Talk:Killing of Nick Berg/Archive 1

Was Nick Berg a "contractor"? I really don't think so. A contractor must be working under a contract. Mr. Berg did not have a job. He wanted to be a contractor but he was jobless at the time he was killed. You can call him a U.S. civilian, an adventurer, a visitor, a jobless or even a tourist. He was just not a contractor. -- Toytoy

I think it will be good to call him an adventurer. There are too many U.S. civilians with jobs in Iraq. Few of them are jobless ones seeking for employment. According to his father, we was really an adventurer:


 * ... He saw his trip to Iraq, his father said, as an adventure, but one that fit into his ideology. He was a war supporter and backed the Bush administration. ... -- Nicholas Berg: A life of adventure (CNN)

So we can safely call him an adventurer. -- Toytoy

Nick Berg was a contractor according to every major news source --VTEX 01:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * We could safely call him an adventurer, but that description doesn't really tell us much. It's vague and gives readers the impression that he was a tourist or a thrill-seeker, rather than an unemployed telecom worker looking for a contract job. Furthermore, he did find contract job during his first visit to Iraq, and returned the second time to work on that job, which never materialized.


 * I'd personally prefer "unemployed telecommunications contractor." A contractor is someone who performs contract work professionally (which Berg apparently did), whether or not they have a contract at any given moment. -- Seth Ilys

Shouldn't the article begin Nick Berg instead of Nicholas Berg? Lukobe 01:51, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It's standard formatting in Wikipedia to begin biographies with the full name (as much as is known), while the article title gives the name in common use. -- Seth Ilys 03:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

According to the report on NPR this afternoon, he was not a contractor, but was there on his own trying to drum up business for his company in Pennsylvania. RickK 03:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the fuss is about. By the common usage and definition of the word, a contractor is a person or firm who does work on contract, as opposed to an employee. His US firm did that kind of work, and he hoped to get the same work in Iraq, with little success. I do contract work, so would be called a contractor, except that in my particular field the term consultant is preferred. I think the confusion is that people take a contractor to mean someone who works for a contracting company--actually that usage is incorrect (they are usually employees) but it is commonly used in the Iraq context. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Because in this context, it means someone who is contracting with the US or US-supported Iraqi government, which he was not doing. RickK 03:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I modified the wording to what is accurate. He would be an "indepedent contractor". He had an actual company that did that work. Also, a contractor is never described as "unemployed" unless he leaves the line of work. Trust me, you are not paid unemployment benefits (though in my state at least, you have to pay the tax onyourself) unless you completely abandon contracting. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * FWIW, a BBC broadcast I heard just ten seconds ago referred to him as an "American telecommunications contractor." -- Seth Ilys 04:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I accept the term "unemployed indepedent contractor." An "individual contractor" is probably OK. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, a contractor means "one that contracts or is party to a contract : as a : one that contracts to perform work or provide supplies b : one that contracts to erect buildings." Since Nick Berg was travelling in Iraq looking for someone to hire him as a contractor, I will now call him an "unemployed indepedent contractor" until a better description surfaces.

In this war, contractors usually mean someone who entered into a contract with the U.S. government or a business approved by the U.S. government.

In my opinion, a contractor could be:


 * U.S. <-contract-> Contractor (Blackwater USA, Halliburton ...)
 * U.S. <-contract-> Contractor <-contract-> individual contractor (Halliburton's sub-contractor ...)

You can replace the U.S. with other parties such as:


 * Iraqi ~
 * government
 * warlords
 * religion leaders
 * citizens
 * Other ~
 * governments
 * international organizations (UN, Red Cross)
 * private business (news agencies, ...)
 * individuals (Bill Gates, who must have hired someone to sell legal copies of Windows XP to Abu Ghraib inmates)
 * "Terrorists" (Mr. bin Laden, Anakin Skywalker or Dr. Evil)

Legally or not, they are contractors who are currently under a contract to work in Iraq.

I am reluctant to call these people "contractors":


 * US <-contract-> Contractor <-employment-> employee (An office worker or executive employed by Blackwater USA)
 * Those who are wondering around looking for a job.

I think people are using "contractor" quite loosely. Bad language usage started the war. -- Toytoy 04:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty clear that he was indeed a contractor; he performed contract work professionally, and that's what he was seeking in in Iraq. To most people, the first meaning of "contractor" that comes to mind is someone who builds houses, so I don't believe we're justified in falling back on standard usage in context as Toytoy suggests. However, RickK's compromise ("businessman") is accurate and certainly acceptable. -- Seth Ilys 05:21, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Another vote for "businessman." By the way, the NY Times says "... nor is it clear whether he had found any work in Iraq." He could have found a job before he died. But that's only a remote possibility. -- Toytoy 05:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

How did he end up in militant hands?
This is currently off-topic, but I doubt it will remain so. Berg was held by Iraqi police, though he was questioned by the FBI while in their custody. Then he disappears almost immediately after being released. Did the Iraqi police tip off the Al-Queda dudes that they were releasing an unattached American? Moreover, did they tip them off that they were releasing an unattached Jewish American? -- Cecropia | Talk 04:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Or Berg could have said something stupid to the wrong audience after he was released. He was probably under certain time pressure to make a deal, I guess. I think no one except his capturers will know. -- Toytoy 04:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * He could have entered into a trade dispute and was captured just because the other side has a connection to the Iraqi rebels. Everything could happen in a war. -- Toytoy 05:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The current state of knowledge suggests that, once having been released from the Iraqi prison, his main thought was to get out safely. I expect more will come out. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Is it accurate to say 5 men in black ski masks? Obviously that's not what they're wearing in the image provided?


 * These are just face masks. I don't think you go ski very often in a country like Iraq. -- Toytoy 04:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

In Iran it's possible to ski nine months of the year and it's quite popular among the richer, don't know about Iraq though. Added: I checked our article on Iraq and it says "The northern mountainous regions experience cold winters with occasional heavy snows" so skiiing should be possible. // Liftarn


 * Media reports have described them as ski masks and head scarves, which looks correct. The language in the article now reflects that. -- Seth Ilys


 * People are using words quite haphazardly these days. These masks are surely not made for any kind of winter sports. -- Toytoy 05:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

How Could It be So Bad?
Wow, This whole thing is just really sad..... I don't know, I've been following the whole damn thing over the past week (Abu Ghraib incidents), and I just don't think I can anymore. This whole damn topic just enrages me, the ignorance of people... I mean, President Bush calls for accountability, but yet stands there and says Rumsfeld is doing a "superb" job, meanwhile Nick's family has to deal with the fact that Nick was beheaded becuase of those incidents (although, to be fair, he probably would have been killed regardless, but still....). This whole Iraq mess is just out of control and the media doesn't speak up and question anything that spews out of Bush's mouth... anybody who tries gets hounded and is somehow "unamerican"... I don't know, I guess I just cant take turning on the TV and there's another Nick Berg or Dan Pearl anymore..... --VTEX 05:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * This Nick boy had a choice. He could have stayed at home and live the rest of his life happily. He went to Iraq instead.


 * Those Iraqi guys had no choice. They couldn't press the remote control and switch off the invaders from the U.S. They already had had two bloody wars and a decade-long sanction. Now they are seeing these torture pictures. How could they be happy?


 * The U.S. has not been invaded after the fall of Mexico. You don't know what it was like to be in a war where you can not escape but being killed. You really think they liked to kill you? Certainly not. We Chinese has been living with Muslims for over a thousand years without too much dispute. Indians also co-exist with them. You hated them and wanted to control their oil at first. So they stood up and started killing.


 * Any movie watcher would tell you if Iraqis (Russians, Chinese, Brits, Nazis, WW2 Japanese, Canadians) invade the U.S. They will be so sorry that they wish they've never been born. Now the Iraqis are playing their own version of Hollywood movies. This time, with real heads.


 * Any responsible government will want to do anything to stop the escalation of hate. However, as a non-U.S. Asian, I have to say your government is not much different from a bunch of wacky cross-burning militia this time. -- Toytoy 06:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Blah, blah, blah. Go find another bridge to troll.  --M4-10 07:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You're right, and I agree with you 100%. Nick did have a choice, and he went to Iraq.  That doesn't make the situation any less sad.  The U.S. is clearly in the wrong in this war.  It is all about oil, cuz it certainly isn't because of WMD's or human rights violations or ties to Al-Qaeda.  Just because I'm an American doesn't mean I don't agree with you, but I can't do anything to stop it, I'm just as helpless as anybody else.  I try to speak out as much as I can, but what am I to do?  I'm furious at the U.S. government and what has happened to it post-9/11 (even before 9/11) because the values that we stood for are completely gone now (if they ever existed).  President Bush is an evil man and he needs to be accountable and tried for war crimes, but he has control over the media, and people only see what is shown to them.  Muslims are not terrorists and Iraqis are not Al-Qaeda, but that's how the have been portrayed in the media in the U.S..  Like I said earlier, I just can't watch the abuse and corruption anymore, there's too much, I can't take it.  --VTEX 07:19, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You too. Find a big bridge and you can both live under it.  --M4-10 08:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * At the risk of being a bit off-topic, I'm not sure I agree with that. Berg was in the wrong place voluntarily, but he didn't deserve to be beheaded.  Similarly, some of the Iraqis in US custody at Abu Ghraib were there because they had voluntarily committed crimes of various sorts; others were just unlucky; but none of them deserved to be abused, even the guilty ones. --Delirium 12:56, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Linking to video
Although I think that we should include a reference to the video, for informational purposes, I feel like we should do here what is done on shock site and not link to the article directly, as a courtesy to our readers, simply to reduce the possibility that someone could accidentally stumble onto the graphic decapitation. If we just give the URL and don't make it a link, the reader will have to deliberately copy the URL into the address box of their browser in order to view it -- which is just a way of double-checking for them that they really *want* to see it. -- Seth Ilys 13:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Accidentally? wha'? if they click on it ... they want to see it ... if not then they don't. Pretty simple. JDR [PS., this media is no different than media of the World Trade center falling and should be linked]


 * The image of a decapitated severed head is quite different from the image of an imploding building. Without context, the imploding building has no profound emotional impact. Watching another human being die while being able to see his face is, I'm sure, deeply disturbing. I see no reason why the precedent and reasoning that precludes direct linking on shock site doesn't apply here. If anything, I'd imagine that this video (which I haven't seen, BTW) is even more disturbing than goatse or tubgirl. -- Seth Ilys 14:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * image of a decapitated head is NOT quite different from the image of an imploding building. And is much more offensive ... THOUGSANDS of ppl died in that. The same recendent and reasoning to linkining to the WTC faling is used. JDR


 * We need to allow people to link to show this for what it is. Use of imagery is an issue in a wartime situation. The western media (at least in the US) has been loath to show images of people jumping (some of them in flames) from high windows of the World Trade Center because the images are "too disturbing". But the Arab media shows as much explicit material as they can, over and over, to enrage their viewers. Likewise with this, we are only providing a link to the Berg video. If we were so concerned about readers' sensibilities, we would not have nine pictures of abused prisoners and links to many more. If what the Al Queda guys did was so shocking that we can't even link to it, perhaps they shouldn't made a movie of it and released it for the world to see. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ, for the simple reason that on a video of the WTC collapsing, there are no severed heads. They're both tragic, to be sure -- they both may make you sick to your stomach, but there are also standards of decency which are commonly applied. No major news outlet has yet broadcast the full Nick Berg video, while we all know how many thousands of times the collapse of the WTC has been shown. Some agencies even shy away from showing the building's collapse again for precisely the same reasons of emotional impact. We're not taking away information from anybody, just helping them make sure that if they want to see a disturbing video with a decapitated head, that they know for certain what they're getting into, and that there's very little chance that they would stumble into it accidentally (which does indeed happen with weblinks). That's the rationale, and I think it makes sense. If we create a direct link here, we should also directly link the sites listed on shock site. I'm really after consistent application of linking protocols. -- Seth Ilys 14:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You are taking away information from everybody, just like the censored news.
 * There's very little chance that they would stumble into it accidentally (this DOES NOT happen with marked and labeled weblinks).
 * Your linking the shock site to this event breaks down ... it's not the same. It's more akin to the WTC falling ... THOUSANDS of innocents died then and was much more "offensive" (but is linked).
 * "consistent application of linking protocols"? You would need to edit all the WTC falling files and links then (but I do not advise that, as those are needed too).
 * JDR


 * By not linking directly, we aren't taking any information away; it just requires thought on the part of the viewer. He has to ask himself, "do I really want to see this very disturbing video?" rather than just clicking on a link which he may not have read or understood. On shock site, Wikipedians evaluated the risk of someone clicking on a link that they don't actually want to see as sufficiently high enough to justify not linking directly. My desire to remove the direct link here is a consequence of that precedent. (I am assuming that was the justification, because I can't find the debate. If that's not the justification for not linking directly, much of *my* argument breaks down.) Other people, however, have different arguments for not wanting to link directly. Perhaps they should present their case as well... -- Seth Ilys 15:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * We're just talking about links, correct? A warning that the link is graphic is enough. By deciding some things are too horrible is making a propogranda judgment. It says we can pile on if the action was upsetting, but if its truly horrible, we hold back. So the side that photographed the merely repugnant gets all its dirty laundry aired to the point of prurience, while the side that photographs the truly barbaric has its sins hidden from our eyes. Description never has the impact of photos. As to the WTC, all we see are collapsing buildings. Bad enough, but I watched as they collapsed and, as shocking as it was, without the human context, it looked like a movie special effect--sort of like Independence Day in real-time. The real horror, the flaming bodies holding hands as they jumped are kept from us. I remember particularly a remark by a school child who watched from her elementary school classroom: "the birds are on fire." And some images we will never see--the workers at Windows on the World who slowly suffered, or cried, or slowly roasted before the buildings collapsed. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * By not linking directly, you are puttin up another hurdle (a POV edit) to the information (the next I suspect will be someone will remove the link); it requires even more on the part of the viewer.
 * Before clicking on a link (with explicit warnings) ppl have in all likelyhood answered the question "do I really want to see this very disturbing video?"
 * may not have read? That's very unlikely with the bold warnings around it.
 * If they do not understand it, they should not be on the internet alone [they would need some help or supervision, I would suppose]. Is Wikpedia going to "babysit" the reader? Does wikipedia "know best"? hmm ... I find this highly distrubing course of action that you [and other) propose.
 * This is not a shock site (ie., some twisted entertainment), it is facts being presented to what REALLY is occuring in the world.
 * What real risk is there for someone clicking on a link that they don't actually want to see? Very little to none. Is it sufficiently high enough here (especially with the warnings) to justify not linking directly to them? no ...
 * The direct link here has precedent [see the WTC falling link; another "offensive" link].
 * Sincerely, JDR


 * I'm with you here. Do we really need to protect people from themselves? I think all URLs should be directly linked, including those on the shock site page. Lukobe 17:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

As someone who has misclicked in his life, I would prefer that extremely objectionable content - let's use a definition akin to the Supreme Court one here - something that an avergae person is likely to be offended by - not be something that one can accidentally click on. It's not censorship to make it a little harder to get to. It's politeness. Snowspinner 19:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist
As has been discussed many times in many places on Wikipedia, "terrorist" is a loaded and subjective word. The actions of the men who killed Nick Berg are absolutely disgusting. We don't need a label of "terrorist" to make that crystal clear. -- Seth Ilys 14:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Imagine you're an Iraqi guy with a wife and kids. You are proud of your family because you love them. One day, your home was hit by a cruise missile, your wife and kids died painfully. They were trapped in the collapsed building and crying before death. You could do nothing to help them. How happy could you be?


 * The U.S. killed thousands or more during the bombing of Baghdad. Some of the people died painfully. And their deaths were nearly unreported by the western media. The Pentagon just called these kills "collateral damages." They probably call a bombing with a couple of civilian deaths a "surgical strike." This makes their kills look very kosher. (To equally enrage all people, allow me to add "halaal" here.)


 * So who is the biggest terrorist?


 * If I call the bombing a "surgical strike," could I call Berg's beheading an "unapproved surgery." This beheading was actually less gruesome and more merciful than any bombing where hundreds of innocent civilians were left to dying for hours.


 * If you agree to call some national leaders butchers or terrorists, I'll call these "illegal combatants" terrorists. -- Toytoy


 * Toytoy: Ordinarily I believe in engaging people on their arguments, but I find your presence here offensive; I note the gratititous comment "This makes their kills look very kosher. From most people I would take that as a careless catch-phrase but I see you felt that, in the "interest of NPOV" you removed the fact that David Irving is a holocaust denier, you need to mention under anti-Semitism that some Jews are anti-Arabaian; and it the Talk of that article you preach to Jews at length on why anti-Semitism exists: "No wonder Jews are being hated all around the world during the past two thousand years. Bad attitudes". "They want us to remember their own private Holocaust, not the Holocaust shared by Gypsies, Poles, gays and many others as well." "Jews simply did too little to blend in. Even though I don't agree with it, to me, this fact constitutes another reason of cultural anti-Semitism. Too little to blend? It's difficult to blend in when you are forbidden to engage in many trades, own farmland, or risk punative taxation or explusion at the whim of a ruler. And you went on at length that anti-Semitism is sparked by Jews not readily accepting converts. That is one of the most novel arguments for anti-Semitism I can recall.


 * I see, BTW, that you have an equal opportunity religious hatred, with your "cross-burning militia" comment. -- Cecropia | Talk


 * I know it's truly offensive. And I really did it on purpose. I apologize. Now back to the same old question. Yes, they are causing terror to other people. But how about the good guys? Don't they just cause terror themselves. Today's world is much worse them 4 years ago. Why?


 * Do you want me to say these killers who has no airplanes and tanks are terrorists just because they use knives and improvised bombs. To me, it's another kind of hatred. -- Toytoy


 * Who is the biggest terrorist? The thugs and killers that were taped (as it surely doesn't fit the Coalition).
 * Please cite when the Coalition killing thousands of civilian _on purpose_ ... otherwise your arguement fails.
 * Are you seriously implying that Nick Berg was an "illegal combatant"? He wasn't even fighting in the conflict ... he was a antenna repairman (helping the Iraqis, BTW, not the military from what I've read). JDR


 * The actions of the men who killed Nick Berg are absolutely disgusting. There is a need to label these "terrorist" and make it crystal clear of thier actions. JDR [PS. militant just doesn't fit enough]


 * A brutual revenge murder taped and sadistically broadcast worldwide isn't crystal clear already? Nevertheless, these men probably view themselves as warriors for a just cause, so calling them "terrorists" is POV and contrary to Wikipedia's most important policy. -- Seth Ilys 14:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * A brutual revenge murder taped and sadistically broadcast worldwide isn't crystal clear already? Nope ...
 * These men probably view themselves as warriors? So does Alqueda ... are they not "terrorist"?
 * Calling them "terrorists" is not POV ... it's a FACT.
 * Putting in FACTS is not contrary to Wikipedia's most important policy, but goes to it.
 * JDR


 * Calling someone a terrorist is making a moral judgement, not stating a NPOV fact. There's no room for moral judgements in Wikipedia. -- Seth Ilys 15:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Calling someone a terrorist is stating that there is no redeeming qualities to thier actions and that they are trying to change policies through terror. That is the NPOV facts.
 * Seth, what is "sanctionable" here in this case? anything? Are these individuals tryin to infleunce policies through violence? Militant alone connotes something intirely different. There are terrorists. JDR


 * From my point of view, nothing about what these men did is sanctionable. But that's just my point of view. I also view the U.S.-invasion of Iraq as plainly immoral and essentially as a "terrorist" action, and I could draw up plenty of evidence to support that claim. But the merits of the invasion without the need to invoking the loaded word "terrorist," which has profound emotional resonance worldwide.
 * The term "terrorist" has essentially become useless since 9/11, except as a political buzzword. We use it on them, they use it on us, and all really that happens because of it is emotions get inflamed and people act without thinking. It's sorta like "troll" around Wikipedia; it refers to someone we don't like. It's "them;" it's "the bad guys;" it's "the evildoers." We all do evil, just to different degrees and in different ways.
 * To me, "militant" is perfectly adequate: it means that they use violence as a primary tactic to achieve their goals. Sometimes militants engage in face-to-face military or guerilla battles, sometimes they kidnap and kill civilians. That seems to be who these people are.
 * But also understand (and please know that I don't condone these actions, on either side) that the people who murdered Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl and the people who flew airplanes into buildings believe that they are doing the right thing, according to their personal philosophy, their personal ethics, their personal theology. They view killing civilians of certain nationalities and religions as a just front in an epic war. A significant number of people around the world who aren't active militants/terrorists agree with them on that. That's a point of view which is entirely contradictory to labelling them as "terrorists." And the NPOV policy is about presenting multiple points of view without making a judgement as to which is correct. Their motivations can (and should) be discussed, with descriptions of both perspectives. But, in writing on Wikipedia, we must recognize that not everybody sees things the way we do -- no matter how clear things may seem to us -- and take account of that. -- Seth Ilys 15:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Nothing about what these men did is sanctionable. 1st part of being a terrorist is met.
 * That is not a point of view.
 * [ignores "U.S.-invasion of Iraq" red herring; Not terrorism]
 * The term "terrorist" is vital since 9/11 and explicitly states what thugs and killers are.
 * I care little what it is to you, a "militant" and a terrorist IS NOT equal nor adequate substitue in certian situation ... and this is a prime example.
 * I did the militant article [long time ago] ... I full well know the difference ... these people are not "militants" ... they are terrorists. The mnilitant terms is used, generally, to avoid placing the label terrorism on the individuals or groups who have not actually committed violent acts. These people clearly have committed a violent act (2nd part met).
 * Terrorists usually think slaughting civilians is "doing the right thing" ... but it's not.
 * "They view killing civilians of certain nationalities and religions as a just front in an epic war"? It's an "epic war" to the terrorists, I will agree [it's thier "spin") ... to the vast majority this is NOT a "nobel" act, just terrorism [even the Arab media and people knows this and have label this action as not nobel nor sanctionable; read some Middle East news ... I do quite often (as i did this morning)].
 * WHERE IS THE 'significant number of people who agree with them? Please get me a link. (Remember, it has to be alot of ppl)
 * Their motivations (who have done this) have been discussed and  are clearly indicated to what they are. Nearly everybody sees them as terrorist and have labelled them as such (except for sympathiers of terrorist and their apologists [i.e., very few]). This is not just clear to Western sources, but to worldwide sources.
 * The NPOV facts is entirely reconciliable to labelling them as "terrorists." And the NPOV policy to presenting facts without making a judgement is correct.
 * JDR 16:11, 12 May 2004 (UTC) [PS., these ppl met alot more conditions that would appropriately label them terrorists]

If, for each of our member you killed, I'll kill several of your people in exchange, am I a terrorist?

Do you want me to remind you the good works done by the U.S. or Israeli armed forces during the past decades?

Trust me, if you're being killed, the last thing you want to do is to identify your most beloved killer: Is he a terrorist? Is he a militia? Is he a foot soldier? Is he a Jedi Knight? Is he Davy Crockett? Is he a cross-burning freak? Fear tastes just the same.

Now drop the word "terrorist" please. Kid, you don't know what you're talking about. -- Toytoy


 * Your amorphous questions need to be more precise ... but here's a few answers (as much as i can understand them).
 * "If, for each of our member you killed, I'll kill several of your people in exchange, am I a terrorist?" That may vary ... more exact detail need to be known. Are you willfully killing civilians on purpose to influience a political agenda (and on a solider (see below))? If that answer is yes [as your question alludes to], then yes.
 * The U.S. armed forces (as a whole) HAS NOT intentionally gone around Iraq around killing civilians, they are not the terrorist that you seem to be siding with (IMO). As to the the isreali army, call them what you want.
 * And WTF is "Trust me, if you're being killed, the last thing you want to do is to identify your most beloved killer"? Please elaborate .... you seem to be hold back sayin something here ...
 * "Is he a terrorist"? Mabey ... several factors go into that though ...
 * "Is he a militia"? Probably (militia have fighters, but these are not soliders) ...
 * "Is he a foot soldier"? Not a "classical" solider (recognized by the international laws of war) ... soliders wear uniforms and are part of recognized armies.
 * [cut other idiocy cut]
 * "drop the word "terrorist" please and ignore the truth? no ... I won't do that ...
 * Sincerely, JDR


 * To you and me, it may not be sanctionable. To them and their sympathizers, it is. Yes, they may be relatively few, but "nearly everybody" is not sufficient criterion for Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy; we can't ignore the positions of a "very few" just because we disagree with them. If there is dissent from one POV, then the other POV should also be presented.
 * However, there has been considerable sympathy in some parts of the world for these murderers. It's only been a day since the news broke, so there isn't a tremendous amount of documentation for that yet, but it was one of the major points made in the first story on CNN headline news half an hour ago. Also see http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5120488. -- Seth Ilys 16:36, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * To the world as a whole, this is not sanctionable. Nothing can change this fact. Should this fact be ignored?
 * To terrorist sympathizers (and other thugs and killers), it is sanctionable. But, then again, to some (especially neo-nazis), Hitler was a good guy that didn't do the holocaust.
 * They are the relatively few.
 * "Nearly everybody" is sufficient criterion for Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Or should we change the the Nazi articles?
 * You can state the positions of a "very few" ... but that does not make it FACT.
 * It's not just because I disagree with them ... it's because of facts that i label them as such.
 * Dissents from POV does not change _facts_.
 * Considerable sympathy? YMMV on that ... the link does not state in some parts of the world there was _wide-spread_ support for these terrorists (and infact the article critizes them; i.e., "Arabs said Zarqawi had failed the very people he said he was avenging"; or says this is just "natural response", no mention of support).
 * The existing documentation for citing them as terrorist is out there (you can click on the link to the video to see it yourself [opps I forgot you can't]) ...
 * Sincerely, JDR

My personal view:

They are


 * militants;
 * killers;
 * criminals; or
 * murderers.

These words are neutral and fit. Terrorists are not. It is directly subjective with your political view. -- Toytoy


 * They do not fit the meaning of "militant" ... militants have not acted out violently, these ppl have. They fit the term terrorist though precisely. JDR 17:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC) [PS., They are also killers, criminals, and murderers]

If they are not militants, Pvt. Lynndie England is not a soldier either. A soldier shall respect the Geneva Convention.

IMHO, Pvt. Lynndie England is a bad soldier who broke the law. They are militants who broke the law too. -- Toytoy


 * They are not militants. Militants do not act out violently (only "threatening" to do so).
 * Pvt. Lynndie England is a soldier though (and will be held in court as such). A soldier respects the Geneva Convention, those that do not are, have been, and will continue to be justly dealt with. Lynndie England is a bad soldier who broke the law ... and will be punished in a military court.
 * These individuals in the tape are terrorist that broke the law and now are in hiding. These individuals will also be justly dealt with in due time.
 * JDR 17:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

For most of their working hours, they are fighting armed enemy soldiers or mercenaries. For a few minutes, they were killing an ill-fated young adventurous businessman.

They are militia by trade who are also criminals. I think I can safely guess, many of them could be fighting the U.S. army during the past 72 hours. They are militia who had done a terrible crime. They are organized to fight a war. Even though they are morally objectionable, they were foundamentally not that different from the U.S. militia who fought the British Army.

If you fight a war under no government regulation, you could be a militia. Or how should I call you? A gangster? They are militia because they are loosely formed from people. If they have tanks, helicopters, training and a central command, you can call them regular army. But they have none of these.

Do you know that the Brits resent your militia when they were ambushed in the trees? Do you know the militia was once the ONLY military organization of the U.S. during the colonial days?

If you call them terrorist, you may as well call some people "anti-revolutionary." These are POV words.

By the way, most of the U.S. soldiers who had done the My Lai Massacre were not punished in any way. Just for your information. -- Toytoy

I have trouble concieving of anyone who, given the information that these five men abducted Berg, and then executed him in this manner while taping it, would not conclude that they are bad on their own. I do not think the description "terrorist" in any way deepens the point. c.f. NPOV and its discussion of Hitler. Snowspinner 19:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Graphic images : severed head


Showing the severed head goes too far. I *chose* not to watch a snuff video released by a terrorist group to further their ends, and I don't appreciate some selfish individual putting a screen cap up here to further their political ends. Link, if you must, but there's no way this should be on the main page. -- Tlotoxl 14:51, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I tried to link it. That wasn't acceptable to a few [though a link to the WTC falings is left?]. THe screen caps were left on the prison scandal for DAYS, but just today removed by one individual. A link or a graphic should be used. JDR


 * If the prison scandal photos had included snaps of prisoners being sodomized with chemical lights I would have protested against that, too. As it was, the faces were blurred and it was only the context (the nakedness being coerced) that made the photos especially offensive.  A genuine picture of a severed head is ALWAYS offensive. -- 61.22.128.18 15:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * As long as the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal has it's photos, this article will to. JDR 17:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * As distasteful as the picture is (not as bad as I feared) JDR point is we;;-taken. If the photos that supposedly inspired this act remain at the Abu Ghraib article, this must stay here, too. Anything else is a manipulation. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:36, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * A few years ago I'd call you an internet terrorist of sorts, but I guess this wouldn't be the appropriate environment for that. Still, I think your eagerness to publish sans warning revolting graphic photos - the sorts that can give children nightmares for months - without a proper debate doesn't speak well of your character.  The photo will probably be removed eventually, but I don't look forward to the edit-war that will be required to achieve that end.  In the meantime, why don't you try to justify your position instead of resorting to pure partisanship.


 * If you really must compare this to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, I'd say that a major difference is that the prison abuse scandal was news BECAUSE of the photos. Berg's decapitation would have been news regardless.  Of course the video is relevant to Berg's case, but showing a severed head on the main page is psychologically harmful to children, aids the criminals in spreading their specific message (they released the video for a reason), and is further an obvious extension of your politics. -- 61.22.128.18 17:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

You nuts ! SweetLittleFluffyThing


 * I reverted Anthere's deletion of the severed head. Even though I would prefer not to have such a picture in this or any article, it is important for balance and context. This is supposed to have been revenge for the photos exhibited openly on Wikipedia in the abu Ghraib article. These latter pictures were are in very poor taste and are supposed to have inspired Berg's murder. If we include the graphic provocation, we mustn't hide the graphic result. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:46, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Is not a link to the picture sufficient? The provocation may have been graphic, but it was also sanitized - genital and faces were blurred - and if you took away the context, it's the sort of thing that a pre-teen could probably see without risk of serious psychological upset.  A man holding another man's decapitated head is not the same.  Of course it's all information, and wikipedia isn't about presenting information that's suitable for a G-rated audience, but I hardly think it's unreasonable to distance itself from the main page by a mere link.  If not, at least have the sense to blur out the entire head for this article (not that the resolution is very high) so that it is not quite so upsetting. -- Tlotoxl 17:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I put a link to the image. I do not agree for this picture to be displayed fully in the article. I insist very much. There is a little bit of human dignity to respect here. There is also a family, parents, perhaps wife to respect. This picture should not be in Wikipedia, I even wonder to which point it might not be a legal infringment possibly. But even if not, we could give a little bit of dignity to this man...especially considering that this picture brings very little information in itself. If we must really keep it (which I would regret personally), the minimum you could agree on, for the sake of those who might be offended by its display, is that it is not a picture displayed openly. There is a limit to what should be visible, and here, this limit is beyond. SweetLittleFluffyThing 17:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a warning @ the top of the page. JDR


 * I agree with SweetLittleFluffyThing. The severed head is totally unnecessary and doesn't add anything informative to the page - if people want to see it, they can watch the video from the link at the bottom. It could discourage new readers of wikipedia from visiting again. How people can compare it to the abu Ghraib photos is beyond me. How can you argue theose photos are as offensive as a severed head? Showing abuse and beheadings and completely different. Deus Ex 17:54, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The severed head is necessary and adds the precise outcome of the terroist' action (ie., informative to what they desire). Showing abuse and the beheadings is not completely different; it's the same thing. JDR


 * It's easy to agree with sweet fluffy things. I'm not too sweet and very unfluffy, but I have a point. Saying the pictures at abu Ghraib are not as offensive is a POV evaluation. As pictures I find them more offensive, which explains why they are so inflammatory. "Taste" is not a good excuse for censorship of relevant material when there are two sides to a story. I propose a compromise, that would need wider assent than this talk page. Maker a photo gallery of abuses in Iraq: include the abuse pictures, the severed head, the fried contractors. Place links on the appropriate pages with a double page jump (i.e., you jump to a page which again warns you what you are to see and have to click again to access the pictures). -- Cecropia | Talk 18:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. That's a little too shocking and might cause people to be seriously disturbed. We have to agree that not all images are created equal. For example, seeing a picture of your parents being murdered by a ruthless thugh might cause you to become deranged and dress up as a giant bat. The picture should not be included because of possible trauma. Graft 18:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Cecropia, perhaps my opinion was a 'POV evaluation', but I think it was most people would agree - why does the law treat murderers differently than people who humilitate and abuse? It is because the majority feel murder is worse and more offensive than humilitation and abuse. Similarly, I feel pictures depiciting murder, especially a beheading should be treated differently than pictues depciting abuse and humililation. Deus Ex 18:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I think letting a link to the image in the article preserve the information, and make it available to anyone willing to look at the head. On the other hand, forcing the head picture in the page is likely either to shock people, or to prevent them from reading an otherwise interesting article. This is where I draw the line. When the offensiveness of a picture make it so, that the article cannot be readable to everyone, then, there is a problem which must be addressed. In letting the link, I propose a compromise. I also would very much prefer that the images at the prison are in a separate page, however, I think this head in particular, is not acceptable, because we know who it is. The man is identified, he has family. It is not as the prisoner which have at least their identity hidden. To me, that makes a huge difference. SweetLittleFluffyThing 18:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Firstly, one cannot achieve a state of being "seriously disturbed" simply through seeing an image. There is a clear warning at the top of the page and the page needs be scrolled to view image. The family will no doubt see the images or videos regardless of whether Wikipedia displays them or not. I do not see any distinction between reading about beheading and seeing an image of the beheading - completely relevent. --OldakQuill 18:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It might surprise you to know that at 1400x1200 with a full-screen mozilla, the photo is clearly visible without scrolling.


 * Surely the answer to this dilemma is to move it further down the page? I have 1600x1200 IE and cannot see but the orange at the top of the image. --OldakQuill 18:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The bottom line is that, for a great many people, the presence of a picture of a severed head on the article with either 1) prevent them from reading the article entirely, or 2) disturb them so profoundly that they'll approach the article emotionally rather than rationally. The picture itself is informative and should stay on Wikipedia, but absolutely nothing, content-wise is added or lost by having this picture in the article vs on a separate page. All of the content is still there, either way. It's not a question of NPOV, it's a question of taste and of whether we want to risk alienating potential readers.

That said, if we set a precedent that it's acceptable to have some "offensive" images linked to, instead of included in the articles, there must be some line at which an image is inoffensive enough to be included, instead of linked to. Short of polling in each questionable case, I just don't see a reasonable way to draw that line in an abstract sense. -- Seth Ilys 18:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

3 revert rule warning
I agree with Anthere and Reddi. In Reddi's desire to maintain 'balance with another article, he's crossing a certain line. I think that line is dignity, as Anthere said - particularly for Berg's family. I agreed with the separation of Abu Ghraib photos from the article, and I think that the same case may apply here. -Stevertigo 18:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * This so called "dignity" is no business of Wikipedias... I am not sure how one can deduce the family lose dignity through Wikipedia showing this particular image - many other sites also display said images. There is no reason to apply "moralistic" and prudish POV to Wikipedia. --OldakQuill 18:11, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Because this is an encyclopedia, not some 'other site.' We apply community self-censorship all the time, where the community feels its right. You may not be in the majority here. -Stevertigo 18:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * So has the time arrived to fill the pornography article with hardcore pornography? Should decapitation contain pictures of famous decapitations, with life-like artist presentations where possible?  I agree that wikipedia isn't about being prudish, but IMO there's a difference between being prudish and just not being outright crude and crass.  This article is linked to from the main page.  I made a conscious decision NOT to view the decapitation video - it being cruel propaganda from people I don't want to give the time of day - but personally feel very frustrated that I was TRICKED into seeing a pornographic still from it on the Nick Berg page.  If it must be included and not just linked to, at least make it so that it is off the bottom of a 1600x1200 screen... or something...  or else let the great pornographication of wikipedia begin.   What would an article on roadkill be without the most gruesome examples wikipedians can find?  What good is an article on Yukio Mishima without pictures of his corpse after he comitted seppuku (actually, there's a better argument for that, imo, but still not terrible important)... -- Tlotoxl 18:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Your comparison is comepletely flawed. Pornography article is not about specific files - it is about a massive group of images - thus a particular image (you chose hardcore) would not serve. This article, however, is ALL about a video - images reflecting this video are completely relevent and necessary. Secondly, my resolution is 1600x1200 and when I maximised I could see the orange at the very top - nothing else. I do agree, move it down the page AT MOST. --OldakQuill 18:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Really? I thought that the article was about Nick Berg.  If the article were entitled "Nick Berg decapitation video", then I would agree that explicit photos were warranted. -- Tlotoxl 18:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * And why has Nick Berg has an article made about him today? Why would anyone come to read about him? --OldakQuill 18:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Because he was decapitated, of course, and secondarily because it was recorded on video. An American civilian confirmed decapitated by terrorists would have made the news regardless of whether it was recorded on video or not.  I agree that the video is an essential part of the story of his decapitation, but for that reason I think it would be better off in a separate article (and likewise for Abu Ghraib, really, I don't know why the abuse scandal photos are on the main page for Abu Ghraib instead of on a separate abuse page) -- Tlotoxl 18:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There were press releases on the beheading several days ago (Saturday to be exact). It has made headline news due to the use of video - thus the video is the WHOLE point of many people reading the article. --OldakQuill 18:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * This is perhaps the stupidest argument I have ever heard. -Stevertigo 18:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning Stevertigo ... I will stop editing this article, now (but will watch it to see how it is treated; can Wikipedia truely be neutral in this? this will help me determine that for the overall condition of WP) Please do not censor the picture (expose it for what it is; as the other article did) ... JDR


 * Let me remind both of you that this is a community run and accessible site. People come here for info, not to get their shock on. The Abu Ghraib photos were fuzzed by the media sources before they were posted here, and the nature of the abuse was one of exposure. In this case, its one of showing off a gratuitous act of brutality. If the photos were sharp and clear, you wouldnt have a toe to stand on, and as it is, you cant possibly stand on your toes for long.


 * I'll add that "I am here to determine if the Wikipedia is neutral" and "I am here to dictate what should and should not be the business of Wikipedia" is in no way impressive, and in no way fools anyone with a cents worth of smarts as to the real purpose of adding that photo. Aside from all of that, Berg has friends and perhaps family that use Wikipedia - in an attempt to exploit his death, some seem to forget all human decency. -Stevertigo 18:29, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * No need to remind both me that this is a community run and accessible site (I'm painfully aware of that).
 * People come here for info ... and this is what I have tried to do. Not to "shock" them ... but to expose the truth of what is occuring.
 * These photos are not being shown by media sources ... and the nature of the terrorist act was one of death. In this case, its exposing the brutality of the terrorist.
 * [snip "toes" banter]
 * I am not here to determine if the Wikipedia is neutral for everyone solely, just for myself ... and (upon observing the outcome) I will express my observations of wikipedia to others (let them decide for themselves; showing them what occurs here).
 * I am NOT here to dictate what should and should not be the business of Wikipedia. But i will try to keep giving Wikipedia information and expose the truth.
 * It was not meant to be "impressive", just a statement of what I will tell others of what occurs at wikipedia (and if I will recommend wikipedia to others). They can do what they want and choose what to belive.
 * If you know the "real purpose" of adding the photo ... please tell me (as I added it and wanted to show ppl what really happened). Otherwise STFU ....
 * Exploit his death? No ... it's exposing everyone what happened to this innocent fellow during the War on Terrorism.
 * JDR 18:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Please restore "His capture and killing was said to have been carried out to avenge abuses of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison." of the first paragraph. This was the known reason why he was killed. Without this line, his death could be out of context. -- Toytoy


 * No. Make a subpage in your userspace. -Stevertigo 18:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Text moved
Subpage: Talk:Nick Berg/Nunh-huh

Held by US Forces?
[Spokesman Says Berg Never Held by Forces] Wikipedia text:
 * Berg had intended to return to the United States on March 30, 2004; however, he was detained in Mosul on March 24 by Iraqi police at a checkpoint. His family claims he was turned over to U.S. officials and held for 13 days without access to legal counsel. FBI agents visited his parents to confirm his identity on March 31, but he was not immediately released. After his parents filed suit in federal court in Philadelphia on April 5, claiming that he was being held illegally, he was released from U.S. custody. He said that he had not been mistreated during his confinement. The U.S. maintains that at no time was Berg in coalition custody. Following his release, Berg travelled to Baghdad, where he stayed at the Al Fanar Hotel. Still in Iraq, he last contacted his family on April 9, at which time he said that he intended to return to the United States via Jordan.


 * Berg's family, however, blamed the U.S. government, particularly the policies of the Bush administration that led to his arrest and detainment in April, for creating the circumstances that lead to Nick's death. Michael Berg stated that if his son hadn't been detained for so long, he might have been able to leave the country before the violence worsened. [2] His father reportedly stated: "I think a lot of people are fed up with the lack of civil rights this thing has caused. I don't think this administration is committed to democracy."

Draft page
Use this for a draft - Keep it free of horror photos. Thanks. Nick Berg/Draft - Stevertigo 18:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

does anyone know nick bergs date of birth ?
nick bergs date of birth ?