Talk:Shosei Koda

Description

Is this grusome description entirely appropriate? 62.55.149.206 00:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Somebody take it away. That was sickening. I feel like vomiting.

Wow, if you're that soft, you should see some other Iraq beheadings. You'd have a heart attack. This beheading was nothing, and I've seen alot worse on ogrish.com. Anyway, if you have a weak stomach, why did you click on a link that you knew was a beheading video? It says that the link contains a graphic decaption and it's non-clickable, So you can't accidentally click on it. The link stays.Mimbster 01:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I have a very difficult time feeling sorry for Shosei. What kind of dumb@ss goes to Iraq just to know "what's going on there"? Don't they have the news in Japan? If you ask me, this guy was looking for trouble. He paid with his life for it; such a waste. TripleH1976 1:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I have to say the same thing: when I want to get killed or beheaded I'll go to Iraq.VincentG 04:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like someone took pleasure in detailing the beheading with sentences like"..he groaned as the knife cut into his throat. Blood began to gush..." This is not the kind of stuff people should read in an encyclopedia article, nor should the description of his beheading take up over half of his biography page. The link to the video should be enough if people want to see it, I'm removing the overly descriptive language.

Note that the link has been removed for much the same reasons. Hyacinth 16:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Video link

I feel very strongly that users such as TripleH1976 who feel it is necessary/acceptable to link this encyclopedic website to indecent shock sites. If Wikipedia was an adult site, fine. But the fact is, Wikipedia is used worldwide in schools - is it acceptable that schoolchildren might link from this site to something which might scar them such as a decapitation video?

This has no place on Wikipedia. Please have some respect and stop adding it.

And one school teacher, in the United States, showed his students a beheading video courtesy of ogrish. Stop trying to shield people from the truth. Stop trying to censor. There is plenty of warning that the video is a beheading and very graphic. If little Johnnie happens to open it, out of curiosity, and is scarred blame his parents for not monitoring his internet activity. Wikipedia isn't responsible for his well-being. Ogrish is not a shock site as you put it. It is a site that exposes the truth. I think the fact that YOU want to remove it has more to do about you, then the school children you think you're trying to protect. You probably can't handle the video and that's why you want it removed. Well, too bad. A person might want to view it that's their business. You have no right in the world to shield people from the video. I'm putting it back in and will continue doing so should you remove it. TripleH1976 Mon 09:25 a.m., 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are a narrow minded and obviously quite misguided person. If sick people like you want to watch this stuff, they can search for it. Please don't belittle me. I have written articles about far more graphic things, and have exposed myself to far more horrific images and videos in researching these articles. Ogrish IS a shock site and a notrious one at that. It has NO PLACE on this site and I'm sure the Wiki admin will agree with me. REMOVED.

You must be one of those people, who reports his/her neighbors to the police if they fart. You can CHOSE to go to the site. What don't you understand about that? In no shape, way, or form does wikipedia force a reader to watch it. You certainly have issues. No body is sick for watching or wanting to watch the video. Sick is the people doing the beheading. TripleH1976 Mon 15:52 p.m., 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Here we go with the personal stuff. I think you'll find that wishing to watch someone's murder IS considered to be sick - I don't think it is me who has issues. My point is not that this stuff should not be available on the net, but it certainly should not be available from a site like Wikipedia. It seems that you are completely dominating the thread of this poor fellow by posting the video of his death, why don't you have some bloody respect? REMOVED (again).

You certainly need to read this then: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_Is -- read the third one. TripleH1976 Tue 02:36 a.m., 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't endorse censorship but with power comes responsibility. REMOVED.

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 16:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you site a Wikipedia policy which encourages or endorses your removal of the link? Hyacinth 16:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Responsibility to whom? You? Sorry you are not that special. Wikipedia's principle responsibilities are that its information is accurate and verifiable. It is not a paperback encyclopedia either. Furthermore, it's a parents responsibility to monitor what their child views on the internet. Not wikipedia. Who told you wikipedia is a child-friendly site? Wikipedia has articles on war, crime, disease, and torture. Those are not subjects for children, but they are here nonetheless. As they should be.

TripleH1976 Tue 18:46 p.m., 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Video Link: Copyright Issues

Wikipedia does not allow links to sites which break copyright law. After looking into this I have discovered that Ogrish.com DOES NOT license its news footage videos and has been cited many times for breaking copyright law. The videos on the site ARE NOT licensed under the GNU Public License and therefore DO break Wikipedia policy. You may not link Wikipedia to copyright-breaching sites. This particular video may not hold a copyright, but Ogrish carries videos which do. Jamezcd

The video was released into the public domain, by the people who developed the video. It is public domain; no body owns copyright for it. It can be used for any purpose. Ogrish has it because they CAN have it. Take your issues up with ogrish. You are wrong that ogrish violates copyright laws. Go to their FAQ. They often buy their material and are careful not to violate anything. Furthermore the video contains the ogrish logo. Ogrish does not breach copyright laws. Get a life! TripleH1976

I have a life which doesn't involve watching people die. If you want to urinate all over this Wikipedia page AND this man's memory by posting this crap, then go right ahead. I think you'll find that it is YOU who needs to take a good long look at your motives. REMOVED for the last time. Jamezcd (talk · contribs)

Oh go watch your Full House episodes. I spoke to two administrators, who said the link is fine as long as I warn people about it's contents. And state that a person must be 18 year old or older to view the material. I never knew Shosei, and I'm sorry he died horribly. The only people entitled to honor his memory are his friends and family. TripleH1976 Thu, 03:24 a.m., 22 June 2006.

This user's tone is extremely rude, and he has been involved in an edit war and he doesn't seem to hesitate towards making personal attacks. The fact that two administrators says it's "OK" doesn't mean the link HAS to be there, if in a discussion on the debate page comes to the conclusion that it shouldn't be there, for whatever reason, it shouldn't be there. This is not your personal entry and you shouldn't expect the article to never change from what you want. I'm going to remove the link because it is not helpful to the article, it brings nothing as an already (far too) explicit explanation explains anything you could ever need to know about the killing. The fact that some (morbid?) people might want to see the video doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. Before you put it in back and start a new edit war (not that I would participate in one), I strongly recommend you to post on this talk page why you think it's so damned necessary.Mackan 11:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Do note that the article for Nick Berg includes a link to his decapitation video, although it's not from ogrish-albrozdude 16:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

All right I apologize for my tone. I know I can be a jerk sometimes. I think the link is necessary, because some people might want to view it. If wikipedia is going to be recognied world wide it should encompass everything; the good and bad life has to offer. I think if the link contains a warning and tells the reader you must be 18 years old or older to watch it it is sufficient warning for those, who have a weak stomach and can not tolerate the video. Furthermore, the 5 pillars of wikipedia state it does not have any firm rules. It states that wikipedia is free content. I believe people, who want to remove, the video, do so because THEY personally can not tolerate the video and want to dictate what people should and shouldn't view. That to me is censorship, something wikipedia does not endorse. Some people might not be satisfied just by the description of the video. They want to SEE it. What reason do we have to deny them that? Albrozdude you are correct the Nick Berg decapitation video is available in his article. Yeah, so, overall those are my reasons. Again sorry for being rude.

TripleH1976 Thurs, 11:12 a.m., 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about giving people what they want, if people want porn, is it Wikipedia's duty to give it to them? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and what matters is if it has encyclopedic value. Mackan 17:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to know what your authority is to re-post the link even though users (more than one) have expressed concern. Jamezcd (talk · contribs)

Any user has the "authority" to contribute to Wikipedia, provided they are complying with Wikipedia's policies. The main policy in question here is well established: [Wikipedia is not censored]. Palatability to children should never be a criterion in determining what is appropriate for Wikipedia. It does strike me that if seeing a beheading is disturbing to children, then reading about a real-life beheading is probably inappropriate as well, and responsible parents might choose to restrict their children from reading the article altogether. Regardless, it's not Wikipedia's role to make either of those judgement calls.

Wikipedia's policy on censorship states that "While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies." This is a clear example of a link that is relevant to the content. If you want to raise other objections, that's more than fine; we can address them and come to a consensus.

So far, I see three main objections that the video link might violate an existing Wikipedia policy: copyright, notability/encyclopedic value, and editing of the link contrary to consensus. The copyright issue, it appears, has been raised and adequately answered. I don't see any counterargument disagreeing that the video is, in fact, public domain. Although the content may be "crap," it's certainly notable, as evidenced by the press coverage of the incident. Is it encyclopedic? There's a grey area, in my mind, as to whether any current events are encyclopedic; simply because something is of interest at the moment doesn't mean it's of lasting, "encyclopedic" importance. In this particular case, my gut response is that both the article and the video are most certainly of encyclopedic value. I'm reminded of Eisenhower, who (to quote from Wikipedia's own article), "upon full discovery of the death camps that were part of the Final Solution of the Holocaust, ... ordered camera crews to comprehensively document evidence of the atrocity so as to prevent any doubt of its occurrence." Given the tendency towards historical revisionism on all sides of such bitter conflicts, it's absolutely of historical value to document atrocities - not out of morbid fascination, but so that the truth is documented for those who want to distinguish between truth and propaganda.

That said, in a case like this, it's a legitimate concern that a random click not take you somewhere you really didn't mean to go. The link is more than adequately forewarned, and it's not clickable. That makes the information available, but only for those who make a deliberate, informed choice to view it, which is, in my opinion, a perfectly appropriate resolution.

Concerning the final issue concerning re-posting the link "even though users (more than one) have expressed concern" and perhaps editing contrary to consensus, there are two ways to look at the situation. You can ask whether there is consensus to remove the link, or consensus to keep the link. More than one person, on this talk page, has supported both positions. Neither side has a numerical consensus - bearing in mind that [Wikipedia is not a democracy]. It's our discussion of the issue, within the framework of Wikipedia guidelines, that should matter, not the number of people who have an opinion. I'd like to gently suggest that everyone involved take a deep breath, review [WP:NOT], [WP:CIVIL], and [WP:NPA]. In the meantime, assuming we have not in fact yet reasoned politely with one another and reached consensus or at least a reasonable compromise, WP:NOT should take precedent as policy, and the unclickable link should stay until a consensus-achieving case is made that the video is not encyclopedic. Peirigill 10:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You Peirilgill for your insightful post. Well, I think the video is encyclopedic because it is piece of history in regards to the Iraq war. It is very high profile. It is the first beheading(the Italian man Fabrizio doesn't count for he was shot to death) the insurgents made against a non-British, Iraqi or American citizen. The victim is much different then the others in the sense that Shosei was not in Iraq for military or employment reasons. He went there as an ordinary citizen. I know the video is gruesome, but that's why it does have a warning. TripleH1976 01:52 a.m., 08 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link for a reason. One it is disrespectful to the mans memory. Two, I dont beleive the mans family would want an ENCYCLOPEDIA site showing links to that video. Three there is already a detailed explanation of his death. Four Wikipedia is not a shock site. Five The video is the propoganda of Terrorist who have an agenda of Harm against the MAJORITY of the people in the world.

Warmon 01:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know what? Wikipedia is not a memorial site to him either. His family can not order wikipedia around either. Wikipedia does not have to censor for you, or his family. TripleH1976 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Japanese interwiki

I undid the revision by User:Kojoyeid, or in other words, deleted the Japanese interwiki and replaced it with a link at the "See also" section. I would like to record that I did this for the following reasons:

• The English article is on the victim whereas the Japanese article is on the murder case. They are closely related, but not exactly the same subject. Theoretically, therefore, it is arguable that the interwiki is not necessary/appropriate.
• Japanese Wikipedia has extemely strict privacy policies, and does not allow any mention of personal information on crime victims/offenders. Adding the Japanese interwiki here is problematic to them because it will prompt the inter-lang bots to create a reverse link in the Japanese arcticle, thereby adding the victim's real name (in the form of the title of this article) there.
• For your information, in order to avoid the mention of the victim's name, the Japanese article is not directly linked to this artcile, but it gives a link to Iraq-Japanese beheading which redirects here.

Please refer to the related discussion here. I would appreciate your kind understanding. Thanks.--Dwy (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, not showing his name is there problem. If there isn't a exact article the closest if close enough should be linked. Your opinion that the Japanese article is about the murder case is simply false. It's about the murdered victim and shows his picture. It just doesn't use his name in preference for a descriptive euphemism due to their privacy policies. This is against policy (on here) not to link there. Perhaps if the Japanese editors have such a huge privacy issue they should contact MediaWiki for a solution which portray an alternate name for our article on their encyclopedia. Furthermore the link on their edition would appear in English which the Japanese don't speak, and they can easily find out his name if they want to. It's not a secret. Any way, its not our issue and I will re-add the link. Japanese policies are not our own.Cholga^talK! 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Beheading japanese.jpg

The image Image:Beheading japanese.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

English meaning of Given Name

I'm not sure what counts as a usable citation for this, but I'm not sure it's notable either. That combination of characters has no meaning as written other than being a given name, but a direct translation of it could read as "proof of life" or something similar. I'm not sure that this is relevant to or contributes to the article as a whole though. 76.208.142.199 (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How?

The article breezes right by any description at all. I understand that gory and detailed descriptions might be controversial, but as it is, the article completely ignores method. HOW was he beheaded? By chainsaw, rusty knife, guillotine...? Boneyard90 (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Death Date

The article gives his death date as October 29, but states that he was beheaded on November 3. There seems to be an inconsistency there that is worth resolving. (If he was dead when beheaded, this also seems worthy of mention.)203.158.44.229 (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/31/japan.hostage/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shosei Koda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221205618/http://www.khaleejtimes.com/displayArticle.asp?col=&section=newsmakers&xfile=data/newsmakers/2004/October/newsmakers_October19.xml to http://www.khaleejtimes.com/displayArticle.asp?col=&section=newsmakers&xfile=data/newsmakers/2004/October/newsmakers_October19.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/27/content_386218.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)