Talk:Nick Berg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Talk:Nick Berg/archive 1 Talk:Nick Berg/archive 2

Contents

[edit] questionable deletion

I do not understand why user:.derf made this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Nick_Berg&diff=3555011&oldid=3554983

— and I question the intention behind it.
--Ruhrjung 22:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I restored the text that he deleted. It seems like all the text he deleted favored removing or linking to the photo. ☞spencer195 23:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I think it was just an accident since his edit also favored linking to the photo. ☞spencer195 23:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm incompetent, cut me some slack. .derf 23:30, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Muntada al-Ansar Website?

I've seen about 400 stories that describe the website in question, but I haven't seen a single URL. Does this site exist? Does anyone have the URL for it? This would be very nice to have. Graft 22:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

www.al-ansar.biz was hosted by Acme Commerce, a Malaysian hosting company: www.webserver.com.my . They have removed the site. The internet archive does not have any pages from it cached. There are some pages in Google's cache from the bulletin board that the site was running. It appears that it used to a be a common point for the dissemination of militant islamic propaganda.

The first paragraph used the word "homepage." To me, this word means a special page to a website.

If we don't know the page's exact URL, it has to be called a webpage. -- Toytoy

[edit] Let's Remove the Severed Head Photo

Man, let's remove the severed head photo. I can think of a lot of good reasons for not having, and no reason for having it beyond mere titilation. If someone wants to see something that graphic, let them go elsewhere.

Tim

Let's not. WhisperToMe 23:19, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I think we have a vote on this issue above... --Delirium 23:24, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Decapitation"

The cause of death was murder, not decapitation. The gory details can be included, but should not be a headline. -Stevertigo 23:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

LOL, I'm surprised you don't identify the cause of death as "Bush's Immoral War"! The reason this article exists is because Nick was decapitated on video. If he'd just been shot or hit by a car with no record this wouldn't be a story. I'm pretty sure a cornenor would be unsatisfied with a cause of death of "murder" instead of "blunt trauma to the head", "electrocution", or in this case "sharp trauma to the neck". --M4-10 00:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Autopsy reports do not list murder as a cause of death. Kingturtle 00:29, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

But they do generally state homicide, which can include justifiable homicide and accidental killings as well as murder. I suppose that in this case, the cause of death could be described as homicide by decapitation, but I don't think it's necessary to expand to that. MisfitToys 23:36, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
Wrong. Autopsies are performed in order to determine WHAT killed someone.. not WHO. In other words, what exactly caused the brain to stop recieving sufficient oxygen to operate. Autopsies are performed so that the cause of death can be determined as specifically as possible. FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS are what attempt to determine the party that killed a victim, whether it be murder, an accident or suicide. Autopsies do not state the "cause of death" as "homicide" - that isn't up to a autopsy lab to determine. They only puzzle out the exact method by which a person happened to become dead. teh TK 22:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External video links

Is there any particular reason why the links to external videos at the bottom of the article have been left un-clickable? If they're listed at all, then readers should be able to click on them. -- Arwel 01:20, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

This is to stop people accidentally clicking on them. It is semi-standard practice to do this to link to content that are so wrong they really shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. To make people have to manually copy and paste helps stop young children, among others, from viewing the material. - Mark 01:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
They've been made live at least once. I have no doubt that the person who did so meant well, but I've left an HTML comment in the code which will (I hope) dissuade folks from making that change back and forth again without at least consulting the extensive discussion on the subject. -- Seth Ilys 02:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Is there no better description than "The Complete Nick Berg Video"? It's not like it's a Beatles album or Britney Spears' latest release. - Nunh-huh 02:31, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
I am removing a broken link, updating the one that is redirected, and adding a new one to a smaller, edited version. I am still leaving them unclickable. PlatinumX 07:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise proposal on photo

OK, let me continue to abuse this page for the purpose of formulating general policy :-). I've created a mock-up of an image hiding feature which should solve the problem of pictures which are offensive to some, but not to others:

http://scireview.de/wikipedia/ihide/

It contains this article, but not the "severed head" photo (although it claims otherwise).

There could be a special tag like

<imagecontent> This page includes an explicit photograph of a clitoris. </imagecontent>

The software would automatically add the "hide images" link. Obviously the threshold for adding such a warning would be much lower than the threshold for not showing an image for reasons of offensiveness, e.g. 50%-60% instead of 95-100%.

I've deliberately avoided words like "warning" for reasons of NPOV. Now, before you suggest that we switch to a full-fledged rating system, this proposal can be implemented fairly quickly, while a rating system cannot.

In terms of policy, we could decide three things:

  • until this feature is implemented, the threshold for hiding images that are offensive to some but not to others on a separate page is lowered to 80%
  • after this feature is implemented, the threshold is increased to 95-100% (only on the matter of removing/hiding an image for offensiveness, other arguments for removing an image are not affected by this)
  • we require that any image offensive to a substantial majority is moved to a point on the page where, with typical screen resolutions, it is not immediately visible.

Thoughts?--Eloquence*

Shouldn't it be a "show all images" link? Have the offensive ones hidden until you click the link? - Mark 01:39, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
That could be a user preference, which should be a "hide all images" link by default for reasons of neutrality (we do not want to make any official proclamation about what is so offensive that it shouldn't be directly seen, unless there is 95-100% consensus).--Eloquence*
Then anonymous users would see everything, regardless of its level of offensiveness. - Mark 01:57, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
True, but they could easily hide it. Furthermore, images which are universally considered offensive would not be shown (this one is pretty close).--Eloquence*
I still think it should be opt-in rather than opt-out. There's no point being able to hide the image after the page is loaded and you've already seen it. The damage is already done, and the people need to wipe up the vomit from their keyboards. Well, you know what I mean anyway. - Mark 04:08, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Please reread my proposal. It addresses this problem.--Eloquence*
OK, sorry I missed that. But it still doesn't take into account articles which are so short they do not spill over the screen. - Mark 09:13, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
I'd say don't add the image until it can be moved to a point where it won't be immediately visible.-Eloquence*
Eloquence, please add to the discussion on meta rather than forking it here.
we require that any image offensive to a substantial majority is moved to a point on the page where, with typical screen resolutions, it is not immediately visible. - I don't think this is sufficient. In my case, being of rather short attention span, it is my habit to use the scroll wheel on my mouse to get an overview of an article (or web page in general) before I start reading it. If the photo is gratuitous and, as in this case, shows something that I am convinced no lay user of wikipedia would expect to see in the article, it should be linked to and definitely not shown inline. -- Tlotoxl 18:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Im glad to see that this discussion aired out some rather controversial materiale, and helped clear up some things as well. Despite the vote to keep the image, I really cant think of how we can justify doing so. It's insensitive to have it at all on Wikipedia, and the issue of photo-vandalism comes up. There is a really good reason why we dont allow external http image linking, isnt there? And isnt there is a good case for removing the Abu Ghraib photos to source.wiki ? -Stevertigo 05:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


What do you think about my proposal above, Anthere? That could be used for both pages.--Eloquence*

I am not sure I totally understood it. Let me rephrase it.

You propose that for now, for each picture potentially offensive, the picture be with a link if more than 80% agree for it to be hidden in all cases.

That is ok with me.

With the implementation, you propose that for each picture potentially offensive, the picture be with a link if more than 90-95% agree for it to be hidden in all cases.

I personally think this level is too high, given that a picture may be deleted with 80% of agreement. But I agree with the general idea. This might be discussed further.

If more than, say 50-60 % of people do not wish the picture to be online; a tag is added to the page. This tag makes a link appear at the top of the page. The pictures are loaded by default. If the user do not want to see the images, he clicks on the link, and all pictures are hidden, and links to them are made available. Possibly, we could implement a user pref, so that for those pages concerned, all images would be "off" per default, rather than "on".

Nod. Generally, I agree. We should make it a requirement that the article is long enough so that pictures may be hidden even in large screens. Ie, for short articles, the threshold to hide is to be set at say 80%, as if the picture was universally offending. If only, it will motivate people who wish the picture inline to add to that article :-) That is a good trick ;-).
I see only ONE problem with this proposal, unless I misunderstood a point. All pictures should not be hidden, but only those problematic. Otherwise, a reader will not be able to see that neat diagram of the female organs, unless he also look at the picture. It is not really what we are looking for... We should try not to remove all pictures just because one is problematic. If the guy does not know which one is a problem, he won't look at any picture at all. If we really can't find a way to do differently, there should be a way in the article to point out (label) the pictures who is likely to offend, so that the user can understand which one to avoid and which are okay. But that would be neater that just the problematic one is hidden.
So, but for the % I am not totally in agreement (but that is a detail), if you can have this work for only problematic pictures, while regular pictures are always visible, that works for me.
Improvement : when the pictures are hidden, replace the grey area, by a regular link to the picture, so that people can choose to click or not to click.
Improvement : in user preferences, we could also possibly add an option for which the problematic pictures are just plain removed (no links). A message at the top might indicate that some links to problematic pictures have been made unavailable compared to the standard article. I think this could be typically a good use for schools or scared parents. I know your opinion on that matter, but I think better slightly censored wikipedia is better than no use at all.


SweetLittleFluffyThing

Recap. So I think what we're talking about is (a) what policy is there for displaying included media content within an article that is likely to cause offense and (b) what criteria must included media meet to make it into an article in the first place. (a) is being formulated above, but (b) still hasn't been properly defined. (e.g., with access to the video, is one still frame, of the head no less, really necessary? what about if the video is no longer accessible, etc...) --Iosif 01:44, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you missed what I wrote previously on this page. The precedent has been set in the Goatse.cx article to not have inline for such matters. See Talk:Shock site/Archive for the discussion about it. Don't re-invent the wheel. Kingturtle 01:49, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Well then that settles (a). If photos of questionable content are included, they should no be inlined. Problem solved. --Iosif 02:14, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: the children

"Children might see it" is not a legitimate argument, IMHO. This is an encyclopedia. Our purpose is to document and explain. Children are the responsiblity of their parents. Futhermore, the context of this article does not make the image inappropriate. We aren't glorifying the image. Kingturtle 06:02, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

it is imho. Please, see my proposal on the ml :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing

What's your opinion on the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal photographs, Anthere, or SLFT, or whatever you are calling yourself? Children might see those... should they be removed? --M4-10 07:29, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
My opinion is very clear on the matter. I recommand that you look at the history of the page in question (yesterday) :-)
I set a gallery with all the prison pictures, I then linked the gallery to the article, and removed all the pictures but one. I made the link proeminent and put a warning. It was a suggestion I made yesterday, a few hours before Reddi started linking Nick Berg image on the current events pages. My gallery was not deleted. However, the prison article was reverted, so the pictures were put back inline.
In short, I recommand similar treatement to the prison pictures than to this one. However, I think this picture is worse than the prison ones because it involves a very clearly identified person (not the case on the prison pictures), and it has moral implications to me, which lead me to think that the picture itself should be plain deleted while the prison pictures should certainly be kept. I noted though, that this picture seems to be important to some people here, so my opinion that it should be deleted appears non-appropriate to me, as it goes entirely against the opinion of those who wish it kept. The removal would possibly be interpretated as censorship, so I will not support deletion of it, by respect for those who think it important.
To sum it up, I support doing linking for this picture and the prison ones. But I could live with the prison ones inline, while I am personally very opposed to this one being inline. This is why I did not reverted the prison article yesterday, though I definitly reverted this one to the point the page ended protected. I mostly think we should have consistent policy for handling potentially offensive images. We can't ignore the fact these events exist, we probably can't ignore these images, but we can't ignore either the fact many people here just do not want this image fully visible. We should thrive to find a middle way. Linking, and possibly category/filter system may be an acceptable solution. Just forcing everyone to see it, does not appear to be a valid solution.
The yellow...just because I like colors :-) But remove it if you really do not like it. Put bold instead please.
User:Anthere

...

We cannot hold things back due to the possibility that children may see - the modern concept that children should be absolutely sheltered from everything is a horrific one anyway - but if we universalised this concept we would become a children site surely. If parents are so worried, they may monitor their children etc. --OldakQuill 14:46, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Our responsibility in Wikipedia is to provide accurate and thorough content; we need to have honest, accurate and responsibly described information. Libraries do not cut pictures out of books so children cannot see them. We should not either. Children are the responsiblity of their parents. A parent should not let a child surf the Internet without close supervision. Kingturtle 15:28, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

guys... would you please get off the children consideration, and look at the proposals Erik and I made, which I believe, does not only cover children issue but plain good old offensive pictures consideration ? Or do you really want to keep it all on children issue to avoid acknowledging that *adults* may have problem with this picture or not ? SweetLittleFluffyThing

Did you not notice that my vote was cast under "Image is not offensive to me, should be linked to"? I do not think we should show that particular image on the page. Kingturtle 16:41, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

okay, so I move the whole discussion lot with Erik to another section, so to avoid confusion of topics; ant

[edit] Edited video needed?

Do we really need to link to the edited video that only shows the beheading? I can't come up with a good reason to link it. Conti 11:49, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The full video includes a long reading in Arabic. If you want to see the video, BUT don´t speak arabic, then it´s better to download the edited version. ChaTo 12:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
I haven't seen the videos (I don't want to), but it seems to me that showing only the beheading is taking something out of context, no? Plus, the video is coming from ogrish.com and hosted on Joked.com, "The #1 Free Humor Site - Funny Pictures & Videos & Games & Jokes Updated Daily!", hardly encyclopedic sources. ☞spencer195 15:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
The video comes from ogrish.com, so I guess the video was only edited for the purpose of taking the "boring" parts out of it. The article links the complete video, I think that is enough. Conti 16:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Providing the whole thing has more encyclopedic value (as a historical document, I guess you would call it) than providing just the last section. Providing is just for sating voyeuristic desires, which is not encyclopedic. I move that we only provide the link to the full version. Please shout if you disagree. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
In fact, I say that we should include a version of the video that shows only the intro and not the beheading, for people who want to see the primary source of a historical event, but don't want to see the gratuitous violence. ☞spencer195 16:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
I've added such a link. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV warning?

What is an NPOV warning doing in the page? Please, refrain to use it unless there is a real dispute on the neutrality of the article, not on its presentation or format. ChaTo 12:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

It just came back by an anon. I am reverting since it must be discussed here first. - Tεxτurε 00:25, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Caption change?

Why the caption change from "Video capture of killer with head" to "Image of veiled person holding head" (comment "Nice and NPOV)? Is it disputed that the image depicts a/the killer? — Matt 15:38, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't think the "Video capture" was clear enough - those who are simply reading as laypersons etc. may not know what this means and hence think it is a link to the video. Secondly, killer is extremely tabloid as well as the fact that the particular man with the white veil depicted did not perform the decapitation - thus he is a person - maybe change this to militant? I made it more explicit by changing "with head" to "holding head" - it seems clearer and more descriptive of the picture. --OldakQuill 16:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Ah, OK — I couldn't remember if he was or not, and didn't want to watch the clip twice... — Matt 17:30, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by "veiled" -- sounds altogether too coy and/or feminine. It should be changed to "masked" or "hooded". And qualify "holding head", too (I was holding my head just a minute ago), "severed head", or "Berg's head", surely? –Hajor 18:30, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Some valid points certainly - but I think veil suffices - the individual is, afterall, wearing a veil - not a mask or hood. Veils are not femenine or coy. Secondly, in the context of the story I feel "holding head" is sufficient explaination - it could be no other's head and stating it as severed is superfluous, tabloid even. --OldakQuill 18:35, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Reaction in the Muslim world

"In the Muslim world, the killing of Berg was strongly condemned." That feeling certainly doesn't seem to be universal in the Muslim world. See for example this story, as well as this story which questions the authenticity of the video.

Well, the first article only contains comments from two random people who justify the killing as retaliation for the treatment of Iraqis by the occupiers (2 out of 16 paragraphs or so), whereas the rest describes condemnation for it or comments of how it plays into US propaganda. From what I've seen condemnation is pretty overwhelming. The second article has nothing to do with wether Muslims condemned or endorsed the killing. I think that if you want to make a convincing point that a substantial portion of Muslims agree with it, you need to find endorsing statements by leaders of important Muslim groups, or an opinion poll. pir 23:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Even Hamas strongly denounced the killing as "un-Islamic", so it seems to be fairly widespread. --Delirium 23:29, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
In any such circumstance, you always have the question of motive for a denunciation (or even approval). No doubt many Muslims and Muslim scholars are shocked and disgusted. Others might offer denunciation because they realize what bad PR this is. It would be interesting if a sense of what's being said on Arabic-language sites could be discerned. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Of course leaders always have motives when they publicly denounce or approve of others' actions. The main motive is usually preserving their credibility which is based on voicing what their supports think, and the image of the people they claim to represent. A good example is probably Bush's apology for the torture at Abu Ghraib - although I don't think he cared a lot about it, the pressure from people in the US (as well as worries about how the US are perceived in Iraq and the rest of the world) forced him to apologise. This says something about the American people. Anyway, the edit history on the article page suggests that some Muslim leaders have endorsed of the Nick BErg murder - does anyone have a link to an article about this? As far as I know condemnation has been universal. Also, is there a link to Hamas' condemnation? pir 09:47, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Here's a link to Hamas's condemnation from the UK's Independent: [1]: Osama Hamdan, Hamas' representative in Lebanon, denounced both Berg's killers and US President Bush in the same breath. "I condemn this brutal act and sympathise with the family of the slain American man," he said. I read somewhere else that he followed that up with saying Bush and the killers share equal responsibility in Berg's death, and that Hamas condemns them both. The same article notes that Islamic Jihad haven't issued a statement, saying they cannot verify the authenticity of the Berg video so cannot comment on it. --Delirium 21:40, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Remove link and edited video.

Clearly, I'm not actually going to make that change myself. I know its important to acheive a consensus. But I'd like to say the following:

  • I can understand the justification for including a link to the unedited video --- it is a primary historical source. After having watched it myself, however, I would advise other people not to.
  • I don't see any justification for including either the image of the severed head, or the video edited to remove the talking, but including the decapitation. I can't see any purpose other than voyeristic that these serve that isn't satisfied by the unedited video.
  • I can see reason to include an edited video with the decapitation taken out. It allows people to understand the setting of what happened without experiencing the trauma of the murder itself.
  • Any argument about including a video with the talking edited out being better for people with slow connections etc, I find somewhat repugnant. Whilst I want the video preserved and freely available as a historical source, I don't really want people to watch the murder. I don't think having to download the whole video to see the end is terribly onerous, I certainly think that if people want to see it all, they should actually watch the whole thing.

[NB comments above made by User:81.178.115.11]

    • As you can see from the section named ==Edited video needed?== I am in complete agreement with you (almost word-for-word with the comment on voyeurism), and as many people have edited the article or this talk page since I made the suggestion without opposing it, I am going to go ahead and remove the "decapitation only" video link. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmm, six hours since I post the suggestion on talk, no comments. 14 minutes after making the change, it is reverted with no recourse to talk. So often the wiki way, even on a page with many interested users like this one. Reverted back until the other side of the argument is made here. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
      • The reason that 62.252.0.4 gave for the shorter video was that it makes a

"powerful and shocking journalistic statement". Journalistic statements are made by someone --- journalists. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia should not be in the business of journalism. --81.178.115.11 23:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

      • ps, the shorter video could be legitimate in an article about journalistic statements (if indeed it was), but the place for it is not here. (The closest parallal I can think of would be the famous image of the execution of the viet-cong, but I can't remember all the details.) --81.178.115.11 23:57, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree in full that the unedited video is a primary generation source and is necessary to the informational integrity of the article. As long as there is an available unedited video, the need (as I see it) for any photos is reduced to nil. We can talk about what photo(s) would be representative enough if the video is no longer available, but we're not there yet. --Iosif 02:12, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive?

I ask people to consider what they really mean when they describe the image as offensive. Is it truly the image itself that is OFFENSIVE? Do you take offense to the image? Does the image itself offend you? Or is it that the act portrayed is offensive? Is it that the image is/was/could be linked to inline in the article that is offensive? The image is surely disturbing or unsettling for all but the most hardened of viewers... but is the IMAGE itself truly offensive? I ask this not to be pedantic or to focus on minutiae or semantics, but because as this has evolved in some ways into a larger issue, I think it best that we use care in selecting our words. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:14, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that offensive was probably not the best choice of words. I find the image of the severed head to be grotesque, disturbing and imo grossly inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. I found its former inline inclusion on Wikipedia to be offensive, because it forced me to view something that, given a choice, I would have carefully avoided (as I have avoided the video). I was also offended that some Wikipedians posted the snuff image in an obvious attempt to progress a political agenda or raise controversy (though ostensibly it was done in the name of Wikipedia having a NPOV and being against censorship). -- Tlotoxl 01:40, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't see it as being in favor of a political agenda. A militant holding Berg's head up is a summary of the act. We have plenty of similarly disturbing photos; I personally find Image:USinVietnam.jpg, a child running down a road covered in napalm burns, much more disturbing, yet it's included inline on our Vietnam War article. Is that due to a political agenda? One might argue in either case that the severed-head image is to make the militants look bad, or the napalmed-girl image is to make the US look bad, but in both cases the events are important historical facts that should be included. --Delirium 21:43, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there's any comparison to that picture in the Vietnam War article. (For one thing, I don't think napalm burns are clear from that picture, and removed from the context of the war, it is "merely" a picture of a scared naked girl running. Haunting, yes, but more intellectually then viscerally. Context is not required for a severed head to be disturbing.) In any case, that picture, 30 years later, is an enduring image of the Vietnam War that is part of the public consciousness (at least in the West). The picture of Nick Berg's severed head shares no such significant in the public consciousness because aside from snuff sites on the internet, it has not been widely displayed. It's inclusion on the Nick Berg article is certainly contrary to reader expectations and IMO was made by people who seemed more interested in tying it to their dissatisfaction with the Abu Ghraib photos and lobbying for their removal. Speaking, then, of the Abu Ghraib photos - they, even more than the picture of that girl from the Vietnam War article (why is the photo called USinVietnam, incidentally??), are an essential part of the incident in the public consciousness and, because they were broadcast all over the world, their exclusion from the Abu Ghraib article would actually be contrary to reader expectations. -- Tlotoxl 02:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't see that as a valid argument---the fact that some media makes certain choices in what images they display does not oblige us to make the same choices. Were that the case, I wouldn't be having so much trouble keeping clitoris from being displayed on that page, as certainly no mainstream media outlet would display that. --Delirium 07:54, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] news item

might be of use for writing this article... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=9&u=/nm/20040513/ts_nm/iraq_usa_beheading_family_dc

sincerely, Kingturtle 00:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to dump on a man who lost his son in such horrific fashion, but I believe the elder Mr. Berg's anger is misplaced in his shock and grief. I would probably do the same at any entity that I thought contributed to my child's death. Americans are quick to lash out at their government, partly because they know, even subconsciously, that there is not much use at lashing out at the actual perpetrators. Berg's saying that the murderers didn't realize what they were doing and "killed their best friend" (son Nick) shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what was happening, since it suggests that the killing was a reasoned reaction against an actual enemy, rather than a cynically wanton and brutal act. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:57, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
So you presume to know they were cynical. I cannot gather where you get that information from. Nice to know you can explain to us all the minds of the perpetrators. Please to speak on. User:Pfortuny. 80.58.23.42 07:29, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I am just responding to the father's statement, the implication of which is that the killers somehow thought that Nick Berg personally was their enemy, rather than a pawn in their brutal theater. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I dont disagree with that at all. I'm just considering your use of "brutal" to be only situational. US forces bombed Fallujah and killed perhaps 1000 or more people, largely in retaliation for the "brutal" killing of 4. 'Of course it is all in the eye of the beholder...' -Stevertigo 17:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I have never lost a child, so I dont know what it would be like. So I dare not presume to understand. That said, grieving leads some to faith and belief, not to anger and bitterness. The anger and bitterness that his death for some brings is irrelevant to the family; that's not how they are going to be remembering him, and they wouldnt want others to either. (Note that we dont have a earlier happier photo of Berg.) What good comes from anger and bitterness? Should grieving people not vote, because in your view they show "a fundamental misunderstanding of what was happening?" Maybe Mr. Berg simply wanted to make it clear that he does not want his son to become a martyr for the cause of vengeance or disrespect toward certain people; a view that his son would not have shared. That is how I see it. -Stevertigo 07:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Of course it is all in the eye of the beholder. In the quote I'm not hearing Mr. Berg making a sort of political statement "not want his son to become a martyr for the cause of vengeance or disrespect toward certain people"--if he meant to say that, he could have said it directly. I hear the rage of a father venting his anger at a senseless death. If you've lost loved ones you can't help running through the "what ifs"--what if she had her blood pressure checked when she was urged to; what if I hadn't insisted on his taking a vacation, and the plane crashed; and so on. It may take some time before Mr. Berg can have the perspective to make a statement from which others can make a worthwhile conclusion. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree. In the end, though - I think his case is particularly unique - he seems to have some awareness of the world around him. Ironically, for someone who has no problem with supporting a view shaped largely by an angry reaction to 911, you claim that a fathers anger at 'the government' is misplaced and misdirected. Indeed, it is all misplaced. -Stevertigo 17:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC) PS Misplaced, as is, perhaps, this political debate. ;)
Ironically, for someone who has no problem with supporting a view shaped largely by an angry reaction to 911, you claim that a fathers anger at 'the government' is misplaced and misdirected. Am I being accused of something? What is the "view shaped largely by an angry reaction to 911". -- Cecropia | Talk 07:30, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
What view? The view that claims that the current "War on Terror" is anything but a glorified 11th crusade.-Stevertigo 09:14, 15 May 2004 (UTC) PS: I forgot to add "immoral," and "vain." Vainglorious maybe. And its not an accusation, just an observation. All things being in flux, all statements become merely questions.
"Crusade" is a very loaded word in the Muslim world, referring to events of nearly a millennium ago that are not (to them) easily forgotten, so it is interesting that you use the term. Even Muslims I know (in NY) don't make that assertion. The one person I know who does (not in NY) is Jewish, but I think he's tring to make a political, not a religious point. But as to "anger," I can't speak for the Administration's view, but the change I see from 9/11 in the US is that it shattered a belief picked up from the Palestine-Israel conflict—the "cycle of violence" theory: I kill some of your guys, so you retaliate by killing some of mine, so I retaliate [ ... repeat infinitely ... ]. The core of that belief is that, if someone just doesn't retaliate, the conflict ends. In fact, some in the US called for non-response to 9/11 with exactly that argument. But the point is that, by such a huge and disproportionate attack, the underlying promise (leave us alone and we'll leave you alone) of non-response disappeared. No one can point to the "tit" that lead to the 9/11 "tat." So there were left only a few choices. Continue what you are doing (arrests, trials), try to hide (revive "Fortress America"), give in to the demands of the perpetrators, or battle them openly. Bush took the latter course, and I don't see the religious implication to it that "crusade" implies. -- Cecropia | Talk

Actually, I posted the story not so much about the angry dad, but about the strange mention of Zaccarias Moussaoui. Kingturtle 07:45, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Whoops! So that comment I was responding to wasnt even in context? LOL. -Stevertigo 10:32, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Live or dead link to NickBergDead.png?

I believe the link to Nickbergdead.png should be made into a "dead" link with the "nowiki" tags so that people don't accidentally click it. Certainly it is appropriate, since if someone accidentally clicks it, they will immediately see the picture presented on their screen. -☞spencer195 02:37, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little skeptical about the "accidentally clicking" argument; is this a really a risk, particularly in the context of this article, and the neighbouring extremely / offensive / graphic violence / disturbing health warnings? — Matt 09:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Its not unreasonable to give people a clue about what they are looking at. -Stevertigo 10:32, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, badly phrased; I'm not skeptical about the warnings, just the dead links. Warnings are good, and, I think, sufficient. I'm unconvinced that people are at risk of accidentally clicking these links, given the context and the warnings. — Matt 11:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
So why do we have a dead link to the video and a live link to the image? If anything, the video, and not the image, should be a live link (since the video will take several minutes to download if people click on it). ☞spencer195 19:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Passage doubting authenticity of the video

The section doubting some of the details of the video has become quite lengthy and thus would persuade the reader that the al-Jazeerza commentary is the mainstream view... but other news sources aren't pursuing it. Are we attaching too much importance to their view at the moment? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

When deciding wether or not information should be included in Wikipedia,it does not matter whatsoever if something is considered mainstream or not - the only criterion should be wether something is based on evidence or reasonable analysis, IMHO . "Mainstream" views can be totally different depending on the country and culture you live in, and mainstream views usually change dramatically over time. pir 11:48, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
This whole thing has been very upseting. The even show the video at my school in class, it is discusting---The Crimson Keyboard 10:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
What grade are you in? I have trouble seeing why anything short of a university media or international studies class would watch such a disturbing video. -- Tlotoxl 11:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I assumed he meant kids were passing it around the class rather than teachers were making them watch it. This is just sort of thing we should expect kids to do. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
No, there have been some high school teachers who have shown it to their students (sometimes without forewarning them about what they were going to see); the teachers - in California, Texas and Washington - have generally been suspended or reprimanded; see: [2], [3] MisfitToys 23:50, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
Hey, you've seen it? My stupid NetBSD thing can't run video. I've been reading the victim doesn't struggle and there's no spurting blood. Is it so? Because that's utterly impossible unless he was already dead... 142.177.15.4 15:51, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense evaluation of video

We need to find a better assessment of the video. You can't give credibility to an article that says "Berg was killed by Al-Quaeda (known to be a CIA - Mossad joint venture)." Any better links than that? - Tεxτurε 14:18, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Here is a better one. Quadell 15:37, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
Not a better one. The Al-Jazeera article is based on the infowars blog. "Derived from insane" is still insane. You can't give credibility to Al-Jazeera.
Although Al-Jazeera has some issues, they are not totally devoid of value as as a source. Considering Al-Jazeera's influence in the region, I think shutting out their coverage of this is foolish in the extreme. Snowspinner 17:21, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
The point isn't the credibility of Al-Jazeera but the credibility of the source Al-Jazeera used. - Tεxτurε 17:36, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Influence is not a reason to consider a news source credible. Evidence is. The article has no cited sources and no real methodology. It appears on the Al-Jazeera website but is essentially the work of Lawrence Smallman (who? Some guy.). Bad journalism shouldn't be a wikipedia source. --M4-10 18:35, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia should link to a wealth of journalistic sources. Al-Jazeera is a major journalistic source, the largest in the Middle east, and tremendously influential. Their coverage is worth linking to on Middle Eastern affairs by default - not as a sole source of information, but as one of th emany journalistic perspectives we link to. Snowspinner 20:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
The Al-Jazeera article doesn't say what its sources are, but there are many possibilities. I've seen several lengthy message boards (or open blogs) in which lots of people -- some loony, some rational -- report on the following oddities:
  • weird gaps in time
  • lack of arterial blood (suggesting he was killed earlier)
  • the fact that Berg doesn't twitch or struggle during the killing (suggesting he was dead)
  • sound unsynchronized
  • the killer who first knocks Berg to the floor and puts a knife to his throat is wearing a black mask. When he saws off Berg's head, he is wearing a white one.
  • you can never see anyone's lips moving during the reading (because of the skimasks and poor video quality)
  • that the reader oddly keeps flipping pages back to the same page he had just been on, instead of turning to the next page, as if he is not reading at all.
  • the terrorist are not thin, as you might expect
  • they have paler skin than you might suspect
  • the oddness that al-Zarqawi wears a mask, but identified himself
  • the assertion that one killer can be heard to speak Russian briefly
  • the accents not being Jordanian
  • the killers are standing in military posture
  • the chair Berg sits in at the beginning looks identical to the chairs in Abu Ghraib prison
  • ...and orange jumpsuits (like the one Berg wears) can be seen in some of the infamous Abu Ghraib photos
  • ...and the walls and floor tracking are the same color, leading some to believe he was killed in Abu Ghraib
Now I'm not saying any of these are valid. But they are reported in an ad-hoc way on several different message board, by people of various levels of sanity. I wouldn't think Al Jazeera was just referring to that one site. So I think the Al Jazeera story is legit news. Quadell 18:20, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
The Al Jazeera story remains as part of the external links at the bottom of the article. I see no reason to remove it but I don't think it should be pointed to as a reliable source for Wikipedia information. - Tεxτurε 18:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Just to clarify: are you saying that Al Jazeera should not be pointed to as a reliable source, or just this article? Either way - why?
I don't find Al Jazeera to be a reliable source where it publishes claims of CIA or military involvement in the killing of an American. However, I would find Al Jazeera to be a reliable source on the birthplace, age, etc of an Al Qaeda leader. - Tεxτurε 21:00, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
If you are saying that you would discount as unreliable any source that accuses US agencies or the military of killing an American then aren't you in danger of being 'blinkered'? Do you know of no such events in history? 82.44.176.135 21:15, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
No, reread my response. - Tεxτurε 21:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Forgive me - I did, but I need it to be spelled out (if you'd oblige). From an encyclopedic point of view - either they are reliable and should be included, or they are not and should be excluded, don't you think?
I think that Al Jazeera's reliability is a subject of hot debate, and that they can and should be linked to and referenced, with a note that we are citing Al Jazeera. And a Wikilink to Al Jazeera. And readers can decide what they believe, as readers are wont to do. Snowspinner 21:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Al Jazeera's reliability in sources is one issue, but they don't even have sources in this article. I wouldn't reject an article just because it is from Al-Jazeera, that would be an ad hominem fallacy. I would always be suspicious of Al-Jazeera and look very closely at their evidence and conclusions, but I would accept anything they write that has integrity. This article has no integrity and thus I reject it. It's bad journalism and doesn't belong as a link on a Wikipedia article. No commentator deserves any priviledge of position, whether it be Al Jazeera, the NY Times, or Noam Chomsky. --M4-10 22:43, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

According to the Bloomberg news service:

"The Central Intelligence Agency said terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi killed Nick Berg, a 26-year- old American who was kidnapped and beheaded in Iraq, the Associated Press reported, citing an unidentified CIA official. The CIA determined that al-Zarqawi is most likely Berg's killer after analyzing a video showing Berg's execution, AP said. On the tape, the person determined to be al-Zarqawi and wearing a mask and headscarf, reads a statement criticizing teachers of Islam, then kills Berg, AP reported." [4] --Uncle Ed 17:30, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=9529&TagID=2 - I am not sure whether Khilafah is a good source - but an interesting read, perhaps this may be incorperated? --OldakQuill 18:29, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

--- The video link appears to be dead at the moment. I get a (rather ammusing) error 404 file not found spoof when I tried. I have found what appears to be a live link at http: //www.stevemitton.com/terrorist-horror/iraq2vediom.wmv nb. I've put a space in there because I don't know the proper way to stop it from making an inline link, and I idn't want to break standard going on the main page. I'm trying to download it now, can somebody who has the video check that it is accurate, complete etc. and update the page. 203.122.72.13 04:46, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

M4-10 - you keep pushing it with the photo. This, after all the discussion and consensus for which to use. Knock it off, please or I'll have to protect the page again, and take you downtown for trolling. -Stevertigo 05:51, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Aren't you a little too personally involved to be threatening to protect the page. If you think the page needs protecting on something you disagree with, maybe you should ask anotehr admin to do it. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:32, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
What planet are you on? I put up a still that is already used on the arabic version of Wikipedia. It's more representative of what happened, it isn't graphic, and I only put it up once. You're an admin bully and should remove yourself from this topic. --M4-10 06:27, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
I've checked, and the still I replaced and the still I used have never been discussed in these talk archives. The only still that was discussed was the post-execution head one, which is still linked to. The still I used is "NickBergandFiveMen2.JPEG". As for taking me "downtown", bring it on. --M4-10 06:48, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Given that you reverted his photo change, Stevertigo, you're not permitted to protect this page over the photo issue. --Delirium 07:58, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

I think the initial photo is preferable to the ar one. I don't think the second one brings more information than the first one. Besides, I think the second one is more explicit of what happened, and I do not think we need this. There is currently consensus over using the first one, so it is up to M4 to convince us to use the second with good argument. Imho. The fact it is used on ar, is not a valid argument. SweetLittleFluffyThing 09:22, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, I understand the policy; I helped (mostly by instigation) to formulate it. But in this case M4 is being sneaky by trying to use a more graphic photo, slipping it in without asking for an agreement. I put my foot down because he can play these junior high school games till doomsday, finding one or another screenshot to post, claiming each has "never been discussed." If this were some other kind of case I probably wouldnt care, but these graphic photo issues seem to me to require a degree of sensitivity and respect that some here lack. Or at least the way M4 is going about seeking a photo change is the wrong way, in this case where the material is borderline deletable. (what is the WP:IFD vote anyway?) Want to change the game illustration on the Go (game) article? Fine; One of the more recent Kisei games may be nice. But this is not nice. Morbid, yes. Google the definition of morbid, please, if youre not quite sure. -Stevertigo 09:26, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, it's the photo used on the Arabic Wikipedia, so it's not like he pulled out a photo from nowhere. --Delirium 18:21, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
This is insane. Since when in Wikipedia do I need to ask for agreement before "slipping in" a photo? What happened to bold edits? Does the video still I inserted even come close to violating Wikipedia content restrictions? How does it compare to the images of Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal? Does the alternate still come more or less to the heart of the issue of this article? Can SLFT show me evidence of a terminal consensus being reached about the previous image? How do I merit a personal attack about "junior high school games"? Do I have a history of searching for disturbing images to replace existing ones? What have I done deserve abusive admins? --M4-10 02:20, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon Radio Jockey

I cannot fathom why this paragraph would be relevent to the political situation or, indeed, need be mentioned beyond the borders of Oregon. Apart from the subject of the paragraph it was worded in a particularly provocative way. This is the paragraph under question:

On May 12, two Portland, Oregon radio shock jocks played the audio portion of this video on their morning program several times, accompanied by music and their laughter, as if the video were a comedy sketch. They were fired that same day, and the station issued profuse apologies.

Note the almost personal upset the writer seems to take (it is, of course, an offensive thing to do) using tabloid phrases such as "as if the video were a comedy sketch", etc. --OldakQuill 07:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

It's relevant because
  1. It's received mention not only across the US, but also by a few news sources abroad.
  2. It illustrates, on hand, the seriousness of Berg's death to most Americans, yet
  3. It illustrates, on the other hand, that a segment of US individuals seem not to grasp the importance of just what is going on in Iraq right now.
As for whether the writer takes "personal upset" by using the words "as if the video were a comedy sketch", a wire story in The Guardian (which I understand is not exactly in support of the US invasion of Iraq) describes what the djs did as "cracking jokes about the grisly death".
While I live in Portland, I didn't hear the presentation, but I'm familiar with the 2 djs: their idea of humor is to adopt the persona potty-mouth half-wits, & to create material that that any 8-year old could create in less than half an hour. In a word, they are boring in a way that shock jocks like Howard Stern aren't -- whom I've heard, & I don't care for much, but compared to them Stern is clearly an intellectual. -- llywrch 18:05, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
The text appears neutral to me and has relevance in the reaction portion of the article. It shows U.S. reaction to any humor aimed at this issue. - Tεxτurε 18:34, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Video links

I see that the video links keep changing, as does the size of the video. Can someone just do a md5sum of the original (if they have it), and always link to a version that matches? Dori | Talk 15:15, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The "Unedited Video"?

Can we call the 8.2 MB WMV file: "The unedited video, including the beheading of Nick Berg" if some people thinks that it has been edited before?

To me, an unedited video clip has to be unedited camera footage. If the originally released file has been already edited by its author or whoever made it available, it probably can't be unedited.

Can we call it "the uncensored video," or whatever name that describes it best? -- Toytoy


I agree that the term "unedited" shouldn't be used because the original version appears to be edited. Mpiff 20:17, 15 May 2004 (UTC).

[edit] "Decapitation attacks"

I removed this edit:

Throughout the war, the word "decapitation" has also been used quite frequently by the U.S. For example, the missile attacks targeted at Saddam Hussin was officially called "decapitation attacks." However these attacks did not actually decapitate Saddam Hussein.

In context, that is a non sequitar. "Decapitation attacks" are used in the sense of removing leaders (heads of war or government) in the hope of pacifying the "body" (followers_. They may or may not kill people and, if they do, the death is not necessarily or even especially by decapitation. Nick Berg was literally decapitated. (User:Cecropia)

I agree, and would back you up. Also signed your post for you. Meelar 18:59, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Links to conspiracy theories

I removed the links to different conspiracy theories. I think they are detailed sufficiently in the article and the links are best kept in the links section. Al-Jazeera is explicitly pointed out due to their status as the reaction point for the arab communities. - Tεxτurε 20:55, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, so this is an attempt to dismiss any rational evaluation of the official account as conspiracy theories. Well, first of all that's POV and not a minor edit. There are two points that are incontrovertible:

  • if you sever someone's main artery while they are still alive, there's going to be a lot of blood coming out. This is apparently not the case in the video.
  • al-Zarqawi is well known for having a prosthetic leg. The person alleged to be al-Zarqawi in the video does not have a prosthetic leg. Hence it is not al-Zarqawi, and the CIA are telling porkies when they say it's him.

Agreed? 2+2=4, not 5 and I am not a conspiracy theorist for saying this. (of course there are conspiracy theories around, and they should be mentioned as such, but that doesn't mean that everything is just a conspiracy theory.) (just a caveat: I haven't and won't watch this video, so maybe it's not as obvious as this. If so, I'll take back what I'm saying here.)

al-Jazeera should not be named explicitly because they did not come up with this, they are not the authors. IMHO, they go out of their to make it clear that these criticisms of the official account originate from bloggers precisely because they don't want to be mixed with conspiracy theorists. We should therefore not name al-Jazeera in this context, and it's got nothing to do with them being "the reaction point for the arab communities" 139.184.30.19 21:42, 17 May 2004 (UTC) User:pir

You say it is POV. Isn't that the point of showing the response of the Arab communities? You also haven't addressed the need to include links in the main article that are sufficiently included in the "external links" section. - Tεxτurε 22:49, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


I really don't understand what it has got to do with "Arab communities" - the vast majority of the conspiracy theorists are American. As far as I understand it, the point of this section is to point out oddities, inconsistencies and contradictions in the official account of what happened. The question of various people's reaction to the story is dealt with in the following section.
I think the best solution would be to seperate the "controversy" section into two: move the Western conspiracy theorists and the disbelief in the Arab world down to "reaction", and move the list (uncommented, no "conspiracy theory" label please) up to a renamed "possible [video] inconsistencies" section. Deal?
As for the links, it is just more rigorous to document where information is coming from so that people can follow it up and make up their own mind. Why is it a problem to have a link to the al-Jazeera article in the text as well as in the external links section? But I'm not bother about that, just remove one of them. 139.184.30.19 23:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC) User:pir


Al Jazeera needs to be in there because otherwise we have no primary published source for these conspiracy theories; I would much prefer to delete them entirely as they are all speculation intended to deflect suspicion to other parties; much as we had long-winded allegations about the thousands of Jews who weren't at work on 9/11; even that the hijackers couldn't have been Arabs "because Arabs aren't smart enough to carry 9/11 off." The only references I can find for these are in the Arab or extreme leftist press. I would bet that if I put in an allegation that was from The New York Post people would demand the citation, if they didn't just summarily remove it. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:07, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
But al-Jazeera is not the primary source. I agree that there has to be a link to the al-Jazeera article because it's a good summary of the points people have raised, but they should not be named explicitly as the way they are now.
I agree that the list is getting too long-winded, and it should be shortened somewhat. But: some of the points are absolutely valid and they must not be dismissed as conspiracy theories. They are not "just speculation". 139.184.30.19 23:27, 17 May 2004 (UTC) User:pir
But they are assembled and quoted by Al Jazeera. If we can't describe the source as Al Jazeera than we have to give the primary source. There is a big difference if a government spokesman, or a respected jurist, or a political analyst for a news organization, expounds a theory, or if it's "Joe Blow on ConspiracyBlogsRUs." We need this information to evaluate who has these theories. I can post my theory on a blog that the killer was Jacques Chirac (sorry GBWR--don't get upset) but if you print it here you better say who said it. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:34, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
So you are still trying to make out that these points are not valid... While it's more significant when a government spokesman says somthing, compared to Joe Blow, it is not necessarily more likely to be true. The made-up Iraqi WMD and the made-up al-Qaeda-Saddam link have made this abundantly clear even to the most uncritical.
One important criterion for deciding wether info belongs in Wikipedia is: does it make sense? If it makes sense, it should be included as reasonable, no matter who said it, even if it happens to be Joe Bloe.
Does it make sense to say that Berg must have been dead when the decapitation occurred? Yes, so include it - you don't need to have a government spokesperson with a PhD in anatomy to say it, you just work it out for yourself. Does it make sense to ask why Berg was wearing a U.S.-issue prison jumpsuit ? Yes, so include it. Does it make sense to read anything into the particular way the reader is flipping pages? I don't think so. Does it make sense to blame the one-legged al-Zarqawi for the beheading? No. It should still be included because it means the CIA are lying (hence the "CIA source speaking on the condition of anonymity"), and that's significant.
Let's seperate reasonable analysis from conspiracy theories. The reasonable stuff goes under "possible inconsistencies", the conspiracy stuff under "reaction". 139.184.30.19 00:16, 18 May 2004 (UTC) User:pir
For the purpose of neutrality the "inconsistencies" are not listed as conspiracy theories. However, the notion that the U.S. was involved in his death is indeed correctly included as a newly forming conspiracy theory. (It is a theory and it involves some kind of hidden conspiracy, hence: conspiracy theory.) - Tεxτurε 00:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes I agree. Do you think it's a conspiracy theory to point out that Berg must have been dead when you was decapitated? And do you think it's a conspiracy theory to point out that al-Zarqawi cannot have been the killer? 139.184.30.17 01:18, 18 May 2004 (UTC) User:pir
Are you asking me? I just explained that these are listed neutrally as possible inconsistencies. Personally I do think those are part of the conspiracy theories but in the article it is neutrally represented as inconsistencies. - Tεxτurε 01:30, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
A more 'neutral' source could be this pravda link http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/397/12790_Berg.html 213.84.9.252 10:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dead sister?

It has been claimed (on local radio) that Nick Berg, in addition to his living sister, had a sister who married an Iraqi and who died under mysterious circumstances. I've seen no mention of this in written sources. Is this another "conspiracy" type factoid? - Nunh-huh 23:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

It was his father&apos;s sister who married the Iraqi; she's the one who's no longer living. Some confusion about that in some earlier revisions and reverts. MisfitToys 23:33, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Change conspiracy theories into controversy?

Wikipedia:"While the term conspiracy theory could refer to any theory positing the existence of a conspiracy (but as yet unproven), it is usually used by people as a disparaging rhetorical device to refer to ideas that, in their opinion, are:

  • Unproven theories that are generally considered false
  • Impossible to prove true, or to falsify
  • Paranoid or baseless"

Shouldn't we create a distinction between:

  • the controversial suspicious aspects of the decapitation video and other suspicious aspects of the official story which don't fall under the definition of conspiracy theories;
  • Unproven conspiracy theories about who else could be behind this? 213.84.9.252 13:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Quadell (talk) 14:34, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. We will be unable to agree on what falls in which category. Personally, I feel it all falls under conspiracy theories. - Tεxτurε 15:00, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. Essentially agree with Texture. Looking for inconsistencies is part of the Conspiracy Theory process, barring more direct indication that it is faked. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:02, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Here's a fact: when a living person is decapitated, copious blood flows from the neck wound. Fact: copious blood did not pour from Berg's neck wound. Safe to say: the video is intended to give the appearance that Berg was killed by decapitation, but careful observation belies this. This isn't a theory, so much as it's an observation. And it has nothing to do with a conspiracy. It doesn't belong with "conspiracy theories". (On the other hand, speculating that the U.S. may have turned Berg over to terrorists is a theory about a conspiracy.) But "conspiracy theory" isn't a catch-all term; it has a specific meaning.
Often people mistakenly use the term "conspiracy theory" to apply to any controversal explanation, but that's a misuse of the phrase, judging a theory rather than describing a theory. The theory that the Abu Ghraib abuses were condoned from the top is a conspiracy theory, since it's about a conspiracy. The well-established theory that al-Qaeda planned the 9/11 attacks is a conspiracy theory. The claim that Berg's attackers were pale-skinned doesn't explicitly theorize about a conspiracy.
We can use "conspiracy theory" as descriptive term, or we can stop using the term at all, but we shouldn't use it a judgement as to the validity of certain ideas. So any list of conspiracy theories should include all theories about conspiracies, whether controversial or not, and should not include anything else. Quadell (talk) 17:03, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
I vigorously support Quadell. Facts must not be be presnted as conspiracy theories - this is an extreme POV tactic. Wikipedia must not be an unquestioning platform for propaganda. But I will not bother you much now because I broke my right hand after my last comments on Monday, so typing is very slow now. pir 17:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
A leading surgical authority and a noted forensic death expert believe the video has been staged: Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts. So if al-Zarqawi (with a prostetic leg and presumably dead) is mentioned as the possible killer on the main page (talk about a baseless, impossible to prove true, conspiracy theory) surely this can too? 213.84.9.252 22:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I am not 213.84.9.252

I removed the user:pir signatures form 213.84.9.252's edits, because they were not made by me. I made some edits under the IP 139.184.30.19 and similar IPs the other day because the computer I was using kept on logging me out, so I signed with my IP and a link to my user page as user:pir. I have no idea who 213.84.9.252 is or why she/he was signing with my login /n linking to my user page. I insist on my right to point ou these facts, and, while they amount to a curious inconsistency, I do not believe this to be a conspiracy ;) pir 17:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I insist on an immediate investigation and senate hearings into the conspiracy to associate Pir with all references to Prions. Pir, are you or have you ever been a sub-atomic particle? - Tεxτurε 18:06, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about that Pir. I didn't know how to sign comments so I copied your signature. My apologies for being an idiot and not changing the Username! It won't happen again. 213.84.9.252 21:04, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
No worries, that's what I thought probably happened. The easiest way to sign is to type 4 tildes (~~~~). pir 10:58, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Second video link

Why do we need a second video URL and I can't say I understand the text that was proposed with it at all. Anyone aware of some anti-semitic text nick was supposed to possess? Does this belong on the conspiracies page? - Tεxτurε 12:14, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Forensic experts and conspiracy theories

I'm not doubting that it is possible Berg was killed first and then decapitated for "show and tell," but I'm surprised as the incautious statements made to the press by reputable medical doctors:

"I certainly would need to be convinced it [the decapitation video] was authentic," Dr John Simpson, executive director for surgical affairs at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, said from New Zealand. Echoing Dr Simpson's criticism, when this journalist asked forensic death expert Jon Nordby, PhD and fellow of the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators, whether he believed the Berg decapitation video had been "staged", Nordby replied: "Yes, I think that's the best explanation of it."

First of all, no doctor would (or could, at least in the U.S.) give any kind of diagnosis of cause of death without access to the patient. So they are speculating based on their video, which makes their opinions less "expert" and more like those of you and me, who see the videos and note similar issues. I'm especially surprised to see "forensic death expert Jon Norby" say that the video was "staged" as the "best" explanation. "Staged" is a loaded word. The way it was reported implies that it never happened. Better would have been to say that the video may have been "manipulated" to make it appear that Berg was alive at the time of the bedding.

Of course, someone has a pretty good idea of how he died--the people who autopsied his body (unless perhaps the head is missing). But if those doctors came out tomorrow and said "yes, the cause of death was directed related to the heading" how many people who say they were lying.

For my own part, it seems more likely to me than not that the killers killed him first and cut later, but I'm trying to point out, with all the conspiracy theories going around, that everybody has their own preconceptions and believes the "experts" they want to believe. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I get you point, Cecropia. If someone takes a dead body, films as he cuts off the head, then makes it look like the person was still alive during the decapitation - how is that not "staged"?? It does not imply that the killing or the decapitation did not happen.
The video is "staged" no matter what, in that it was put together for propoganda purposes, however, the term "staged" implies that the events seen did not really happen. So it puts into doubt that (1) the reality of Berg's death, because, if a dummy was beheaded (as some are guessing) we might guess he's still alive.
Also you do not need to be an "expert" to state with some degree of certainty that it's impossible to decapitate a person alive without considerable release of blood. All you need to know are basic things like, as long as a person is alive their heart beats, most of the blood supply goes directly from the heart to the brain, when you ncut off someone's head you'll sever the main artery, a normal person has several litres (about 5l I think) of blood that are pumped through the body in a minute or so, your heart beat is about once a second or something, etc. No need for a PhD in anatomy and forensic science, just use you brain. Incidentally that's exactly what I was saying on 17. when you and texture insisted on labelling this "conspiracy theory" (still don't understand where the conspiracy is, or the theory, or how "perceptions" come into it, it's just obervation plus rational conclusion, any 5 year old can figure it out.) pir 16:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Did you read my post? That's what I said. The "experts" were giving credence to a theory on which they had not much more expertise than you and me, given they had no access to the body. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:26, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
No, no, no, it's not a theory ("an idea formed by speculation") that they are giving credence to - it is an inference based on verifiable and reproducible observations. And it's because anybody with a brain and a minimum of honesty can make this inference that the "expert opinion" doesn't count for more than your or mine. Which is also why you were wrong on 17. to insist that we must refer to the al-Jazeera article because "There is a big difference if a government spokesman, or a respected jurist, or a political analyst for a news organization, expounds a theory, or if it's "Joe Blow on ConspiracyBlogsRUs." We need this information to evaluate who has these theories. " It simply never was a theory to say that Nick Berg was dead when the decapitation occurred. Sorry if I'm being pedantic, but this is important. - pir 19:06, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe the name of Nick Berg conspiracy theories should be changed. I just created the name for lack of anything better. Kingturtle 21:58, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea since not everything on that page fits the title. How about "Alleged Berg murder inconsistencies" ? pir 22:47, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Voz de Aztlan is a fraudulent source

Anything on Voz de Aztlan is suspect. Besides being rabidly anti-Semitic and a hispanic supremacist group, they're well-known to photoshop, often poorly, many of the images they feature in their articles. They've removed a bunch of them after threats of lawsuits, but a few still remain [5]. --Delirium 20:28, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas K's comments

This was posted by 24.118.180.190 in the 20:50, 22 May 2004 revision:

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR RICKK:

What I said and what you deleted are not, as you claim, political propanganda and name-calling. They are facts. Which do you dispute?

(1) Nick Berg was not decapitated. Nick Berg had his head sawed off with a knife. Decapitation connotes the French execution method c. 1790, a much less painless way to die than the horror that Nick Berg suffered.

(2) Nick Berg's father is a very morally confused man. Anyone who blames this sort of savagery on the leader of a government that is a democracy and whose soldiers have fought and given up more lives to liberate other nations from the jack boot of dictatorships, is very morally confused.

(3) Muslims did not in general, condemn Nick Berg's murder. That is factually false. What they condemned was his mutilation (i.e. sawing off Berg's head) after he was ostensibly already dead.

I could go on... but this article is FAR from neutral in its very wording and tone. It sounds more like a AP or Reuters piece with all the entailing anti-American biases, than an entry fit for a real Encyclopedia, which this is not. If there is a "neutrality policy" this article as it was written clearly violates that policy.

Finally, sir, you are a morally confused if you believe that what I wrote was "propaganda."

I will never use this website again and I will recommend that others do not as well.

-Thomas K

I don't think I need to say antyhing in response to this diatribe. RickK 02:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Identification Of Body

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,9544920%255E661,00.html says that "Mr Berg's family were told by US officials on Monday that a headless corpse found dumped in Baghdad on Saturday was their son."

These are the same "US officials" that told Nick Berg's family that he was in US custody, then told his family that he had not been in US custody, and a host of other lies and self-contradictions. "US officials" do not elaborate on how they were able to identify Nick Berg, given that he both was and was not in their custody at the same time. (Tea and no tea, anyone?) What exactly is the problem with citing the complete and utter lack of positive identification of a headless corpse? Energybone 16:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Prometheus Methods Tower Services ownership

http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_internal.php?article=821&list=/home.php& says "It began: "Here you are, FReepers. Here is the enemy” and listed "Michael S. Berg, Teacher, Prometheus Methods Tower Service, Inc." Just seven days after "Michael Berg" and "Prometheus Methods Tower Service" had come up on that Iraq war 'enemies' list, his son Nick Berg returned to Iraq under the business name of Prometheus Methods Tower Service."

This would tend to indicate that Prometheus Methods Tower Services was owned by Michael Berg. Although how Free Republic got wind of this is anybody's guess, since this "company" is NOT REGISTERED IN ANY STATE IN THE CONTINENTAL US, nor have they seemed to have engaged in any ADVERTISING or any ACTUAL WORK. Only one tiny local radio station claims that they intended to hire Nick Berg when he got back from Iraq to build a transmitter tower on SWAMPLAND.

[edit] Conspiracy theories

Let's keep the conspiracy theories on the conspiracy article page and keep the fictionalizing out of Wikipedia. Discuss any facts that you don't believe here in the talk page before disputing them in the article. - Tεxτurε 18:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that five men secretly videotaping a murder is NOT a conspiracy theory? What's your basis for that conclusion, if you don't mind me asking? Are you basing it on anything remotely connected to reality or are your paranoiac fantasies the basis for this claim? Energybone 18:28, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Nick Berg is not a mossad spy and such unfounded theories belong on the conspiracy theories page. Do not vandalize this article without discussion it in the talk page. - Tεxτurε 15:18, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Again, let's keep the conspiracy theories on the conspiracies article page. - Tεxτurε 13:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Moore

If anyone has time, consider incorporating this news item into this article. I won't have to do so until late tonight. So, be my guest. :) Kingturtle 20:35, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Moore says he will not release the Berg interview except to the family, arguing that it was not used in the film Farenheit 9/11. Maybe he's trying to stir up interest, or maybe he thinks "news management" is all right for political film directors, but not the government. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

hmmmmm, Moore not releasing video material to stir up interest.... that's a bit of conspiracy theory, Cecropia! ;) I tend to agree with you though. pir 19:18, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Or alternatively, he's doing a courtesy to the family. Meelar 22:57, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the release to the family, I'm talking about his office's statement that "We are not releasing it to the media. It is not in the film. We are dealing privately with the family[...]" If such a video existed in most any other hands, it would be demanded to be released, or else it would be called a cover-up. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:11, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
From what I understand, he is showing the family the tape and asking them if it would be okay for him to release it. Moore wants to release it. If the family says no, then maybe there will be calls of a cover-up. Kingturtle 23:17, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
The sister says she's "skeptical" but can't confirm/deny Moore sent the parents a copy 'cause they're on a getaway.[6] 142.177.18.242 22:46, 29 May 2004 (UTC) with bated breath until they get back

Given Moore's well-known position on Iraq and the Bush administration, wouldn't the fact that Berg gave him a 20 minute interview be at odds with the claim in 'Travels and Detention' that "Berg, unlike most of his family, was a supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and of Bush administration policy."? I would assume he knew of Moore's work. Of course, if Berg really did support the war then that might explain Moore's reluctance to include his interview ;) 82.44.176.135 00:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Recent interview with father (8/24/2004):

AMY GOODMAN: Michael Moore interviewed Nick at a business conference here about investment in Iraq, is that right?
MICHAEL BERG: Yes, it is.
AMY GOODMAN: And gave you the videotape?
MICHAEL BERG: Yes, he did, and he promised, and has kept his promise, not to give the tape to the media or to anyone else, and not to use it himself, which I imagine cost him not only in dollars but in fame or whatever. It would have been a big headline at the time if he had done that. It would have brought attention to his movie, which hadn’t yet come out at that point. So, I applaud Michael Moore as a fellow human being for standing up and doing the right thing and being a man of his word.
AMY GOODMAN: And what does Nick say in that interview that he did?
MICHAEL BERG: Basically, he is being interviewed by a staff member of Michael Moore’s staff and she is asking him, basically, Why are you going to Iraq? What do you hope to accomplish there? – details about how he was going to go about doing it, and that sort of thing.

--GD 03:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sick Individuals

The entire problem can be solved by removing such photos, Videos, grisley & descriptive stories about this mans death, for gods sake, has he & his family not suffered enough?

It is NOT the presidents fault, maybe it is said to be in reaction of the US soldiers abusing the Iraqi prisoners, then by god, punish them to the full extent of Iraqi & U.S. law, Just because we are Americans, does not give us the right to abuse ANYONE in any manner, This action by our people should NOT be tolerated, but then again, the actions of Nick's murderers should not be tolerated either.

Do not blame the President, he did not force Nick to go to Iraq. Those of you whom do not stand behind the President in his decisions concerning this matter, do not deserve the right to claim American Citizenship.

How would ANY of you react if it were your relatives beheading that was posted on web sites and / or on TV ? (I rest my case.)

I was extremely angered, sickened & sad, a person that claimed to be my friend tricked me into seeing the video of Nick's beheading, that person was extremely sorry he did so after wards, you have to be a VERY sick individual to want to view this sort of media.

May god tender mercy in dealing with those of you whom post such.

Michael
(Prior Service in)
Texas Army National Guard
3rd/163rd Armored Cavalry

Michael, to answer your question "How would ANY of you react if it were your relatives beheading that was posted on web sites and / or on TV?", the intent of the project is to create a reliable encyclopedia that has breadth and depth. Wikipedia is not here to take sides, to mince words, or to avoid facts. We do not pussyfoot around. Still, we try to take great care in balancing articles and in protecting readers from encountering vile or offensive materials. That is why this article does not show the images, but instead links to the images.
This article does not blame president Bush. Nor does this article opine about what should happen to the killers. Wikipedia avoids stating such opinions in articles.
As for why Nick Berg was in Iraq, we do not yet know the full story.
As for claiming American citizenship, what is supposed to set the U.S. aside from most nations is that people in the U.S. have the right to openly condemn their government and their leaders. Nowhere is it written that those who do not stand behind a president cannot claim U.S. citizenship. Moreover, it *is* written that U.S. citizens are allowed to protest against their leaders and their government. Sincerely, Kingturtle 23:02, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Surely the man's family has suffered, but that does not mean that information about his death should be removed from an encyclopedia. That would be like saying that there should be no discussion of the John F. Kennedy assassination because it might be painful to the Kennedy family. These are important historical events and they should be properly chronicled.
I agree with most of your comments about the President and Abu Ghraib, but I don't think it's fair to say, "Those of you whom do not stand behind the President in his decisions concerning this matter, do not deserve the right to claim American Citizenship." Is freedom of speech and the ability to question and criticize leaders not the basis of American Citizenship?
I'm sorry you were tricked into seeing the video, but I don't think this kind of an emotional response is very useful.
Sincerely,
Acegikmo1 23:06, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Also, why did you delete a large section of this talk page?
Acegikmo1 00:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Ugh. I for one am thankful for those willing to swallow their disgust and do the job the mainstream media have abdicated. And as for "Those of you whom do not stand behind the President in his decisions concerning this matter, do not deserve the right to claim American Citizenship" all I say is "Thank God I'm Canadian and thank God Harper wasn't in charge." Hume, Chester, Nova Scotia 142.177.18.242 23:44, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The problem goes away when you remove the photos and videos?? That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. Out of sight does not take it out of mind!

I think you are very naive to think that the government does not do things that we do not know about. Horrible things at that. I bet my life on the fact that some of those "sick individuals" are running our country.

How do you know that it is not the Presidents fault Nick was killed? I doubt that he said directly "kill him" but there is no solid proof either way, but there sure is alot stacked on the Conspiracy/Controversy side. How do you know that our government did not do this to take the heat away from the ignorant decisions to act like terrorists and abuse human beings?

I am an American and I have every right to be one. That's what it's all about, freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom to think what I want. I might not agree with how the government runs this country but that does not make me any less of an American. I was born here and that is what I am whether you like it or not!

Your friend tricked you into watching the video? Did you watch the whole thing? I bet you did. That was your choice. If you are so outraged what are you doing reading controversy??

Of course how sad for the Berg Family. I am sure that much more of their suffering is due to the fact that they don't know what happened. I am also willing to bet that it is sites like this that they are using to get answers. It's all about choice.

I don't need mercy from God. Guess what God loves us all no matter what we do AND everything happens for a reason.

[edit] Google rank

Wow, when searching for Nick Berg, this page is the second site...expect a lot more emotional (irrelevant) posts like the above. Wyllium 22:52, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Berg Death

Yes, this article is about Nick Berg being dead, which is his only claim to fame. Removing that from the head, especially with "Nick Berg is" (rather than "was") is a backdoor way to attempt to push Energybone's POV that he is really alive. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:56, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't heard that Nick Berg is the inventor of Bovl Blocks. I'd say since he did that BEFORE this video was released, that's the meat and potatoes. Quit trying to put the desert before the entree. What's the matter with you? Enough of the Gestapo crap already. I realize you are vested in perpetrating this hoax, but please, spare the rest of us who aren't sheep. Energybone 05:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Er....considering that there are less that 5 URLs retrieved in Yahoo or in Google after doing a "Bovl Blocks" search, and that none of those were written before his alleged beheading took place, one can easily support the claim that Berg is famous for his alleged beheading, and not for the Bovl Blocks (an "invention" that was still and is still a prototype.) Kingturtle 11:35, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

POV? You want to talk about POV? Your repeated insistence that he is dead is POV, and it's infested that article like a cancer. Don't talk to me about POV, you have not got a beheaded leg to stand on, I'm afraid. Energybone 05:11, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Energybone, no matter what your opinion, you can be courteous. Or you can be banned. Meelar 05:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Slash & Burn

This Nick Berg article is an absolute rubbish heap. It really needs to be razed and re-written from scratch, but we'll see what happens from incrementalism. Already the forces of fancy are on the move to keep the facts out of the front. Energybone 05:17, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Am I part of these "forces of fancy"?
Acegikmo1 06:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Claimed Link to Zacarias Moussaoui

The section 'Claimed Link to Zacarias Moussaoui' says quite boldly that Berg encountered Moussaoui on a bus and allowed him to use his laptop. This does not reflect what was said in the linked article. In fact, it says that the encounter was with *an acquaintance* of Moussaoui. I think it is important to make the distinction clear. 82.44.176.135 00:04, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] photo bug?

wtf is wrong with the top photo? it messes up the whole article. blankfaze | •­• 03:40, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • fixed. i guess it was some kind of bug with the thumbnail code. so i just made it not a thumbnail. blankfaze | •­• 03:43, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • OH! nevermind! I've discovered that the whole thing was just a due to a conflict with my User CSS. So someone can but it back in thumbnail if they want. blankfaze | •­•

[edit] Shock site

What's the point of linking (clickable or not) to a "shock site that tricks people into viewing Nick Berg's execution"? --Conti|✉ 16:56, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

The point is to show that people have incorporated the Nick Berg execution video into a website designed to offend people. WhisperToMe 19:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And why exactly should this be mentioned, or even linked? --Conti|✉ 20:08, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
I just told you. The shock site link should tell you why they are so important. Oh, and it also serves as a warning on not to go to that site. WhisperToMe 22:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Without this warning I wouldn't knew that the site existed at all.. Wikipedia is not a place to warn people against shock sites, therefore I still think we shouldn't mention that here. I'd like to hear other opinions on this. --Conti|✉ 22:36, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
I think the link should be removed, too -- wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of links. There are already three links to the execution and several photographs - is more really required? If it is important to mention that sites have incoporated the video in deliberate attempts to offend, then write so in the body of the article. The shock site already has the link, so there's no need to duplicate it here. -- Tlotoxl 16:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
IMO, the link is too trivial; we're better without it. — Matt 16:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This is an encyclopedia - let's keep it this way, shall we?

This whole discussion is pointless. No matter how over and over people might talk about this, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA - NOT A FREAK SHOW! You want to see gore? Go to roten.com or something like that. This is not only revolting, but it is an insult to the guy's family as well. And I wouldn't like to participate on a project/community where people past such links, no matter the rethoric or epistemy used for such.

Remove the links. If you want to find such things, use a peer-to-peer network client such as Kazaa or Shareza. (anon postings)

NO! Look up. We had this discussion and we say keep. WhisperToMe 22:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits - islamic.co.za

I reverted User:168.209.97.34 again, simply because he not only reverted my edits, but also those made by another user after I did the revert. The site which the anon links to (now a redirect to http://survivalist.co.za/video/) has changed every time I've reverted him. The first time, it contained not only a link to the Nick Berg video, but also to another decapitation video. My opinion was that there is no need to not softlink directly to the video, so I reverted him. The second time I got a 404, so I reverted again. Then it contained links to even more decapitation videos and now there is a warning above these links, stating "WARNING: GRAPHIC VIDEOS - DO NOT CLICK IF YOU ARE UNDER 18". I still see no reason to link to a page which has links to pretty much all of those videos. Furthermore, this article already has a strong warning about the video, it's not needed to warn twice. The "age restriction" will a) not stop anyone from clicking the video, and b) may not be correct in many countries anyways, so I see no reason to mention this as well. Everyone should know for himself if he wants to see the video or not. On a further notice, I went to http://survivalist.co.za/ just out of curiosity, and to my suprise I found a wikipedia mirror with a google ad on top. I don't have a clue about what happens there, but that led to my decision to remove the link from the article until this is being discussed here. --Conti|✉ 15:04, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

-- I would have reverted that other edit also because all it did was link the words "orange" and "businessman". I think that's a bit overboard - we all know what orange and a businessman is. As of the link to the decapitation video, it is considered bad manners to link directly and bypass any warnings the website wants to offer their visitors. Sure it doesn't ensure that the person clicking the link is over 18, but it's arguably better than nothing Besides, why did you remove one and then then leave the other link as a "softlink"?

It was already discussed here how to link to the videos, the warning on this article should be enough. My main concern with this is that the page links (or linked, at the moment I get a "not found" message again) not only to the video in question, but also to other decapitation videos. If these are gone, and the site links only to the video we want to link to, it is okay for me. Also, the warning wasn't there until I reverted the article the third time.. --Conti|✉ 10:07, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Now it's "beheadingvideos.co.za" with the meta description "Watch Iraqi Terrorists Decapitate Innocent Civilians" ... am I really the only one who'd like to see such a link gone? There are other links that do not make a freak show out of this, we should use these links. Any comments?--Conti|✉ 11:17, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Even if it's an intentional shock site, a video link is a video link is a video link. Heck, this serious encyclopedia provides links to shock sites at the shock site article. WhisperToMe 15:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Laid on his dead body

WhisperToMe, a very careful and thoughtful contributer, recently added

At 00:05:20, the head is presented to the camera. It is then laid on Berg's dead body.

Are you sure? The videos I've watched don't show this. Are you perhaps confusing it with a different beheading? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 12:01, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Download the full Consumption Junction version. It's there. WhisperToMe 22:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Off-topic paragraph?

However, much of the Middle East itself still sees Muslim extremists taking hold. One Iraqi said, "The war in Iraq, he says, is one of liberation, not just of a country, but of Muslim lands, Muslim people, Islam itself. There is no room for negotiation with the enemy, no common ground. What he and his men offer is endless, righteous resistance. "Maybe this war will take a long time," he was quoted as saying. "Maybe this is a World War... they (Jihadists) want to transform Iraq into what Afghanistan was in the 1980s: a training ground for young jihadists who will form the next wave of recruits for al-Qaeda and like-minded groups." [7]

Since the linked article is only available by subscription, which I do not have, the context and relevance of this paragraph are not apparent. Can anyone explain it? Who is saying "the war. . .is one of liberation" and "offer[ing] endless, righteous resistance"? And what does this have to do with the subject of this article? None of this is clear. —No-One Jones (m) 23:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)'

[edit] Hamas and Hizbullah

It's disputed that Hamas and especially Hizbullah (a political party in Lebanon that won seats in parliament) are terrorist groups. Most Arab countries consider them "freedom fighters." They are terrorist according to whom? Israel and the US? Israel is a terrorist state according to Iran. Should we insert the word "terrorist" after "Israel" every time because Iranian government says so? OneGuy 10:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Non-clickable video links

We have a policy on making things as simple as possible for users. For example, in Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, it is said that "An additional common means of hiding spoilers from readers on a website is the practice of changing the color of the text to match that of the background of the webpage. This will render the text unreadable until it is highlighted by the reader by selecting it with the mouse. This is also called hidden text. This practice is unacceptable here, because it requires explanation to readers unfamiliar with the practice, and because it may be incompatible with computer accessibility devices such as screen readers (besides being an ugly hack)." To me, this seems like a similar unacceptable practice. And I really don't buy the "keep people from accidentally clicking" line. We have links to Last Measure and other shock sites. This is nowhere near as annoying; it's a simple video file that one could right click and save, but with the links gone you have to use some sort of download manager or paste the link into the address bar, causing it to play in many browser setups. --SPUI 20:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see no one's answered; I'm going to make them clickable now. --SPUI 07:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] War profiteer

An anon is insisting on a link to War profiteer on this article. Since he was no more than a lowly worker, this claim is spurious. Removing the link. - Tεxτurε 15:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

What's the objective limit in dollars before you can call it profiteering? The article already makes it perfectly clear that he went there to reap the fruits of the occupation. Also, I don't appreciate that you removed the link without any discussion or without even mentioning it in the edit summary. The condescending message you left on my talk page doesn't make your case any stronger. 80.203.115.12 17:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

A war profiteer is any person or organization that makes profits (rightly or wrongly) from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to one or even both of the parties at war in their own or in foreign countries.

According to this definition (taken from War profiteer), Someone who is looking for communications work to rebuild a country after a war is not considered a war profiteer. Please also look to the article itself regarding Mr. Berg's work in Iraq: He traveled to Iraq in the hope of helping to repair its damaged infrastructure. - Tεxτurε 18:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I will never forget the fear on Nick berg's face. I will never forget the horrible way he died. Never will I understand it. Never will I ever forgive it. 71.28.243.28 01:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I don't think this statement about Hamas and Hezbollah is NPOV:

The sincerity of these statements is questionable: both Hamas and Hezbollah stage terrorist attacks targeting Israeli citizens, including children.

While I can certainly see why that could be regarded as insincerity, that depends on the two acts being morally equivalent, and that is still debatable. Attacks on people in Iraq and Israel are different for a number of reasons; one of these is that the "occupying force" in Iraq has not promised to be there indefinitely, while that in Israel obviously has (otherwise the state of Israel would not exist).

I suggest that the statement be reworded to ascribe this position to a person or group. Would anybody care to volunteer? --Saforrest 20:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evil.....

When I saw this I was disgusted. Truly these Terroists must be captured. I may sound weird but just capture them and put them in prizon for life. A disgrace to this world. Curse those Terroists.

[edit] Email and Notebook

Berg's email address had been used by Moussaoui prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to Berg's father, Nick Berg had had a chance encounter with an acquaintance of Moussaoui on a bus in Norman, Oklahoma. This person had asked to borrow Berg's laptop computer to send an email. Berg gave the details of his own email account and password, which were later used by Moussaoui.

I'm curious about this. The infrastructure to send email from a bus simply didn't exist back then (no wi-fi, etc). So why would Berg lend out the laptop thinking that someone could email from a bus? Is the dad just not understanding technology? Something else going on?

--71.36.52.230 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern victims of Islamic decapitation

We need a category called "Modern Victims of Islamic Decapitation" Scented Guano 07:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There might be too many to fit on a page. It's a sad fact. However I agree that there should be an article about it or atleast attached to islamic extremism articles. (Anonymous User) 22 June 2006

[edit] Conspiracy Article

I think the Nick Berg conspiracy theories page got deleted without due process. It was voted keep here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Nick_Berg_conspiracy_theories. Has something happened since then? Was it merged? Where did this article go? - ShadowyCabal 10:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That was only the first AFD discussion. --Strothra 04:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
How do I get to the last one? - ShadowyCabal 06:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A great person lost

This man did more in his short life then most do their whole lives. Nick Berg, you will be forever missed.

[edit] One sided article

I've seen this touched on a few times, and it doesn't seem like it has been changed at all....

This article is extremely one-sided about the video evidence of his death, and other theories as to the videos validity should at least be mentioned and/or linked quickly within the article.

[edit] WP:RS, WP:NOR

I have removed the direct link to the alleged "real" video.--Jimbo Wales 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've requested expansion on your reasons for deleting this link on the mailing list but I figured I should do so here too. "The Memory Hole" is apparently the winner of the Project on Government Oversight's "Beyond the Headlines" Award 2005, so unless there's a specific reason why you think it's unreliable in this case I don't see the problem. Bryan 23:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/i/c/Talk%7ENick_Berg_c2d8.html"