and, as such, I think that "Mohammed Emwazi" would be the better of two bad titles. GregKaye 03:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, things have moved on very rapidly since this request was opened four days ago. Everyone is now convinced that Emwazi is Jihadi John. Is there one single source anywhere that suggests otherwise? But I suspect that, unless many commenters return to amend their !vote, there will be no consensus. So we'll all have to wait for a new one. I think the article should be Mohammed Emwazi and say (previously known as "Jihadi John"), or similar. If the article is meant to reflect the whole life of this person, it should be recognised that he has been known as "Jihadi John" only for the past six months or so? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 2 March 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.
I have restored this from the archive, it's still be referenced and discussed in an ongoing discussion on this page. -- GreenC 13:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Bump. -- GreenC 19:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 March 2015

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for move, and actually the opposers have the balance right now. This may change in time, but I suggest we do not revisit this for at least six months. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


Jihadi John → Mohammed Emwazi – A recent RfC on the topic "Should the article assume Emwazi is Jihadi John?" got overwhelming support. As an alternate article name I had also suggested something like the more long winded: The ISIL killer of captives presented in some media as "Jihadi John". I appreciate that such a title contravenes a number of Wikipedia guidelines but, when killing aid workers etc. is not jihad and when his real name seems not to be John and when the name of a British icon of the standing of John Lennon is tarnished by this most absurd of associations then I think that there is a strong case that WP:IAR applies. A more straightforward move would be to Mohammed Emwazi. GregKaye 10:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well slightly. This isn't a deliberate stage name. And Bollea isn't the subject of a FBI/MI6 manhunt? (Jury's still out on deranged psychopath, I guess.) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not deliberate but (and correct me if I'm wrong) but according to WP:NOTABLE the correct name is the name that is most notable. Even after authorities confirm who this guy is, Jihadhi John will always ring a bell. Just like Andy McNab's real name can be easily verified to be Steven Mitchell[15]. No one can guarantee 100% that this won't be debunked later on(I recall people were very convinced that it was the London rapper a while ago) or there could be multiple people and the hypotheticals could go on. Therefore, Jihadi John is the best way to go.Myopia123 (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Steven Mitchell seems to lack the overwhelming avalanche of WP:RS we have for Emwazi. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • To address the question raised here, Jihadi John is a bit like Darth Vader in the Star Wars films. Even after Emwazi was captured, he could still say "It wasn't me behind the mask in some of the videos/the voice was dubbed/someone else did the beheadings." On the basis of the available evidence, it is likely that Emwazi was involved somewhere along the way in the making of these videos, but Jihadi John remains an elusive character despite what some of the reliable media have claimed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I guess we need to decide if the article is about a person or about a semi-mythical character. But what would give us 100% certainty, and when? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I shouldn't have said 100% certainty, because beyond reasonable doubt is the standard legal expression. The game changer was when members of CAGE said that it was likely to be him. That's still all that we really know, despite the media now assuming for all practical purposes that it is Emwazi.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm surprised at your votes in this RfC and the previous one. There is no definitive proof who JJ is. The media stampede to finger him as the perp makes great theater, but the evidence is built on a single thread that could easily be undone at any time. We know there are better and more reliable sources who have not identified him as JJ and we are ignoring those more reliable sources for the sheer mass of less reliable popular media. -- GreenC 15:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose More notable as Jihadi John. -- GreenC 15:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my previous comment - He's still more known as Jihadi John. –Davey2010Talk 16:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm convinced, now, that Emwazi is Jihadi John. I'm not convinced that "Mohammed Emwazi" is overwhelmingly the more common name for him than "Jihadi John" is. There will almost certainly come some point where he's better known by his birth name than any of the other names he's used, and so a change to reflect this seems inevitable at some point - but we're not there yet. Nor will we be anytime soon; I hope this proposal doesn't become a monthly ritual. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Some more context about the nickname part, since maybe Hulk Hogan wasn't the best example. George Herman "Babe" Ruth, Jr. was given the nickname Babe Ruth by other players during his time in the Baltimore Orioles. Ali Hassan Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti is hard to identify unless you know that's Chemical Ali's real name. Ernesto does not ring the same bell as Che when it comes to Che Guevara. And for good measure, Pocahantas, Caligula and Plato are all nicknames given to those famous people by someone else. That is why I oppose above. Whoever this turns out to be, he will always be Jihadi John first and real name second.Myopia123 (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
If he appears at the International Criminal Court, for example? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Myopia123, Seriously? None of the names that you mentioned made reference to a real life person. Sure, even if he had been named after some famous killer then there might have been no problem - But named after John Lennon? really? GregKaye 20:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
GregKayeummm....Acutally, Babe Ruth, Che Guevara, Chemical Ali, Pocahantas Caligula and Plato are all real people...are you under the assumption that they are fictional?Myopia123 (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Greg's point is, I suspect, that whilst both types of situation involve real people being nicknamed, only The Beatles (terrorist cell) involves the use of someone else's identifying name in the nickname (i.e. Che is not nicknamed, I would assume, after a popular South American pipe band). I disagree with his position on many levels, but that's a different matter. Bromley86 (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Myopia123, your argument seems to be "many other real people have been commonly known by nicknames, therefore this one is just as valid". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much. Nicknames are even a law enforcement tool[16]. This guy has changed names in the past, may change names again. But he'll always be most notorious as Jihadi John. As far as the arguments about this disgracing John Lennon's name, an encyclopedia has no feelings. Myopia123 (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that's a very strong argument. And I don't think we can predict the future like that. To me "Jihadi John" smacks of tabloid journalism, more by accident than design, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep. When I was looking into first uses, it was the Daily Mail that first coined it, whereas The Times went with Jailer John. They switched within a week as other papers took up the Jihadi John name. Of course, that means it is now (or until recently was) the commonname in reliable sources, but it's origins were tabloid. Bromley86 (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Myopia123 You are completely missing the point that he will always be most notorious for apparently slicing peoples heads of with a long piece of metal and that this is a notoriety that will follow him under whatever name he will be known by. Please quit your WP:CRYSTALballing in your unfounded assertions. We do have WP:NPOV which I trust that you have heard of. Clearly there are no moral objections to the use of "Mohammed Emwazi" but valid objections have been raised to the use of the various and ludicrous Beatles references. Now, within a current situation in which the majority of source references are made to Emwazi's actual name the strong argument is for change. Of course an encyclopaedia, which is not written by amoral robots, has feelings. For instance, within its internal workings, if an editor was to create a user login called Myopia123THECRAZEDKILLER you would have every right to take that person to AN/I. What is the difference? Regardless of the common name arguments presented below we can also consider reasons, presented in sources, for and against using a name. GregKaye 16:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Yet another move request? I oppose now for my same reasons as before. He is notable as "Jihadi John", not as "Mohammed Emwazi". We use the common name for a person, based on what they are notable for, and we also use the name most natural for the reader per WP:NATURALNESS. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
ianmacm, Myopia123, Green Cardamom, RGloucester, Davey2010, 209.211.131.181
Please consider some context, the google results for the past week were:
Its more than a 3:1 ratio.
GregKaye 20:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Well said. Obviously it takes a while. And we should never be slave to Google results, of course. But I think that shift is a fair indication of the change in public perception. I'm also unsure about the "highest sources have not named him" argument - did these "highest sources" ever use the name "Jihadi John"? I don't think so. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap. Within news sources many of which are esteemed and which we call "reliable", no. I was quite surprised by this considering the context. A far as secondary sources go "Jihadi John" gets more mentions in news sources while "Mohammed Emwazi" gets more results on the general web. As far as primary sources go I am yet to hear of a parent, relation or politician from an associated nation describing "Jihadi john". GregKaye 19:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Greg Is it possible to omit results that contain Mohammed Emwazi from this google news search[23]. The search I did for Mohammed Emwazi on google news after the name was released returned about 13,700 results[24]. I think the Jihadi John search may have duplicated results that also contain the name, Mohammed Emwazi, having returned about 71,000 results (the first link). I would have thought this would be the name used by media organisations but I understand some people say that the identity of this man may be just a best guess and not a definitive identification. Mbcap (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure it was just a "best guess" from Emwazi's own mother, or for his other family members who felt they had to flee their homes and go into hiding. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap Still in a search on news, however its done, I find that "Jihadi John" gets more results than "Mohammed Emwazi". I find this strange when a general web search presents the opposite. As you know I had a similar issue with "Islamic State". The group declared a contraction to their name and, despite surrounding Arab nations pretty well unanimously sticking with Daesh (ar:داعش) and the international community continuing with ISIS and ISIL, certain news agencies such as Reuters I think inexplicably started making unqualified reference to the group as the "Islamic State". In some cases within the press in these things I suspect that, while people may have a genuine interest in who the person is, the outlets are more interested in presenting a controversial content regardless of the cost.
None the less my original search clearly only presents one side of the story so I think it best to ping editors that gave subsequent support in case they want to reevaluate their positions: Formerip In ictu oculi Ghmyrtle Ezza1995 Cordless Larry
You raise a good point regarding identification. Related issues were covered on this page at #RfC: Should the article assume Emwazi is Jihadi John? The article text complies and, in abridged form, it reads: "Mohammed Emwazi ... is a British man, born in Kuwait, who is thought ..." I think that there may potentially be WP:BLP issues both ways here. We consider that the killer is likely to be Emwazi to the point of saying that this assumption if reasonably safe. The person in the article seems to have has no non-extraneous connection to John Lennon who, though famously dead, was born less than 115 years ago and equally covered by the provisions of BLP. GregKaye 08:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't want to re-evaluate.08:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezza1995 (talk • contribs)
According to this report, Emwazi has acknowledged that he is "Jihadi John". I have no reason to change my view that the article should be renamed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: same report in The Independent: [25]. It's attributed to The Sunday Times and also appears at many other reputable news sites. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It's clearly quite a complicated issue, but I'm going to stick with my original support. The article would have to be carefully worded though (something along the lines of "Emwazi is widely believed to be the man referred to by some media outlets as Jihadi John", or does that breach BLP?). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I don;t see how it breaches BLP when he has already apologised to his own family for the distress his actions have caused them. In the circumstances, surely this amounts to an admission of own real identity? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess it could be argued that we don't know for sure that the person who did that is Emwazi. Anyway, listening to BBC radio this morning, they were describing Emwazi as formerly known as Jihadi John without any qualification, so I think it should be fine for the purposes of renaming the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Greg, searching for "Jihadi John" in the past year I get 95 results [26], whereas I get 3154 for "Mohammed Emwazi" [27]. I think this is more about Google news results being hard to interpret, rather that being slam-dunk proof of anything. But maybe we need to be careful about news searches. I'd say this issue isn't about sheer numbers. The two names probably get fairly even mention at the moment (i.e. most news articles will use both names). The real question is which tends to be presented as his "main" name and which is his AKA. Formerip (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
ETA, I've just realised my numbers are meaningless nonsense and I'm not actually getting a hitcount displayed in either case. Still, I think that just underscores my point. Formerip (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
This guy also had an AKA. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You think it's "like moving Bill Gates to William Henry Gates III"? That doesn't look much the same to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
How is it not? WP:COMMONNAME That is the policy. Bill Clinton not William Jefferson Clinton. Bono not Paul David Hewson. Montel Vontavious Porter not Hassan Hamin Assad. Jihadi John not Mohammed Emwazi. There doesn't seem to be a Beatles fan exception or at least I do not see it. This could change. At some point Jihadi John may not be the most common known name for him. Currently it is.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Neither "Bill Gates" nor "Bill Clinton" are invented nicknames that bear no relation at all to their original birthnames. Bono uses that name professionally, as does Montel Vontavious Porter. And when were any of these others the subject of intense international security efforts to determine their true identity? We're not talking about a pop star or a professional wrestler here. Is there some kind of US/UK split over usage of Emwazi's name? Huff Po still seems happy to call him Jihadi John? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC) This is how he looked in The Mirror (in 2010, before he donned that lovely black hood).
It would not surprise me if there were a US/UK split over this. "Jihadi John" is an anonymous bogeyman figure in a far-off land. Mohammed Emwazi is a British person, who some people in this country will have known personally. The same person, but not seen from quite the same perspective. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Guess he fits in neatly alongside The Joker, The Riddler, and Chemical Ali? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
wp:commonname doesn't list a he's not a popstar exception, but your argument looks alot like the official name argument that is pretty much rejected in that policy. And the way you mention Huffpo it is as if they are the only one to use the name. Which of course you know the majority of news sources both left and right do? Look Fox News on the opposite end of the spectrum from Huffpo uses it. [BBC] as well. But I do have some good news for you. If you type in Mohammed Emwazi in search it brings you here. The article also points this out as his real name. It does not matter, national security, Beatles fandom, Ringo Starr speaking out, not a popstar,ect. The Vast majority of readers will know of him by the name Jihadi John. Do I find it offensive? Yes. John Lennon was a very peaceful man. But thta's not actually relevant as I've said.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Huff Po was just one example. And some folks still see the name as offensive to Lennon, so to them it is relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, even though it is less than a month since Emwazi's identity was revealed, search results for the last month are as follows:
(isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") and "Mohammed Emwazi" got "About 25,000 results"
(isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") and "Jihadi John" got "About 3,000 results"
Most importantly, PLEASE remember, this was not "John Lennon". The group was not "The Beatles". It was just press fabrication.
Ping: ianmacm Myopia123 Green Cardamom Davey2010 209.211.131.181 RGloucester Nafsadh Serialjoepsycho Tutelary. GregKaye 18:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Let us revisit in three-six months. Right now it is waste of time discussing the move since a RM procedure was closed very recently. – nafSadh did say 19:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that would mean the article stays wrongly titled for three-six months. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
User:GregKaye it was not press fabrication. The nickname was invented and used by the people who were being held captive, since they didn't know their captors real name they invented nicknames. -- GreenC 19:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
GreenC sure some contingent amongst prisoners called him John. This was then developed into the "Jihadi ..", "Jailer .." and ".. the Beatle" nicknames which were then promoted by the sensation hungry British press. More recently the actual name of this individual has been at least as well used as any of the false names. GregKaye 20:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
See Category:Lists of people by nickname. It's not uncommon for people to get sensationalist nicknames. Our concern is if the person is better known by the nickname or real name. BTW I clicked through to your Google search string results above and went to the "News" tab since that is reliable sources (per WP:GOOGLEHITS), and it's the same number of sources either way 5 or 6 in the past month. Maybe better than Google hits is look at how the major news outlets are reporting him. Does the BBC/NYT/WaPo/Guard etc.. still call him John in their latest stories? -- GreenC 20:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The suggested name of Mohammed Emwazi is now the common name within reliable sources. Therefore the move should go ahead. I would ask other editors here who have opposed on the basis of common name to re-evaluate sources. It has been said before that google searches can be hard to interpret and it is for this reason that we get the obtuse scores. I think on closer inspection, they are inconclusive and one needs to do a manual audit of what name reliable sources use. Mbcap (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. As GregKaye has shown, since his real name has become known, it has been more common in the sources. WP:COMMONNAME specifically speaks to this point: " If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change".--Cúchullain t/c 13:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Cuchullain -- The raw Google hits GregKaye provided are very misleading for a number of reasons. Here is a better method that relies on reliable sources. 1. Search on the name within a major news site (Washington Post for example) 2. Limit the search to the past month to filter out old uses of Jihadi John before his real name was known. Here are the results: Mohammed Emwazi and Jihadi John .. as you can see Jihadi John is still most popular (in terms of raw number of results) even in the past 30 days. I haven't looked at other major sources (NYT, BBC, The Guardian) but not difficult, just replace the site:domain in the above URLs. -- GreenC 14:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
About 49 results from "Jihadi John" site:washingtonpost.com
About 21 results from "Mohammed Emwazi" site:nytimes.com
About 128 results from "Jihadi John" site:www.bbc.co.uk/
About 36 results "Jihadi John" site:www.theguardian.com/uk
3 results from "Jihadi John" site:www.thetimes.co.uk/
Green Cardamom here are a range of results with an especially favourable result added from the times. I thought it was only the British press that were ready to defecate on their own culture and people. Apparently I was wrong. GregKaye 15:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like US sources use JJ more often then ME, and reverse in England. --GreenC 18:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
... or UK, even. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
..ok the England-based UK papers
You are misrepresenting those search results. Articles such as Journalist says ‘Jihadi John’ ‘caressed my neck with the blade’ in mock executions use the nickname for an attention-getter, then quickly cast it in the past tense now that his actual name is known, e.g. from that article "“Feel it? Cold, isn’t it? Can you imagine the pain you’ll feel when it cuts? Unimaginable pain,” Espinosa quoted the terrorist, who was identified last month as Mohammed Emwazi by The Washington Post.". We would find the same sort of usage in news coverage of the Unabomber and BDK; when they were unknown that is all that was used, but post-identification the sources start putting the nickname in scare quotes, followed by the real name. That is why those articles are named, respectively, Ted Kaczynski and Dennis Rader. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I quite agree. Do we want the article to follow sensatonal headlines or to follow considered journalism. It's not just about frequency of use. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The question is, how do most people know this person? Most people don't read "considered journalism" unfortunately rather watch CNN and nightly news or front page news which all tend to be sensationalized to some degree. Thus most people who type his name into the search box will use the most common name. -- GreenC 18:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
You're saying we should draw on the tabloid press as the most representative sources, because that's what "most people read", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't think we should use "tabloid press". -- GreenC 18:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I should replace "considered journalism" with "news articles" i.e. just not the headlines. is that clearer? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I believe the reason they use Jihadi John in headlines is because the name is recognized by the public, while the name Mohammed Emwazi isn't going to ring many bells of recognition. Which is the same reason we should use it too. -- GreenC 21:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Wow. What a wonderfully circular argument that is. I am amazed. Please take one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh thanks. But you miss the point if you think it's a circular argument. -- GreenC 01:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Green Cardamom The name of the person detailed in the article is Mohammed Emwazi. Please consider whether it will be sufficient to use Jihadi John as a redirect to the genuine content. It will be always be there for anyone who writes this name into the search bar and can be used. I think that this would be a suitable corollary in regard to reality and fiction. We are an encyclopaedia. GregKaye 13:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Have you read WP:COMMONNAME? The point is to choose the name most likely to be searched on, the most recognized name. I don't care which it is. But the fact the news agencies continue to use Jihad John in the headlines tells is this is the name most widely recognized, according to reliable sources. -- GreenC 14:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Green Cardamom Yes of course. The content of the guideline informs us that "Wikipedia ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Reliable sources are close to even and, as several editors have commented, there are also other issues involved. There come times when editors need to choose between preferences in building encyclopaedic content. His name is "Mohammed Emwazi" and, for a variety of reasons I think that this is what we should present. GregKaye 17:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment I think that it is fair to comment that we do not always go by the commonnest of names. Perhaps this is especially in cases where there is no predominant use. An example of this may be T. E. Lawrence.

"T. E. Lawrence" gets "About 3,680 results" in news
"T. E. Lawrence" gets "About 184,000 results" in books
"Lawrence of Arabia" gets "About 51,600 results" in news (possibly with substantial addition of 'like "Lawrence of Arabia"' type references)
"Lawrence of Arabia" gets "About 123,000 results" on web

This issue was coincidently raised at Talk:T. E. Lawrence. GregKaye 09:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A useful comparison. (That last one is books, yes?) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
"Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument can go both ways. Not sure T E Lawrence helps us in deciding what to do with Jihadi John. -- GreenC 12:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a very good example of a popular name appearing to be more widespread but still not being preferred for an encyclopedia entry. "The Yorkshire Ripper" vs "Peter Sutcliffe" might be another example. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Ping: ianmacm Myopia123 Green Cardamom Davey2010 209.211.131.181 RGloucester Nafsadh Serialjoepsycho Tutelary.
  • Comment, I checked through the "killer" and "ripper" references in: Category:American serial killers and Category:English serial killers, and in all instances in which it was not uncovered that there were multiple and yet in which the killer's identity became known, the actual identity of the killer is used as Wikipedia article title. This is the situation even before the name of a peace loving British music icon gets nonsensically dragged into the reference. I don't think that we should have one practice for one issue and another practice in another.
GregKaye 06:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Stop pinging me. This has been opened for 7 days go seek an official close. Your new comments don't really change anything for me. Perhaps they will someone else. Stop pinging me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, no more pings. We've all had our two cents' worth on this issue and the discussion has been running for over a month. It is time for closure and a decision here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye - Stop pinging me - I opposed over a month ago so I'm hardly gonna change my !vote now, You've now pinged me 3 times - Do it again and I'll take you to ANI. –Davey2010Talk 14:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
A new course of discussion and new argument was presented and I would hope that editors might be open to considering new angles in regard to considered debates. Editors ask not to be pinged which is fine by me. GregKaye 16:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a minor argument. It's in no way notable. This conversation was opened a month ago. This conversation was played out before it started and it's definitely played out a month after. The Green River Killer Gary Ridgeway has an article under his real name. You note a precedence, I note the irrelevance. He is just as infamous under both names. An argument that to change his article name to the Green River Killer would be pedantic. The case that JJ is just as infamous under his real name is weak and following a failed attempt to do this. It's time to close this. If you haver a case it's already been made.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Just squeezing in before the close. I'd been holding off for various reasons, but it's clear that precedent/consistency, as well as the way this article is now structured, means it should be titled Emwazi and not JJ. If we're not going to treat it as 100% confirmed, then split the two subjects and merge when it is confirmed. However, the majority view here seems to be that he's confirmed enough for the article to treat JJ and Emwazi as the same person (the treatment by the vast majority of reliable sources indicates that they've taken the same view), so the title should do likewise; we can always change it later if the assumption proves incorrect. Bromley86 (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • yes: use real name not fake media applacation. Togashi Yuuta (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-close discussion

I can accept "no consensus" in this RfC which lasted six weeks. But I'd appreciate an explanation from the closer Guy of the remark that "the opposers have the balance right now." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Only on the basis of this being the name by which he is best known, and the fact that there is some residual uncertainty about identity, albeit rather small by now. Even murderers are entitled tot he protection of WP:BLP, much as it may distress us to enforce it. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I see. Maybe there's "residual uncertainty" in the minds of some wikipedia editors, but I don't see much in the current (or latest) press coverage. I'm also unconvinced by your "best known" claim. Oh well. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
If you think there is no residual uncertainty then you might want to re-read the article and look at the history of the identification. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
My summary: he attained notoriety as Jihadi John; a number of real names were suggested for him; he was eventually positively identified as Emwazi. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Jihadi John present in burning of Jordanian pilot

Jihadi John present in burning of Jordanian pilot http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/27/new-picture-of-jihadi-john-taking-part-in-burning-of-jordanian-pilot-5081869/ relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.154.27 (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The source only claims that it is him. One person in a mask can look much like any other. Not a firm ID by any means, so unsuitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 24 July 2015

It seems the first consensus not to move based largely on the fact that some (important) sources had not yet identified the man in the beheading videos as Mohammed Emwazi. This, however, would not be a conflict even if the page were moved to one with the title "Mohammed Emwazi", as the page would still say that Emwazi is the man generally thought by available sources to be the man in the videos. AndrewOne (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

jihadi john on the run

[28] according to newspaper jihadi john has fled is it relevant? example Abdel-Majed Abdel Bary has fled

This has been covered by various outlets, and they are all repeating this news story from the Daily Mirror. It is another of the "sources said" stories about JJ, which makes it rather thin stuff.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
There are those who hold that the Daily Mirror is not a WP:RS. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed "unnamed sources" + Daily Mail tabloid = unreliable. -- GreenC 21:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

New video in Mail on Sunday

JJ is on the front page of the Mail on Sunday today, or at least he is said to be (note the use of inverted commas on the front page). The accompanying story is rather thin and does not provide any firm ID for the video being JJ. Not worth adding to the article in this form.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jihadi_John/Archive_2&oldid=1084071607"