Talk:The Beatles (terrorist cell)/Archive 1

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

Images of Steven Sotloff

Images of Steven Sotloff has been nominated for deletion for the last 9 days. You can join in the deletion discussion here.~Technophant (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup

This article is pretty messy at the moment. The merge was rather unprecedented. Any thoughts? JhonsJoe (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the computer-generated image? Rothorpe (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be ABC News. But it is public domain nevertheless. JhonsJoe (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Questions on Notability

I understand that the two

WP:RS upon which notability has been based to justify the creation of this article as The Beatles (terrorist cell) are [1]
and [2].

I also understand that the two sources simply say:

"The three UK-born militants were referred to as "the Beatles" by fellow hostages because of their nationality, the former captive added."

"Hostages of three ISIS British-accented militants came to call the trio 'The Beatles'"

So, is my understanding correct that there is no evidence that the group has ever called themselves "The Beatles"? Also, is my understanding correct that only a (very) small number of hostages "decided" to call them The Beatles, just because of their nationality and/or because they had British accents?

Also, I have seen ample of evidence that

Jihadi Ringo notable? Worldedixor (talk
) 06:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Questions on using the adjective terrorist in the article

We've had extensive discussions on whether it is appropriate to use the adjective terrorist.

We need to protect the

Terrorist
isn't neutral terminology.

So, assuming The Beatles are notable, and I have not seen evidence yet, who designated this group as "terrorist". If there is a

WP:RS can prove that a certain body has designated the group as terrorist, shouldn't we say "so and so designated the group as a terrorist"? Worldedixor (talk
) 06:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Another fine mess...

This article is becoming a mess, because without a consensus on which version of the article to use from the edit history, all sorts of things are going to get fouled up. For example, this version contains a heap of bare references. Let's have some consistency here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That version is the version that existed before an IP editor merged content from Jihadi John without a consensus. As instructed by Wikipedia:Merging, "If your merger is reverted, it's controversial and you need to discuss it." The content should not be reinserted again unless there is a clear consensus for it. Both articles have been tagged with for a merge proposal so I suggest pursuing the course of action as laid out by the merger guidelines i.e. propose the merge, discuss it, determine what the consensus it, then undertake the necessary steps to merge if that is the outcome. Until the outcome is known it is probably best to continue developing the original version of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This article is now in limbo, because it is unclear what form it should take. I am reluctant to make any major edits to it, as they could be swept away by various theories about what the article should look like.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Location of beheading

Just because the exact line is repeated on this article...

I made note of a counterargument acknowledged by Bellingcat (who we are citing in the Unofficial analysis section) about the location of the beheadings: Talk:Jihadi John#Location wrong? moluɐɯ 18:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Lock the article.

We are all tired of theese ip editors messing up the articles. In fact, an IP actually merged it in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JhonsJoe (talk • contribs) 11:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Lock it -- but after the merge. The merge made sense -- it merged in a constituent element. Which I support. There wasn't consensus support to undo the merge, and many editors had edited it happily in merged form without any problem. The revert of the merge was blatantly disruptive. There is no requirement of a !vote prior to a merge. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The main story is Jihadi John. He is the suspected multiple murderer. The other two are shadowy bit players. A merge is warranted, but we should merge the group article INTO the JJ article. That also seems to be a popular outcome at the AfD discussion. WWGB (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

New Info for the article

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/world/middleeast/horror-before-the-beheadings-what-isis-hostages-endured-in-syria.html?hp&version=HpHedLargeMediaSubhedSum&WT.nav=top-news&_r=2&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Middle%20East&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article Substantial new info on the Beatles terrorists that can be used to improve the article including they were formerly part of Al-Nusra and various operational locations, torture techniques, negotiations etc. Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge

Consensus not to merge or reverse merge Legacypac (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2014 (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.

Merge. I agree with the suggestion of another editor that Jihadi John be merged into the article on the The Beatles (terrorist cell) which he is a part of. Jihadi John is notable because of his membership in -- and his actions as a member of -- the Beatles cell. These are two pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. In addition, the article on the member of the cell requires the background material or context from the article on the cell in order for readers to understand it. I think that the content in the Jihadi John article can easily be explained in the context of the article on the cell, and the cell article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the Jihadi John article into it will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Reverse Merge. Jihadi John is the central character and main story here. The other "members" of "The Beatles" are just bit players with no real notability. There is no evidence they had any role in the executions. John, however, has a strong and violent Internet presence. The article Jihadi John should be retained. The article The Beatles (terrorist cell) should be merged into Jihadi John and then redirected to that article. WWGB (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
To be correct, Jihadi John should be merged into The Beatles, but at the same time, I can see WWGB's point. Jihadi John is the central figurehead. I am at a loss as to which is best -- both are valid points. In the long run, merging JJ into The Beatles would be more accurate and inclusive, but while the press drama unfolds, it also makes sense the other way too to avoid confusion. 2601:7:6880:740:212:17FF:FE94:BE5E (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The most important thing IMHO is that the articles both exist, whether by merger or otherwise. If there is to be one article, I believe it should be the cell -- because that is the only article of the two that can properly discuss both articles without it being a fork. One can go on at length, at new information comes in, about the Beatles, and one can properly still cover everything about John .. as he is notable for being a Beatle. At this point, we can cover both properly in one article. Should there be so much info on John that in the future because of size he requires a separate article, we could do that at such point. If both are merged, the second article will be redirected -- and no doubt that will serve most readers well, as they will wish likely to read about the cell and its members ... both.Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Merge. These two articles are about the same thing. The Editor below seems to be ambivalent on this point, and its does not sound logical. But she is correct that JJ has all the noteriety. That being said, I reviewed the uncensored execution videos, and you can hear the voices of one of the other cell members speaking. So they are all involved, which is what every press article and video they have released attests to, as well as the fact that the current manhunt is for all three of them, not just JJ. I vote Merge. 2601:7:6880:740:212:17FF:FE94:BE5E (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge "Jihadi John" and "The Beatles" are not the same thing. Most of the news coverage has been predominantly about the executions carried out by Jihadi John and manhunt for him, not about the terror cell per se. That establishes the notability of Jihadi John, or at least his crimes. The existence of this article should not solely rest on the basis of Jihadi John's notoriety: if the terror cell is independently notable then it should be about the terror cell as a whole not just about Jihadi John. Betty Logan (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - You have it backwards. The terrorist cell is notable because of the member, Jihadi John. You can tell from the section on individual cell members that the focus is almost entirely on John and the beheadings (perpetrated by John). There might be enough for the cell to stand alone as an article, and we can probably expect more stuff on the group as a whole in the future, but John certainly has the merits to be its own article. moluɐɯ 15:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Seeing "reverse merge" is a new one to me, but it makes a good point. I'm of a Highlander view on this - " In the end, there can be only one". Usually it is best if the larger container contains the smaller unit. In the eventualist view more will be known about "The Beatles" including background and names. It was premature to merge Jihadi John into this article. I'm not going to vote on this one, I trust other users to figure this one out.~Technophant (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with WWGB. This article was originally suggested to be merged into Jihadi John, not the other way around. It was changed into the current merge tag, after this. Jihadi John alone is more notable than the cell that he belongs to. Therefore, I agree with the AfD tag that The Beatles (terrorist cell) should be deleted and Jihadi John should be kept. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2014 (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.


Rename and Expand Article

I have a the following suggestion: Rename and expand this article to deal with all foreign fighters who are NOT notable in their own right (such as Jihadi John). Some specific cases worthy of mention are people like The (terrorist) Beatles, this new information about an masked (possibly) American ISIS fighter for which the FBI has put out a wanted ad [3], [4]. There have been additional reports about British and American ISIS members(both male and female) joining and/or being killed in airstrikes[5], [6], [7], [8]. A google search also keeps on showing more and more people coming out as western citizens in ISIS, with articles such as this one even talking about how successful ISIS has been at recruiting western citizens.

The purpose/logic/rationale behind the merger is as follows: Each topic is about individuals who are members of ISIS and are suspected to be from Western Countries. I feel that:

  • On a larger scale, these people and them travelling to this region would not be notable without the fact that they are western and their purpose was to join and fight for ISIS (with the exception of Jihadi John).
  • It would be better served for the purposes of an encyclopedia to have all of this information as one article with sections devoted to different individuals instead of spread out over different articles, since it seems that foreigners travelling to and fighting for ISIS is turning into a big deal in the West.

I look forward to all of your comments regarding this suggestion.Myopia123 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This subject is clearly covered by RSs, per GNG, in its own right. As evidenced by the refs in the article. Many of which specifically reference the Beatles. No opinion given as to whether you might explore whether a broader article would be appropriate, separately. But this article is properly named, an appropriate subject, and the title of it matches how it is referred to in may RS articles. Epeefleche (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There maybe room for an article on the foreign fighter phenomenon but this group has significant notoriety on its own. Legacypac (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Added currentevent tag

Not current event per WP guidelines Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2014 (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.

MI15 has reported that Jihadi John's pattern is to kill one of the hostages every 11-15 days and that he currently has about 20 hostages in custody, and that US special forces are in the area he is believed to be residing in and preparing to target drone attacks and/or air strikes. Given that, we are likely to see this article change drastically every 11-14 days. Hopefully, the remaining hostages will be spared, but not likely according to MI15 public statements and a video released today by ISIS stating that the "Flames of War" are coming to America. 2601:7:6880:740:212:17FF:FE94:BE5E (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not what {{
MH17), where conflicting information and speculation is coming in at record speed from all sides and getting stuffed into an article. There will be little of that here, I'd say. ansh666
21:09, 18 September 2014 (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.


Cleanup tag

I have added {{cleanup}} tag to this article. Some of the sentences read as short subjective statements, some as though they are the memoirs of associates of the cell, and others are simply cretinous.

Example: "The Beatles spoke to each other in English, and struggled with Arabic.[2] They always kept their faces hidden.[16]"

How on Earth would anyone know such a thing? "Struggled with Arabic" - according to who? And they may well always appear masked during broadcasts of their heinous acts, but that is a ridiculously generalised statement to have put in a Wikipedia article. It is imbecilic in fact. 86.153.26.237 (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This falls within the normal range of
WP:SOFIXIT. There is little point in complaining about things that you do not intend to fix yourself. The article could do with some tweaking here and there.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me)
19:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
What Ian said. There is not the level of cleanup called for that warrants application of the tag. As to "how would anyone know such a thing" -- the curious reader will read the refs. Which answer questions such as those, for readers who want even more info. Much of what we know of them is, obviously, from what former hostages have said. Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it should say how we know they spoke english and struggled with Arabic. Often times in wikipedia things are not obvious and the question is "according to who"? The daily mail source doesn't make sense tho. Have any hostages been released? No so how did they talk to hostages that supposedly said these things. Since dailymail is a tabloid we might want to remove this or change the language so it doesn't sound so sure. Popish Plot (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Does this need a military unit infobox? Not really a military unit and the infobox looks like mst of the information has been forced to fit. Bromley86 (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes are never "needed". The question, if there is one, is whether this infobox should be deleted. The infobox here appears to me to convey just the sort of summary infobox information that we appreciate infoboxes providing. It summarizes key features of the page's subject. --Epeefleche (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 March 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 move. Cúchullain t/c 16:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


WP:NATURAL disambiguation that I have suggested should be used. GregKaye
11:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - compare and contrast. Its bad enough when "reliable sources" will defame a dead man who cannot defend himself. I cannot see that it is then in Wikipedia's remit to go beyond what sources do and headline "The Beatles" in a terrorist context with no further title reference. See search on (isil OR isis OR daesh OR "islamic state") AND "the beatles". There is no one else that does this. GregKaye
18:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
No ... the so-far-unanimous opposes show the lack of consensus agreement with your view. We follow the RSs on this, per wp:commonname. And they call this group the Beatles. And they refer to them as terrorists. Sometimes we have individuals who bear the same names, with quite different reputations ... we don't rename the individuals. Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Epeefleche the proposed wording makes fair reference to the the RS wp:commonname designation but with, I think, less offence. Take a look at the articles. My wording is far more representative of the presentations made in RS than the current crass Wikipedia title. GregKaye 19:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I (and all the other respondents so far) disagree. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I support the principle--but what else are we supposed to call them? The only common name we have for them is the one currently on the article. Red Slash 21:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment I can't see anything in
WP:PRIMARYUSAGE to not add additional bracketed detail). If someone then follows the disam link on that page, they see The Beatles (terrorist cell), which makes it immediately clear whether that link is the one they're looking for. Incidentally, I had previously suggested that the (terrorist cell) part might be changed to something like (ISIL militants). However, I've since seen many uses of the expression terrorist cell by RS in similar situations, e.g.[9][10] So whilst I'm not 100% convinced it's the best fit, terrorist cell is certainly descriptive enough for disam and is used by reliable sources, although perhaps not in this specific case (they frequently have called the members of that "cell" terrorists). The only thing to add to that is that the vast majority of the hits for terrorist cell are tabloid, which might make me think twice about using it here. Bromley86 (talk
) 13:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:NATURAL. They are Isil militants. They are not The Beatles. In many cases in RS they will be described with a description to the effect of "ISIL militants" and that they have been named/called/nicknamed/whatever "the Beatles". What is wrong with this? It is totally in tune with the presentation of this perceive group as presented in the press. GregKaye
17:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Loads of sources call them The Beatles. I'm waiting for someone to show me a source that calls them ISIL militants nicknamed the Beatles. As I've said, in detail, the naming format on this one seems to be spot on with respect to how WP deals with similar issues. You'd get more traction with me, assuming that's important, if you could point to an example of WP already handling something in a similar manner, as I've tried to do with ISIL/NFL below. Bromley86 (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Can't move to anything that does not correspond to the main Wikipedia entry, which is
    Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The US-centric "ISIL" abbreviation has been rejected for the main entry and therefore cannot be used for these four terrorists. Sympathise with the wish to rename this so-called "Beatles" entry but the proposed solution is unacceptable. XavierItzm (talk
    ) 15:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it really the case that bracketed disam statements have to precisely follow whatever naming format has been hashed out on the page that they're referring to? I'd have thought that was the default position, but could be changed by discussion. Bromley86 (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
You could be right, but I do not think so. Do you have evidence? XavierItzm (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, nothing definitive. I was just responding to your assertion that they had to correspond to the main article's format. Whilst not finding a case of ARTICLE NAME being reduced to (AN) in a disam, I did find National Football League, which I assume is a pretty heavily patrolled article. The disam page for that makes extensive use of the NFL abbreviation that is not used in the title of the main article. So I think we've got precedence to use ISIL in a disam page, if we choose to. Bromley86 (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for identifying the disam page. Unfortunately for your case, all entries but one are for branded products such as "NFL Audio Pass" where the clear intent of the name owner (The National Football League) was specifically to use its acronym as part of a new name for a specific product name. Parallely, then, you could use, for example, subsidiary articles for the Islamic State of the type "IS in Lybia" only if the Islamic State were to name its affiliated jihadists following naming schemes of that type. Otherwise, as your own research shows, you need to keep symmetry with the original article, which, alas!, spells out an obsolete name disregarded by its owners. XavierItzm (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Damn, you're right. It seems even the one apparently good one, the
NFL (1902), is invalid; it's pointing to a redirect to National Football League (1902), which makes me think the text on the disam page is incorrect for that entry. Bromley86 (talk
) 10:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
On the same token there is no indication that the individuals concerned (who I don't know have been shown to be a specific group let alone a cell) have described themselves as "The Beatles". I really think we need to get our priorities right here and not resort to arguments that I consider well described by
WP:BUREAUCRACY. GregKaye
11:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
XavierItzm Re the "US-centric" ISIL (which is also commonly used by a large number of governments and several other sources). we could equally use another reference to the ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fīl-ʿIrāq wash-Shām title such as Daesh or ISIS. The fact that the article title fits in with a US usage shouldn't prejudice against the use of the option. ISIL is an acronym that is commonly used in situations like this so as to increase readability in an extended title. That's all. GregKaye 18:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ringo's comment (sourced of course) should probably be prominent in the article, but we don't base our article titles on his POV however much we might agree with it. We base our titles on current English usage. Andrewa (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the title is not the common name and we do not use acronyms in reference to ISIL. The name should be spelled out since the group is not primarily known by an acronym. Mbcap (talk) 22:27, 26 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.

Beatles identity

according to itv and other source Alexe Kotey have been named should this be added http://www.itv.com/news/2016-02-07/the-beatles-of-isis-itv-news-names-the-two-extremists-in-jihadi-johns-british-terror-cell/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B8FB:F900:205D:B920:626:27C5 (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles_(terrorist_cell)/Archive_1&oldid=1090582581"