Talk:Killing of Nick Berg/archive 3

questionable deletion
I do not understand why user:.derf made this edit:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Nick_Berg&diff=3555011&oldid=3554983

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


 * I restored the text that he deleted. It seems like all the text he deleted favored removing or linking to the photo. &#9758;spencer195 23:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it was just an accident since his edit also favored linking to the photo. &#9758;spencer195 23:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


 * Homepage: the front door of a site (http://www.badguy.com/index.html).
 * Webpage: any page on the web (http://www.badguy.com/jokes/lousy/pretty_bad.html).

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

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

Tim

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

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

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


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

Autopsy reports do not list murder as a cause of death. Kingturtle 00:29, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * But they do generally state homicide, which can include justifiable homicide and accidental killings as well as murder. I suppose that in this case, the cause of death could be described as homicide by decapitation, but I don't think it's necessary to expand to that. MisfitToys 23:36, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Autopsies are performed in order to determine WHAT killed someone.. not WHO.  In other words, what exactly caused the brain to stop recieving sufficient oxygen to operate.  Autopsies are performed so that the cause of death can be determined as specifically as possible.  FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS are what attempt to determine the party that killed a victim, whether it be murder, an accident or suicide.  Autopsies do not state the "cause of death" as "homicide" - that isn't up to a autopsy lab to determine.  They only puzzle out the exact method by which a person happened to become dead. teh TK 22:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

External video links
Is there any particular reason why the links to external videos at the bottom of the article have been left un-clickable? If they're listed at all, then readers should be able to click on them. -- Arwel 01:20, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * This is to stop people accidentally clicking on them. It is semi-standard practice to do this to link to content that are so wrong they really shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. To make people have to manually copy and paste helps stop young children, among others, from viewing the material. - Mark 01:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * They've been made live at least once. I have no doubt that the person who did so meant well, but I've left an HTML comment in the code which will (I hope) dissuade folks from making that change back and forth again without at least consulting the extensive discussion on the subject. -- Seth Ilys 02:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Is there no better description than "The Complete Nick Berg Video"? It's not like it's a Beatles album or Britney Spears' latest release. - Nunh-huh 02:31, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I am removing a broken link, updating the one that is redirected, and adding a new one to a smaller, edited version. I am still leaving them unclickable. PlatinumX 07:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

There could be a special tag like

This page includes an explicit photograph of a clitoris.

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

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

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

Thoughts?--Eloquence*


 * Shouldn't it be a "show all images" link? Have the offensive ones hidden until you click the link? - Mark 01:39, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * That could be a user preference, which should be a "hide all images" link by default for reasons of neutrality (we do not want to make any official proclamation about what is so offensive that it shouldn't be directly seen, unless there is 95-100% consensus).--Eloquence*


 * Then anonymous users would see everything, regardless of its level of offensiveness. - Mark 01:57, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * True, but they could easily hide it. Furthermore, images which are universally considered offensive would not be shown (this one is pretty close).--Eloquence*


 * I still think it should be opt-in rather than opt-out. There's no point being able to hide the image after the page is loaded and you've already seen it. The damage is already done, and the people need to wipe up the vomit from their keyboards. Well, you know what I mean anyway. - Mark 04:08, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Please reread my proposal. It addresses this problem.--Eloquence*


 * OK, sorry I missed that. But it still doesn't take into account articles which are so short they do not spill over the screen. - Mark 09:13, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd say don't add the image until it can be moved to a point where it won't be immediately visible.-Eloquence*
 * Eloquence, please add to the discussion on meta rather than forking it here.


 * we require that any image offensive to a substantial majority is moved to a point on the page where, with typical screen resolutions, it is not immediately visible. - I don't think this is sufficient. In my case, being of rather short attention span, it is my habit to use the scroll wheel on my mouse to get an overview of an article (or web page in general) before I start reading it.  If the photo is gratuitous and, as in this case, shows something that I am convinced no lay user of wikipedia would expect to see in the article, it should be linked to and definitely not shown inline.  -- Tlotoxl 18:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

With the implementation, you propose that for each picture potentially offensive, the picture be with a link if more than 90-95% agree for it to be hidden in all cases.
 * I personally think this level is too high, given that a picture may be deleted with 80% of agreement. But I agree with the general idea. This might be discussed further.

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


 * Nod. Generally, I agree. We should make it a requirement that the article is long enough so that pictures may be hidden even in large screens. Ie, for short articles, the threshold to hide is to be set at say 80%, as if the picture was universally offending. If only, it will motivate people who wish the picture inline to add to that article :-) That is a good trick ;-).
 * I see only ONE problem with this proposal, unless I misunderstood a point. All pictures should not be hidden, but only those problematic. Otherwise, a reader will not be able to see that neat diagram of the female organs, unless he also look at the picture. It is not really what we are looking for... We should try not to remove all pictures just because one is problematic. If the guy does not know which one is a problem, he won't look at any picture at all. If we really can't find a way to do differently, there should be a way in the article to point out (label) the pictures who is likely to offend, so that the user can understand which one to avoid and which are okay. But that would be neater that just the problematic one is hidden. 


 * So, but for the % I am not totally in agreement (but that is a detail), if you can have this work for only problematic pictures, while regular pictures are always visible, that works for me.


 * Improvement : when the pictures are hidden, replace the grey area, by a regular link to the picture, so that people can choose to click or not to click.
 * Improvement : in user preferences, we could also possibly add an option for which the problematic pictures are just plain removed (no links). A message at the top might indicate that some links to problematic pictures have been made unavailable compared to the standard article. I think this could be typically a good use for schools or scared parents. I know your opinion on that matter, but I think better slightly censored wikipedia is better than no use at all.


 * SweetLittleFluffyThing

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

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

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

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

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


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

...


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

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

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

Did you not notice that my vote was cast under "Image is not offensive to me, should be linked to"? I do not think we should show that particular image on the page. Kingturtle 16:41, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * okay, so I move the whole discussion lot with Erik to another section, so to avoid confusion of topics; ant

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


 * The full video includes a long reading in Arabic. If you want to see the video, BUT don´t speak arabic, then it´s better to download the edited version. ChaTo 12:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen the videos (I don't want to), but it seems to me that showing only the beheading is taking something out of context, no? Plus, the video is coming from ogrish.com and hosted on Joked.com, "The #1 Free Humor Site - Funny Pictures & Videos & Games & Jokes Updated Daily!", hardly encyclopedic sources.  &#9758;spencer195 15:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The video comes from ogrish.com, so I guess the video was only edited for the purpose of taking the "boring" parts out of it. The article links the complete video, I think that is enough. Conti 16:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Providing the whole thing has more encyclopedic value (as a historical document, I guess you would call it) than providing just the last section. Providing is just for sating voyeuristic desires, which is not encyclopedic. I move that we only provide the link to the full version. Please shout if you disagree. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * In fact, I say that we should include a version of the video that shows only the intro and not the beheading, for people who want to see the primary source of a historical event, but don't want to see the gratuitous violence. &#9758;spencer195 16:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I've added such a link. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

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

It just came back by an anon. I am reverting since it must be discussed here first. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 00:25, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

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


 * Firstly, I didn't think the "Video capture" was clear enough - those who are simply reading as laypersons etc. may not know what this means and hence think it is a link to the video. Secondly, killer is extremely tabloid as well as the fact that the particular man with the white veil depicted did not perform the decapitation - thus he is a person - maybe change this to militant? I made it more explicit by changing "with head" to "holding head" - it seems clearer and more descriptive of the picture. --OldakQuill 16:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK &mdash; I couldn't remember if he was or not, and didn't want to watch the clip twice... &mdash; Matt 17:30, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced by "veiled" -- sounds altogether too coy and/or feminine. It should be changed to "masked" or "hooded". And qualify "holding head", too (I was holding my head just a minute ago), "severed head", or "Berg's head", surely? –Hajor 18:30, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Some valid points certainly - but I think veil suffices - the individual is, afterall, wearing a veil - not a mask or hood. Veils are not femenine or coy. Secondly, in the context of the story I feel "holding head" is sufficient explaination - it could be no other's head and stating it as severed is superfluous, tabloid even. --OldakQuill 18:35, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

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


 * Well, the first article only contains comments from two random people who justify the killing as retaliation for the treatment of Iraqis by the occupiers (2 out of 16 paragraphs or so), whereas the rest describes condemnation for it or comments of how it plays into US propaganda. From what I've seen condemnation is pretty overwhelming. The second article has nothing to do with wether Muslims condemned or endorsed the killing. I think that if you want to make a convincing point that a substantial portion of Muslims agree with it, you need to find endorsing statements by leaders of important Muslim groups, or an opinion poll. pir 23:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Even Hamas strongly denounced the killing as "un-Islamic", so it seems to be fairly widespread. --Delirium 23:29, May 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * In any such circumstance, you always have the question of motive for a denunciation (or even approval). No doubt many Muslims and Muslim scholars are shocked and disgusted. Others might offer denunciation because they realize what bad PR this is. It would be interesting if a sense of what's being said on Arabic-language sites could be discerned. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course leaders always have motives when they publicly denounce or approve of others' actions. The main motive is usually preserving their credibility which is based on voicing what their supports think, and the image of the people they claim to represent. A good example is probably Bush's apology for the torture at Abu Ghraib - although I don't think he cared a lot about it, the pressure from people in the US (as well as worries about how the US are perceived in Iraq and the rest of the world) forced him to apologise. This says something about the American people. Anyway, the edit history on the article page suggests that some Muslim leaders have endorsed of the Nick BErg murder - does anyone have a link to an article about this? As far as I know condemnation has been universal. Also, is there a link to Hamas' condemnation? pir 09:47, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to Hamas's condemnation from the UK's Independent: : Osama Hamdan, Hamas' representative in Lebanon, denounced both Berg's killers and US President Bush in the same breath. "I condemn this brutal act and sympathise with the family of the slain American man," he said. I read somewhere else that he followed that up with saying Bush and the killers share equal responsibility in Berg's death, and that Hamas condemns them both.  The same article notes that Islamic Jihad haven't issued a statement, saying they cannot verify the authenticity of the Berg video so cannot comment on it. --Delirium 21:40, May 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hezbullah has also condemned it according to the wikipedia article. What happened would also violate a lot of Quranic laws - as this person is an unarmed and innocent civilian which is why it is condemned by the muslims in the first place - I find it offensive that you would say the condemnation is PR related. These terrorists are the very same people that are killing muslims in their terrorist attacks and so they do not have much support Kadhumia flo 20:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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


 * I can understand the justification for including a link to the unedited video --- it is a primary historical source. After having watched it myself, however, I would advise other people not to.


 * I don't see any justification for including either the image of the severed head, or the video edited to remove the talking, but including the decapitation. I can't see any purpose other than voyeristic that these serve that isn't satisfied by the unedited video.


 * I can see reason to include an edited video with the decapitation taken out. It allows people to understand the setting of what happened without experiencing the trauma of the murder itself.


 * Any argument about including a video with the talking edited out being better for people with slow connections etc, I find somewhat repugnant. Whilst I want the video preserved and freely available as a historical source, I don't really want people to watch the murder.  I don't think having to download the whole video to see the end is terribly onerous, I certainly think that if people want to see it all, they should actually watch the whole thing.

[NB comments above made by User:81.178.115.11]

"powerful and shocking journalistic statement". Journalistic statements are made by someone --- journalists. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia should not be in the business of journalism. --81.178.115.11 23:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * As you can see from the section named ==Edited video needed?== I am in complete agreement with you (almost word-for-word with the comment on voyeurism), and as many people have edited the article or this talk page since I made the suggestion without opposing it, I am going to go ahead and remove the "decapitation only" video link. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm, six hours since I post the suggestion on talk, no comments. 14 minutes after making the change, it is reverted with no recourse to talk. So often the wiki way, even on a page with many interested users like this one. Reverted back until the other side of the argument is made here. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The reason that 62.252.0.4 gave for the shorter video was that it makes a
 * ps, the shorter video could be legitimate in an article about journalistic statements (if indeed it was), but the place for it is not here. (The closest parallal I can think of would be the famous image of the execution of the viet-cong, but I can't remember all the details.) --81.178.115.11 23:57, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
 * See Nguyen Ngoc Loan for the Vietnam comment. // Rogper 06:02, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

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

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


 * I agree that offensive was probably not the best choice of words. I find the image of the severed head to be grotesque, disturbing and imo grossly inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia.  I found its former inline inclusion on Wikipedia to be offensive, because it forced me to view something that, given a choice, I would have carefully avoided (as I have avoided the video).  I was also offended that some Wikipedians posted the snuff image in an obvious attempt to progress a political agenda or raise controversy (though ostensibly it was done in the name of Wikipedia having a NPOV and being against censorship). -- Tlotoxl 01:40, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as being in favor of a political agenda. A militant holding Berg's head up is a summary of the act.  We have plenty of similarly disturbing photos; I personally find Image:USinVietnam.jpg, a child running down a road covered in napalm burns, much more disturbing, yet it's included inline on our Vietnam War article.  Is that due to a political agenda?  One might argue in either case that the severed-head image is to make the militants look bad, or the napalmed-girl image is to make the US look bad, but in both cases the events are important historical facts that should be included. --Delirium 21:43, May 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any comparison to that picture in the Vietnam War article. (For one thing, I don't think napalm burns are clear from that picture, and removed from the context of the war, it is "merely" a picture of a scared naked girl running.  Haunting, yes, but more intellectually then viscerally.  Context is not required for a severed head to be disturbing.)  In any case, that picture, 30 years later, is an enduring image of the Vietnam War that is part of the public consciousness (at least in the West).  The picture of Nick Berg's severed head shares no such significant in the public consciousness because aside from snuff sites on the internet, it has not been widely displayed.  It's inclusion on the Nick Berg article is certainly contrary to reader expectations and IMO was made by people who seemed more interested in tying it to their dissatisfaction with the Abu Ghraib photos and lobbying for their removal.  Speaking, then, of the Abu Ghraib photos - they, even more than the picture of that girl from the Vietnam War article (why is the photo called USinVietnam, incidentally??), are an essential part of the incident in the public consciousness and, because they were broadcast all over the world, their exclusion from the Abu Ghraib article would actually be contrary to reader expectations. -- Tlotoxl 02:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see that as a valid argument---the fact that some media makes certain choices in what images they display does not oblige us to make the same choices. Were that the case, I wouldn't be having so much trouble keeping clitoris from being displayed on that page, as certainly no mainstream media outlet would display that. --Delirium 07:54, May 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * The video was produced for its effect in the media environment of the time. That really is the subject of the article. Discourse in the West took place in a certain way, namely absent actual promulgation of the decapitation segment of the video. The form of reaction should almost singularly dictate the article's treatment: if no one cared and the beheading received no coverage, the subject would not be encyclopedic, whereas if everyone had watched the video and that lead directly to immediate US withdrawal, a rational argument could not be made for anything short of inlining the video.


 * This relationship is what other editors are referring to when they talk about reader expectations. The reader expects an encyclopedia article on what happened, and what happened was a militant/government/media/public interaction regarding a beheading in the context of a conflict.


 * While the full video should be linked as a primary source, it is ancillary to the produced effect which is the noteworthy element.


 * The clitoris exists absent the media and the media do not exist for discourse on anatomy. —Christian Campbell 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that you are replying to a thread that has been stale for almost 4 years now. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it is stale. Dormant, certainly. The discussion is relevant over any period. The article has been edited 1000+ times in the intervening period and will presumably continue being edited indefinitely into the future. Editors of other articles will also read this thread and consider the reasoning. —Christian Campbell 00:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A thread not discussed in four years = stale. It just hasn't been archived yet. The point of giving you the notice is that you are unlikely to receive a reply on this topic.  It's usually better to bring up the topic in a new fashion at the bottom of the talk page if you wish to resurrect it in some fashion.  --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * I'm not going to dump on a man who lost his son in such horrific fashion, but I believe the elder Mr. Berg's anger is misplaced in his shock and grief. I would probably do the same at any entity that I thought contributed to my child's death. Americans are quick to lash out at their government, partly because they know, even subconsciously, that there is not much use at lashing out at the actual perpetrators. Berg's saying that the murderers didn't realize what they were doing and "killed their best friend" (son Nick) shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what was happening, since it suggests that the killing was a reasoned reaction against an actual enemy, rather than a cynically wanton and brutal act. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:57, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * So you presume to know they were cynical. I cannot gather where you get that information from. Nice to know you can explain to us all the minds of the perpetrators. Please to speak on. User:Pfortuny. 80.58.23.42 07:29, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I am just responding to the father's statement, the implication of which is that the killers somehow thought that Nick Berg personally was their enemy, rather than a pawn in their brutal theater. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I dont disagree with that at all. I'm just considering your use of "brutal" to be only situational. US forces bombed Fallujah and killed perhaps 1000 or more people, largely in retaliation for the "brutal" killing of 4. 'Of course it is all in the eye of the beholder...' -Stevertigo 17:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I have never lost a child, so I dont know what it would be like. So I dare not presume to understand. That said, grieving leads some to faith and belief, not to anger and bitterness. The anger and bitterness that his death for some brings is irrelevant to the family; that's not how they are going to be remembering him, and they wouldnt want others to either. (Note that we dont have a earlier happier photo of Berg.) What good comes from anger and bitterness? Should grieving people not vote, because in your view they show "a fundamental misunderstanding of what was happening?"  Maybe Mr. Berg simply wanted to make it clear that he does not want his son to become a martyr for the cause of vengeance or disrespect toward certain people; a view that his son would not have shared. That is how I see it. -Stevertigo 07:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course it is all in the eye of the beholder. In the quote I'm not hearing Mr. Berg making a sort of political statement "not want his son to become a martyr for the cause of vengeance or disrespect toward certain people"--if he meant to say that, he could have said it directly. I hear the rage of a father venting his anger at a senseless death. If you've lost loved ones you can't help running through the "what ifs"--what if she had her blood pressure checked when she was urged to; what if I hadn't insisted on his taking a vacation, and the plane crashed; and so on. It may take some time before Mr. Berg can have the perspective to make a statement from which others can make a worthwhile conclusion. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. In the end, though - I think his case is particularly unique - he seems to have some awareness of the world around him. Ironically, for someone who has no problem with supporting a view shaped largely by an angry reaction to 911, you claim that a fathers anger at 'the government' is misplaced and misdirected. Indeed, it is all misplaced. -Stevertigo 17:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC) PS Misplaced, as is, perhaps, this political debate. ;)
 * Ironically, for someone who has no problem with supporting a view shaped largely by an angry reaction to 911, you claim that a fathers anger at 'the government' is misplaced and misdirected. Am I being accused of something? What is the "view shaped largely by an angry reaction to 911". -- Cecropia | Talk 07:30, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * What view? The view that claims that the current "War on Terror" is anything but a glorified 11th crusade.-Stevertigo 09:14, 15 May 2004 (UTC) PS: I forgot to add "immoral," and "vain." Vainglorious maybe. And its not an accusation, just an observation. All things being in flux, all statements become merely questions.
 * "Crusade" is a very loaded word in the Muslim world, referring to events of nearly a millennium ago that are not (to them) easily forgotten, so it is interesting that you use the term. Even Muslims I know (in NY) don't make that assertion. The one person I know who does (not in NY) is Jewish, but I think he's tring to make a political, not a religious point. But as to "anger," I can't speak for the Administration's view, but the change I see from 9/11 in the US is that it shattered a belief picked up from the Palestine-Israel conflict&mdash;the "cycle of violence" theory: I kill some of your guys, so you retaliate by killing some of mine, so I retaliate [ ... repeat infinitely ... ]. The core of that belief is that, if someone just doesn't retaliate, the conflict ends. In fact, some in the US called for non-response to 9/11 with exactly that argument. But the point is that, by such a huge and disproportionate attack, the underlying promise (leave us alone and we'll leave you alone) of non-response disappeared. No one can point to the "tit" that lead to the 9/11 "tat." So there were left only a few choices. Continue what you are doing (arrests, trials), try to hide (revive "Fortress America"), give in to the demands of the perpetrators, or battle them openly. Bush took the latter course, and I don't see the religious implication to it that "crusade" implies. -- Cecropia | Talk

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


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

Live or dead link to NickBergDead.png?
I believe the link to Nickbergdead.png should be made into a "dead" link with the "nowiki" tags so that people don't accidentally click it. Certainly it is appropriate, since if someone accidentally clicks it, they will immediately see the picture presented on their screen. -&#9758;spencer195 02:37, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm a little skeptical about the "accidentally clicking" argument; is this a really a risk, particularly in the context of this article, and the neighbouring extremely / offensive / graphic violence / disturbing health warnings? &mdash; Matt 09:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Its not unreasonable to give people a clue about what they are looking at. -Stevertigo 10:32, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry, badly phrased; I'm not skeptical about the warnings, just the dead links. Warnings are good, and, I think, sufficient. I'm unconvinced that people are at risk of accidentally clicking these links, given the context and the warnings. &mdash; Matt 11:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * So why do we have a dead link to the video and a live link to the image? If anything, the video, and not the image, should be a live link (since the video will take several minutes to download if people click on it). &#9758;spencer195 19:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

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


 * When deciding wether or not information should be included in Wikipedia,it does not matter whatsoever if something is considered mainstream or not - the only criterion should be wether something is based on evidence or reasonable analysis, IMHO . "Mainstream" views can be totally different depending on the country and culture you live in, and mainstream views usually change dramatically over time. pir 11:48, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * This whole thing has been very upseting. The even show the video at my school in class, it is discusting---The Crimson Keyboard 10:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * What grade are you in? I have trouble seeing why anything short of a university media or international studies class would watch such a disturbing video.  -- Tlotoxl 11:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I assumed he meant kids were passing it around the class rather than teachers were making them watch it. This is just sort of thing we should expect kids to do. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * No, there have been some high school teachers who have shown it to their students (sometimes without forewarning them about what they were going to see); the teachers - in California, Texas and Washington - have generally been suspended or reprimanded; see:, MisfitToys 23:50, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey, you've seen it? My stupid NetBSD thing can't run video. I've been reading the victim doesn't struggle and there's no spurting blood. Is it so? Because that's utterly impossible unless he was already dead... 142.177.15.4 15:51, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense evaluation of video
We need to find a better assessment of the video. You can't give credibility to an article that says "Berg was killed by Al-Quaeda (known to be a CIA - Mossad joint venture)." Any better links than that? - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 14:18, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Here is a better one. Quadell 15:37, May 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Not a better one. The Al-Jazeera article is based on the infowars blog.  "Derived from insane" is still insane.  You can't give credibility to Al-Jazeera.


 * Although Al-Jazeera has some issues, they are not totally devoid of value as as a source. Considering Al-Jazeera's influence in the region, I think shutting out their coverage of this is foolish in the extreme. Snowspinner 17:21, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The point isn't the credibility of Al-Jazeera but the credibility of the source Al-Jazeera used. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 17:36, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Influence is not a reason to consider a news source credible. Evidence is.  The article has no cited sources and no real methodology.  It appears on the Al-Jazeera website but is essentially the work of Lawrence Smallman (who?  Some guy.).  Bad journalism shouldn't be a wikipedia source.  --M4-10 18:35, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should link to a wealth of journalistic sources. Al-Jazeera is a major journalistic source, the largest in the Middle east, and tremendously influential. Their coverage is worth linking to on Middle Eastern affairs by default - not as a sole source of information, but as one of th emany journalistic perspectives we link to. Snowspinner 20:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The Al-Jazeera article doesn't say what its sources are, but there are many possibilities. I've seen several lengthy message boards (or open blogs) in which lots of people -- some loony, some rational -- report on the following oddities:


 * weird gaps in time
 * lack of arterial blood (suggesting he was killed earlier)
 * the fact that Berg doesn't twitch or struggle during the killing (suggesting he was dead)
 * sound unsynchronized
 * the killer who first knocks Berg to the floor and puts a knife to his throat is wearing a black mask. When he saws off Berg's head, he is wearing a white one.
 * you can never see anyone's lips moving during the reading (because of the skimasks and poor video quality)
 * that the reader oddly keeps flipping pages back to the same page he had just been on, instead of turning to the next page, as if he is not reading at all.
 * the terrorist are not thin, as you might expect
 * they have paler skin than you might suspect
 * the oddness that al-Zarqawi wears a mask, but identified himself
 * the assertion that one killer can be heard to speak Russian briefly
 * the accents not being Jordanian
 * the killers are standing in military posture
 * the chair Berg sits in at the beginning looks identical to the chairs in Abu Ghraib prison
 * ...and orange jumpsuits (like the one Berg wears) can be seen in some of the infamous Abu Ghraib photos
 * ...and the walls and floor tracking are the same color, leading some to believe he was killed in Abu Ghraib
 * Now I'm not saying any of these are valid. But they are reported in an ad-hoc way on several different message board, by people of various levels of sanity. I wouldn't think Al Jazeera was just referring to that one site. So I think the Al Jazeera story is legit news. Quadell 18:20, May 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * The Al Jazeera story remains as part of the external links at the bottom of the article. I see no reason to remove it but I don't think it should be pointed to as a reliable source for Wikipedia information. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 18:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: are you saying that Al Jazeera should not be pointed to as a reliable source, or just this article? Either way - why?


 * I don't find Al Jazeera to be a reliable source where it publishes claims of CIA or military involvement in the killing of an American. However, I would find Al Jazeera to be a reliable source on the birthplace, age, etc of an Al Qaeda leader. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 21:00, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * If you are saying that you would discount as unreliable any source that accuses US agencies or the military of killing an American then aren't you in danger of being 'blinkered'? Do you know of no such events in history? 82.44.176.135 21:15, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * No, reread my response. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 21:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Forgive me - I did, but I need it to be spelled out (if you'd oblige). From an encyclopedic point of view - either they are reliable and should be included, or they are not and should be excluded, don't you think?


 * I think that Al Jazeera's reliability is a subject of hot debate, and that they can and should be linked to and referenced, with a note that we are citing Al Jazeera. And a Wikilink to Al Jazeera. And readers can decide what they believe, as readers are wont to do. Snowspinner 21:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Al Jazeera's reliability in sources is one issue, but they don't even have sources in this article. I wouldn't reject an article just because it is from Al-Jazeera, that would be an ad hominem fallacy.  I would always be suspicious of Al-Jazeera and look very closely at their evidence and conclusions, but I would accept anything they write that has integrity.  This article has no integrity and thus I reject it.  It's bad journalism and doesn't belong as a link on a Wikipedia article.  No commentator deserves any priviledge of position, whether it be Al Jazeera, the NY Times, or Noam Chomsky.  --M4-10 22:43, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

According to the Bloomberg news service:


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

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

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

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


 * Aren't you a little too personally involved to be threatening to protect the page. If you think the page needs protecting on something you disagree with, maybe you should ask anotehr admin to do it. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:32, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * What planet are you on? I put up a still that is already used on the arabic version of Wikipedia.  It's more representative of what happened, it isn't graphic, and I only put it up once.  You're an admin bully and should remove yourself from this topic.  --M4-10 06:27, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I've checked, and the still I replaced and the still I used have never been discussed in these talk archives. The only still that was discussed was the post-execution head one, which is still linked to.  The still I used is "NickBergandFiveMen2.JPEG".  As for taking me "downtown", bring it on.  --M4-10 06:48, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Given that you reverted his photo change, Stevertigo, you're not permitted to protect this page over the photo issue. --Delirium 07:58, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

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


 * OK, I understand the policy; I helped (mostly by instigation) to formulate it. But in this case M4 is being sneaky by trying to use a more graphic photo, slipping it in without asking for an agreement. I put my foot down because he can play these junior high school games till doomsday, finding one or another screenshot to post, claiming each has "never been discussed." If this were some other kind of case I probably wouldnt care, but these graphic photo issues seem to me to require a degree of sensitivity and respect that some here lack. Or at least the way M4 is going about seeking a photo change is the wrong way, in this case where the material is borderline deletable. (what is the WP:IFD vote anyway?) Want to change the game illustration on the Go (game) article? Fine; One of the more recent Kisei games may be nice. But this is not nice. Morbid, yes. Google the definition of morbid, please, if youre not quite sure. -Stevertigo 09:26, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it's the photo used on the Arabic Wikipedia, so it's not like he pulled out a photo from nowhere. --Delirium 18:21, May 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is insane. Since when in Wikipedia do I need to ask for agreement before "slipping in" a photo?  What happened to bold edits?  Does the video still I inserted even come close to violating Wikipedia content restrictions?  How does it compare to the images of Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal?  Does the alternate still come more or less to the heart of the issue of this article?  Can SLFT show me evidence of a terminal consensus being reached about the previous image?  How do I merit a personal attack about "junior high school games"?  Do I have a history of searching for disturbing images to replace existing ones?  What have I done deserve abusive admins?  --M4-10 02:20, 16 May 2004 (UTC)