Talk:Killing of Nick Berg/Archive 4

Conspiracy section
I removed some material as non noteable. --Tom 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NickBerg.jpg
Image:NickBerg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Restoration of Image:NickBergAP.jpg
I want to restore Image:NickBergAP.jpg - It was deleted in 2006 after this: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_December_11#Image:NickBergAP.jpg_.28talk_.7C_delete.29 There was no debate that I see, and the user who nominated the article for deletion has vanished. So, should I restore the image with the rationale that Berg is dead and this can be an image used to represent his appearance prior to his death? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, check FAIR item #6 under Images. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

revert -- see talk
Someone removed the "Conspiracy theory" section -- claiming it was "ridiculous". Wikipedia policy says the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth". Since this section cites authoritative, verifiable sources it complies with policy.

Removing the section, on the other hand, violates WP:NPOV -- since it is based on the contributor's personal interpretation of what is or isn't true. Geo Swan (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of info
Nick Berg was not a business man seeking "Telecommunications" work in Iraq. He worked for Blackwater as a private security "mercenary". He was captured and beheading because he (according to eyewitness accounts of real US military personnel) habitually fired his weapon at Iraqi civilians and is known to have killed 3 children because "they looked like they had bombs strapped to their backs". These children were enroute to school, carrying backpacks full of textbooks. Don't believe all of the bullshit you hear from the media. Nick Berg was a murderer who probably deserved to be killed. And this is coming from an American Christian.

Shawn Crapo (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You're an imbecile. He was not a mercenary and he did NOT kill three children or fire his weapon at civilians. He probably didn't even have a gun. Quit smoking crack. It's BAD for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.230.27 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you like giving American Christians a bad name Shawn? You're clearly uninformed, bigoted, and hateful. Certainly not qualities espoused by Christians or Americans for that matter. Knowing Berg as I have, your comments are hurtful and completely imagined. The only real fact that is evident from your statement is that you are worthless as an editor. Nothing you said is verifiable. Hobga (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But there IS something very wrong here. This entry makes no sense.  First of all, what what he really doing in Iraq???  Supposedly "trying to drum up business" for his antenna company.  So let me get this straight - an American JEW . . . . . in a WAR ZONE . . . . in a MUSLIM country . . . . . . trying to "drum up business" for his private antenna company??????????  Excuse me? Excuse me?????????????????????????????  I don't think that anybody that really looks into Nick Berg's death will conclude the story that has been put out is true.  And, for that matter, why does this Wikipedia entry leave out the fact that he is Jewish until the very bottom of the entry where it is noted in the category "American Jews"???  I no more believe that Nick Berg was in Iraq trying to "drum up business" for his antenna company than I believe in the Man in the Moon.  Nick Berg's story has the look, feel, and smell of a second-rate US Government cover story.  It's obvious the public hasn't been told the truth.


 * This entry for Nick Berg is an embarassment for Wikipedia. To not include anything about the above ridiculous contradiction (i.e., a jew, in a war zone, in a muslim country, supposedly there to "try to drum up some business" for his private antenna company....   Again, this entry is an embarassment to Wikipedia.  A whitewash.

Olin Eugene Armstrong
Hi, I'm trying to build a page for American citizen Eugene Armstrong. I'm sure that many of the people who care for Nick Berg would want to build a page for a hero Eugene Armstrong too. I look forward to any participation, thanks! Soledad22 (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This section should be deleted, as there is no connection to the article at all. --boarders paradise (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

rationale for label "conspiracy theory"
With regard to the article: If there are 2 versions of a story, one according to the US military and one according to a vast set of international news media (including Al Jazeera, the Sydney Morning Herald and Asia Times), what is the rationale for arbitrarily basing the Wikipedia article on the former and declaring the latter a "conspiracy theory" ? One of Wikipedia's top rules is a neutral point of view. In this case all alternate versions (incl. the one based on US military press releases) should be handled equally and be called "alternate versions" or something to this effect. Wikipedia's policies state that information given must be verifiable and reliable. Concerning the abovementioned news media, this is certainly the case. And information from reliable media is inherently more credible than information from public relations services/sections. Given that the latter's objective is to portray information as favourable as possible for them, they should be excluded as sources from Wikipedia for not being reliable for this reason alone. Additionally, their objective leads more easily to lying as the mission of news media. This has again been demonstrated as recent as last week when a leaked video (published on Wikileaks) confirmed the version of the killing of 2 journalists in Iraq put forward by independent media for years, while the US military's account of the incidents were contradicted by said video (available to the military since the beginning). --boarders paradise (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the label is completely justified. If anything, the stuff there should be removed for good, and for sure not be reported as an "alternate version". First of all, Al Jazeera, SMH, and the like do not really report alternate versions but report other people reporting alternate versions - as can be seen per the title "Bloggers doubt Berg execution video." Furthermore, the rendering of the sources in the article conveniently leaves out facts opposing the CT interpretation. For instance, the NYT article mentions Zarqawi's brother-in-law recalling him to be right handed, but only the claims to the contrary in the second part of the sentence are cited in the article. And, finally, Hector Carreon is dubbed a conspiracy theorist even by the supposedly supporting sources, namely the SMH article. On his website, he has articles about how the vatican is infiltrated by a gay satanist conspiracy. Aside from the fact that he is a homophobe, antisemite and a loony, I don't think this sort of stuff qualifies as a respectable source. And what the Wikileaks video has to do with Nick Berg sure beats me. Fpetran (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Confusing timeline of events
I am confused by some of the dates mentioned in the article. For example: "Leaving on 1 February 2004, he returned to Iraq on 14 March 2004..." and then just a few sentences later: "...but he was detained in Mosul on 4 March 2004 by Iraqi police...".

It seems to imply that he wasn't even in Iraq when he was detained in Iraq. Crunchyz (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)