Talk:Killing of Nick Berg

Video link
Is it really necessary to have an external link to the video footage? Is Wikipedia a portal for snuff movies now?? If people really want to see it (for whatever reason) they can find it through Google. I see no value in encouraging people to watch it.

Toloatzin (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's there and serves a genuine purpose. What may be a stomach churning point in history is history and should be accounted for, both good and not so good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * years ago while trying to see the footage for myself, a video posted on a foreign website which i found thru google virused my computer. a reliable link with protection on it would be nice actually.  put content advisories on it, but there should be one.  Cramyourspam (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * months later. yep. sure would.Cramyourspam (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * year later. still would still be nice. yep. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * two years later. yep. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * So, you've had two years. Why haven't YOU done something about it? fishhead64 (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved inappropriate external links here

 * Who killed Nick Berg? - The Sydney Morning Herald (May 29, 2004)
 * What happened to Nick Berg? - The Baltimore Chronicle (June 7, 2004)
 * - The Guardian Unlimited (May 12, 2004)
 * Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts The Asia Times (May 22, 2004)
 * Berg's encounter with 'terrorist' revealed - CNN (May 13, 2004)
 * Berg, Al Qaeda linked before - The New York Daily News (May 14, 2004)
 * The Philadelphia Daily News (May 17, 2004)
 * Berg Had Been Advised to Leave Iraq - Associated Press news story
 * A Father's Day Message, Both Parties Have Betrayed America By Michael Berg, CounterPunch.
 * Father of Beheaded Iraq Hostage Blames Bush Administration For Son's Death - Interview by Democracy Now! on August 24, 2004.

108.58.107.174 (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate to what? Many of these are credible news sources. Seems whoever you are you've just removed anything negative that might cast doubt on the Berg family account of what happened. Anon IP editors don't get to make such sweeping, obviously biased changes, a logged in editor wouldn't get away with it. A few of these are dead links but many are articles or archives of articles from legit sources, NY Times, Sydney Morning Herald, CNN, NY Daily News, AP Newswire via Yahoo. Status4 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nick Berg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040614105829/http://www.macon.com:80/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/chester_county/8683572.htm to http://www.macon.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/counties/chester_county/8683572.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Quote
I removed the quote here because it is already parphrased in the text and it is not clear what the quote adds at all.VR talk 18:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It adds journalistic accuracy. --Grufo (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How exactly is the current article inaccurate? Also we are writing an encyclopedia and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.VR talk 21:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe WP:NOTNEWSPAPER says nothing about why you should remove a direct quotation with an unbalanced personal rendering of it. --Grufo (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly is unbalanced about this? VR talk 17:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already answered to this question. --Grufo (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

User has removed twice a direct quotation from the article,  using a misleading edit summary (“added The Guardian”),, after , stating that “it is not clear what the quotation adds that the paraphrase doesn't already include”.

Before their intervention (edit summary: “added The Guardian”) the paragraph looked like this:

Currently it looks like this:

I believe that the removal of the sentence has the effect of impoverishing Wikipedia's accurate report of information. And, by reducing the space given to the “further threats”, has the apologetic effect of unbalancing the quotation towards America's Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, although the latter have no actual part in the death of Nick Berg. --Grufo (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is the current version not accurate? And how exactly is it unbalanced? VR talk 18:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The current version is more unbalanced because the original sentence dwells on Abu Ghraib using only few words (“Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib”), while what it does the most is indulging in threats (“is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way”), and is poorer because an original quotation has been removed from the page without a valid motivation (actually using a misleading edit summary). --Grufo (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding imbalance, which POV is not reflected in the current version? It certainly mentions "threatens further deaths. The video also threatens U.S. President George W. Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf."
 * The quotation has been replaced with a paraphrased text, which is what the The Guardian says about it.VR talk 19:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * “Regarding imbalance, which POV is not reflected in the current version?”
 * Simply the original POV, which is that of indulging in threats rather than denouncing Abu Ghraib.
 * “The quotation has been replaced with a paraphrased text, which is what the The Guardian says about it.”
 * On the contrary, The Guardian reports the quotation verbatim.
 * --Grufo (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Its confusing for the same discussion to take place in two different sections, but Grufo insists on on having two separate sections on the exact same discussion.VR talk 21:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You have created your paragraph while I was creating mine, then you have merged mine with yours without notice. At a certain point the only thing I saw was that my paragraph had a different title, therefore I restored what I had originally written. --Grufo (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe this is not going anywhere. I will move the discussion to Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Grufo (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

, after your removal of the original quotation and your will to stretch the mention of Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, I have constructively tried to find a compromise where both points of view were cohabiting, both your wish to emphasize Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and my wish to keep an original quotation simply as it is. So, the paragraph looked like this:

"During the video, the man reading the statement said the killing was in revenge for the abuse at Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and threatens further deaths: "So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffin after coffin ... slaughtered in this way." The video further threatens U.S. President George W. Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf."

But yet, despite my proposal to be constructive and inclusive, you have reverted my proposal and re-inserted your own version. Now that you know what my concerns are, could you please explain why you still believe that we should accept the removal of the quotation as it is, and why exactly you think it is so important to remove such quotation from Wikipedia? --Grufo (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's the larger quote from NYT:
 * "For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we asked the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage with some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib, and they refused. So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will receive nothing from us but coffin after coffin slaughtered in this way. Does Al Qaeda need any more excuses? And how does a free Muslim sleep comfortably watching Islam being slaughtered, and its dignity being drained? The shameful photos are evil humiliation for Muslim men and women in the Abu Ghraib prison. Where is the sense of honor, where is the rage? Where is the anger for God's religion? Where is the sense of veneration for Muslims, and where is the sense of vengeance for the honor of Muslim men and women in the Crusaders prisons? Regarding you, Bush, Dog of the West, we are giving you good news which will displease you. Your worst days are coming, with the help of God. You and your soldiers will regret the day when your feet touched the land of Iraq and showered your bravery on shelters of Muslims."


 * Are you looking to include this entirely in the article? I think the NYT article gives a good summary and interpretation of this quote and its best to include that in the article instead of the long quote. The quote is nothing but terrorist propaganda. VR talk 03:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it is terrorism propaganda, it is the statement of terrorists. I would be in favor of including the entire text, in my opinion it constitutes a unique report, unsummarizable otherwise. --Grufo (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to summarize it here. I'm not saying my summary is perfect, but I think its good and based on reliable sources. Unlike the quote, it also includes description of what's going on. I actually left a quote in there - its a quote by Nick Berg. Given that this article is about Nick Berg, a quote capturing his last words is probably alright.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 13:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this DUE?
There seem to be some questions over the Berg killing video not what it purports to be. I found an article in the Sydney Morning Herald and this one from Al-Jazeera covering the issue. Is it WP:DUE to include this in the article? VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 03:50, 15 August 2020 (UTC)