Talk:Daniel Pearl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


Judaism Portal
Daniel Pearl is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
I appreciate the work some editors will be doing to maintain this as a good standard, NPOV article. I would suggest that using the [1]
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

The link to the video that the article links to no longer works, so I removed the link, considering how this might be mis-interpreted, I thought it prudent to mention why. I was unable to find a suitable replacement for this link. AdamJacobMuller 2004-10-22 16:14:15 EDT

No worries, I found a new linkEvanCarroll 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure if the text displayed in the Daniel Pearl video is in Urdu or Arabic. WhisperToMe 22:30, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Pearl never says on the video that he is a spy for Israel

I removed this statement from the video section. It's not that I disagree with it, just that it's not very encylopedic to include things he didn't say on the video. Otherwise it would be a very long article. Thedukeofno 14:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

  • Links to beheadings and senseless stupidities like this should be kept away. This should be final. (Anon posting)
  • NO. Those links are relevant and they shall stay. WhisperToMe 22:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • WhisperToMe, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If you want links to behadings, go to Rotten.com.
  • We made a decision at the Nick Berg article that beheading links are allowed. They are historical documents. WhisperToMe 22:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • WhisperToMe: you might want to look at the Kenneth_Bigley page, then, where one user unilaterally removed the video link (didn't like it, wouldn't even look at it to confirm a factual point). RG 16 Dec 2004.
  • I reverted him too... WhisperToMe 04:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Ack, he reverted me... I'm not gonna start and edit war, so I'll just wait around... WhisperToMe 04:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Removed link to video. I am a friend of the family. This kind of sick fascination should not be encouraged. How about this page which used to come up when you typed "daniel pearl videotape" into google: http://home.nyc.rr.com/janegalt/Videotapes.htm --laurap414 23:56, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • No. I'm reverting you. WhisperToMe 18:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Laura, we are about showing information, not about morality. And we know that the Pearl video is a historical document. WhisperToMe 20:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not about morality. It's about selective information. By choosing what percentage of an article is related to a certain aspect of the topic, you slant it. Why is most of this article about the video and not about Danny's life? This page is called Daniel Pearl, not Daniel Pearl Video. The video is an entity in and of itself which is completely separate from the human person "Daniel Pearl". I propose that a new topic be started called Daniel Pearl Video. That way people can decide what they want to read about. Those who are fascinated with death videos get what they want, and those who want to read about the life of a noted journalist can read about him. This could apply to Nick Berg as well, perhaps ending some of the controversy in both areas. --laurap414 23:56, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Laura, I understand your position and you make some very good points. The video is an entity unto itself. However, looking at this article, I don't believe that splitting it into a separate article is the best course of action. As painful or offensive as it may be, Daniel Pearl is notable because of his death and the fact that there's a video of it. I don't believe that we should separate this article from what makes it notable. The video section probably could be cleaned up a bit, but it's not of excessive length. The video itself is an external link, so people still have to choose to watch it. I don't like the fact that this tape exists, but since it's a reality, Wikipedia should acknowledge it. Carrp | Talk 02:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Because in an encyclopedia, we like to focus on why this person is notable. This article cannot become a "memorial" type article. WhisperToMe 00:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The beheading part of the video is absolutely not necessary to watch if you want to learn something about the events which made DP an interesting topic. Videos showing the beheading should be removed. Wikipedia is providing factual information just like a normal lexicon. Would you find a picture of a beheaded human when looking up "decapitation" in a lexicon? I promise not. Let's keep wikipedia clean and factual just like an encyclopedia should be. I don't say anything against the video generally, but vidoes showing the beheading are not necessary! Removing is advisable, too, because most visitor don't expect such a cruel footage when looking up an encyclopedia. I hope sensation-prurience doesn't find its way into wikipedia. Hanzo, 18 year old user of wikipedia
psst, wikipedia isn't a "lexicon", it is an encyclopedia. Wiktionary on the other hand is a "lexicon". A "lexicon" is a dictionary (more precisely a dictionary is a recorded lexicon). Just thought you might like to know. BTW, why is everyone putting bullet-points in front of their responses in leiu of threading? It makes it much easier to read if you thread your responses (to thread put colons ':' in front of your response, 1 for a response, 2 for a response to a response...etc). Bullet points are for something else Brentt 01:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I still don't understand why this article cannot be a memorial article. This article is about a person who is dead. What you think Danny is notable for is purely a matter of your point of view. It is a matter of opinion as to what someone is notable for. Many would say that Daniel Pearl is notable because he was a prominent journalist who was murdered in the course of doing his job. Many would say the video is a postscript. My proposal above would not change the content of the page and would be a workable compromise solution which would avoid people being horrified by the video sections (not just me by the way). It annoys me that if I were to change this page it would be changed back because I would be seen as "hijacking" the page. I am going to submit this as a NPOV site. --laurap414 Aug 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • The article must not be a memorial because that would violate neutrality. This makes your NPOV threat rather ironic. You, in fact, are the one lacking a neutral point of view. Wikipedia's purpose is not to promote an opinion, or to celebrate any of its topics (as a memorial would do). I personally do Not want to see the video. However, I do want it linked to from the page, because it is highly relevant to the page's topic, Daniel Pearl. You are not in a position to offer compromises. You are just one person, and this is a democratic forum. No one would be forced to watch the video upon arriving at the page. - Jmalcolmg
  • Laura, if we allowed memorial articles, there would be an article for every person who had ever died. Wikipedia is for encyclopaedic information, and to be frank, the only part about Daniel Pearl which is notable is the fact that he was one of the first hostages to be taken by Middle-Eastern terrorists in the war on terror. See Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not. "Memorials. It's often sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." -Werdna648
  • Definitely we should not treat the entry on Daniel Pearl as a memorial page, no matter how much at a personal level I share the compassion and condolence towards his family and loved ones. For this entry is just one among many other entries in an encyclopedia which aim to provide information "as it is" to the majority regardless of the personal bias that one viewer may hold. However the final decision on whether to keep Daniel Pearl's video is debatable. Personally I vow never to open such links as I do not think myself as capable of handling images of gore: I would throw up. What's more, think about this: if Pamela Anderson is notable for her pornographic acts, do we then include links to pornographic sites featuring her videos? Definitely those videos made her notable! But then again it's just my personal opinion. Therefore I believe that by holding a vote on this matter so that the majority can decide, we may have a final solution. -Trailblazer Aug 21, 2005
  • I suggest we keep the video there, it's your choice if you view it - again see Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not - Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors ("Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are appropriate for children or adhere to specific social norms. While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the state of Florida in the United States, where the servers are hosted." -Werdna648 00:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • As others have said, articles on people are there because they are notable. In this case, Daniel Pearl is notable for his capture and death whether we like it or not. The video is a key portion of that and it worthy of inclusion together with an approrpiate warning. BTW, the Pamela Anderson article indeed has a list of the playboy editions she has appeared in. It doesn't have a link to the infamous Tommy Lee video for several reasons I suspect. Firstly its legality is in question. Secondly although it's a significant part of Pamela's notriety, it is not the only reason she is notable. Nil Einne 11:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • laurap414 does not have a valid say in this matter in my opinion because of her obvious personal relations with Daniel Pearl. As has been said Daniel Pearl is only famous due to him being beheaded during the Middle Eastern conflict, and the video (regardless of whether I like it or not) provides an informational supplement to this article. Genjix 17:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Everyone has a valid say, that's the beauty of wikipedia. Let's all try and keep this polite and have a civil, calm discussion, OK? See Wikipedia:Wikiquette. First "personal relations" implies I knew Danny -- I did not, I only know his family. Second, I am not suggesting this be a "memorial" like I would create a page for my grandmother. Rather a balanced view of someone who both made news and was in the news. I wish someone who worked for the WSJ would weigh in, I think they could provide an interesting opinion. laurap414 03:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, this discussion is still ongoing? This was one of my first contributions. Anyway, I reaffirm what I said before, but disagree with Genjix. Just because laurap has a conflict of interest does not mean she is incapable of making reasoned arguments (not suggesting that she does have a conflict of interest). A link to the video is appropriate, an inline screenshot of the video is not. Let's give the reader a choice in the matter. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So it seems the agreement is to keep it - where is it then?--Zambaccian 07:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm coming to this debate pretty late in it, however, Trailblazer made an excellent point. If you condone linking an article of a person to a video simply to show why that person is notable, then by all means go back and link the articles on Pam Anderson, Jenna Lewis etc etc to videos of their sexual exploits. There is a link on his wiki page for the on air suicide of R. Budd Dwyer. Do we then link to other videos of public suicides/murders if they involve people or places who have a Wiki page about them? I see very little difference between sex tapes, or videos of death. I wont try and convince people that these are good or bad things (the videos) however I think they fall into the same catagory and a set standard or decision made for inclusion need to be decided, rather than the edit/revert, edit/revert cycle that seems to go on. Coradon 15:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I added the video back for all the reasons stated above. ~ JmalcolmG, Amherst

[edit] Did Daniel die for any reason?

No. Daniel's murder was just a demonstration of the extremist views of his captors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoe6 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Language is Arabic, not Urdu

The language at the bottom of the video and picture is Arabic, not Urdu. - Dr. Ayesha Ahmed Ali.

[edit] "Conspiracy theorists"

"Conspiracy theorists allege Daniel Pearl was an Israeli secret agent who infiltrated the Al-Qaida network and he was beheaded by militants for betraying Osama bin Laden."

I changed "conspiracy theorists" to "some", as the former is pejorative and seems to be a POV problem. After all, he was killed by a conspiracy either way. Subversive 20:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have also added that some suggest he is a CIA agent Nil Einne 11:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Would "Some Pakistanis" be more specific? And if we're adding speculation, how about the allegations that India was behind the kidnapping? Andjam 14:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The truth of the matter is we will never know the truth but given the background of the case, allegations of his being a spy or secret agent is relevant to the case. It is unlikely we will ever know whether he was a secret agent. Allegations that India are behind the kidnapping are irrelvant to the case at hand and should not be added unless substatiated. Also Some Pakistanis is too specific since there are surely some non Pakistanis. Nil Einne 11:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible incorrect statement

Pearl is under the "Category:Mizrahi Jews". I would think "Pearl" is an Ashkenazic name. Can anyone verify? --OneTopJob6 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The article says that his mother is "an Iraqi Jew." This would technically make him a Mizrahi Jew, though possibly a 'mixed Jew' if his father is Ashkenazi (inherited the name through his father). --172.163.151.208 09:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definite Incorrect Statements

"He was kidnapped and DESTROYED in Karachi"

"Six days later, Pearl was DESTROYED in spectacular fashion"

- Eh???


[edit] Anon commentary

Please stop changing what I edit. The killers of Pearl said they killed him after nine days which is February 1 2002. Please stop changing it or I shall kick your asses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.126.250 (talk • contribs) (14:44, 28 June 2006)

It was probably put there by a pro-jihadi. They love to talk about how they "slaughter" "destroy" and "annihilate" their victims. Roland Deschain 06:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Roland, before you get too involved with that anon's comments, check out his talk page. Kaisershatner 15:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh

Pls see Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. Some guys are trying to blank out referenced information from that article . Bharatveer 04:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Death sentence

What has happened to the culprits? One was sentenced to death - was sentence executed? Plus - the final para of the Aftermath section has a broken sentence that I don't understand.--Shtove 20:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Wording

The following two sentences seem poorly worded. The first sentences makes no sense, and the re-use of the word formally in the second sentence reads poorly in my opinion.

Her claim was formally rejected beneficiaries to relatives of those who died at the three attack sites. On March 31, 2004 [7], Mariane Pearl formally appealed the decision.

--Thesangreal 04:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beheading video and quotes removal

If a guest (anon) tries to remove videos or quotes too much, block the page so that it doesn't happen. We know the Wikipedia stance on beheading videos and graphic text; they are to stay. If the families don't like it, that's their fault for not liking it. WhisperToMe 05:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a disgusting stance to take, teenager. -Anon

Why is it gone again?--Zambaccian 12:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Strike-through text]

oh my lock him up, hes a teenager, his opinion is clearly flawed Catintheoven 10:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I second Catintheoven. I don't get these people who do not want others to view the execution videos. These videos are historical documents and they show what other people went through. Come on, guys. WhisperToMe 21:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"If the families don't like it, that's their fault for not liking it" please explain how not liking watching your son's head getting chopped off is something to be described as a "fault".
It's attempting to prevent a democratic forum from providing a thorough historical account that would be the fault ~ JmalcolmG


This is an informational and equal-opportunity forum, not a site for sadistic or voyeuristic endeavors. If you are interested in watching a video of murder, I am sure you could find an Al-Qaida sponsored site that would provide you with all the murder-filled footage you could ask for.

I have mixed feelings about the issue. There are many subjects and images on Wikipedia that could be deemed disturbing or disgusting or pornographic-yet if we want the truth about things then I believe there is some justification in allowing them to stay. Articles on human sexuality are controversial when they contain explicit pictures but if we are to have an article on say ejaculations or smegma or shit then why not include the pictures in all their glory? However I must admit that I watched the beheading video of Eugene Armstrong three years ago and frankly it was the most disturbing and horrible thing I have ever witnessed. The image still haunts me to this day and I would think it reasonable that some sort of warning regarding the images is neccesary and perhaps we need to ask ourselves-does the video really add anything more to the article? If it does not then perhaps it is wise to omit it-but if we are to have an article on beheadings in general then there is clearly a case for it's inclusion Godfinger 18:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT#Censored - Pearl, Armstrong, etc. are known for being beheaded. Therefore, we must mention the videos. WhisperToMe 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tags

citations are needed for the ISI link.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.208.38 (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure what you mean. Put a {{fact}} tag after what needs a citation. Tom Harrison Talk 02:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Cna someone justify the addition of the "Islam and anti-semitism" category? What does his death have to do with the Islamic faith?Bless sins 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply because of the Islamic nature in which they killed him. The radical Islamists that killed him made excessive references to Islam and the fact that Pearl was Jewish. --Shamir1 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pak tag being added

Im adding the Pakistani tag to make sure that Pakistani project members can also help and keep out any biased anti-Pakistan POV or propaganda that anyone may try to insert.-Vmrgrsergr 07:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In the "Arrests" section, reference is made to KSM's confession from 2002. However, a recent New Yorker article (Black Sites, August 13 2007) refers to his arrest in Pakistan in March of 2003. Andrelevy 13:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] KSM Confession Claimed False

Wasn't real sure how to incorporate this into the article without screwing up the existing "arrests" section. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1941988.htm

BOB BAER, FORMER CIA OFFICER AND AUTHOR, "SEE NO EVIL": Khalid Sheik Mohammed was water-boarded. He was probably already unstable. He's made this fantastic confession to the Pentagon and I know for a fact from numerous sources that we know precisely who cut off Danny Pearl’s head and it was not Khalid Sheik Mohammed. So you got a false, you know, he was water-boarded, as I understand, sleep deprivation, cold, hot, the whole thing, and none of it worked.

Attriti0n 11:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note on captions

Captions should serve to describe the actual scene in the the picture, not the label that an interested party gave to the picture, especially when this party is a sick murderer. The latter is explicated in the text, there is no point repeating it under the picture.

Imagine a video of a rape scene labeled by the rapist: "The holy matrimony". Would Wikipedia insist on using this label?

The argument given by one of the editors, to the fact that no English speaking person would believe the spy accusation implied by the title is short-sighted. There are unfortunately many English speaking lunatics who are aroused by cruelty. And there are many young readers who do not know who Daniel Pearl was.

The same applies to KSM sentence starting: "Then he added..." It repeats later in the text. I do not think its so important to give this monster a platform to repeat his boasting on the very first paragraph of this entry.

If anything, quote the victim on the first paragraph, not the murderer. Again, you are underestimating the power of Orwellianism. Kvihill 17:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saud Memon

Saud Memon, a suspect in Pearl's killing, should be mentioned in the article. Badagnani 22:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music

Daniel Pearl's parents telephoned the Scottish composer, David Heath, to commission a piece of music to remember his son by. "A song for Daniel Pearl" was the result. Part of this music was then used in a film about his life, "The Journalist and the Jihadi". I think this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. i don't have any sources, but there must be some out there. --Tpacw (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVAL

Under the Murder section, there is a sentence that states "Using the email address" but does not list the actual address. It is bad grammar and it is OBVIOUS that a word is missing there. I keep getting told I am VANDALISING the article by trying to correct it. Can someone who is not considered a VANDAL please either correct this to list the email address or take the reference to it out so that it reads better? It looks awful as is. 198.199.154.250 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final words in section Aftermath

According to this article from the Jerusalem Post, there are some issues regarding his last words in the section "Aftermath". Does anybody more familiar with this article want to have a look at it? If not, I will add a link and comment myself.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 07.05.2008 06:54