Talk:Killing of Nick Berg/Archive 2

message: Anyone wanna cope with [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092851/posts FreeRepublic's listing Nick's father as an enemy of the occupation] a few weeks ago, and the possibility Nick was victim of mistaken ID which had to be disposed of? No, I didn't think so. 142.177.24.20 19:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to write an article about FreeRepublic.  --M4-10 19:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a bit too much to deal with right now, thanks. Keep taking notes, though. -Stevertigo 19:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I should add that FR's listing is an ANSWER list (membership?) retitled, so FR is hardly the only way the Bergs could've gotten on a USUK enemies list. Meanwhile, here's an (unrelated) article from just before the fog got thick. 142.177.21.215 20:56, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A Salon reporter pointed out that Michael Berg isn't on ANSWER's list, and asked the FRan why ... the latter seems to claim it's ANSWER's deletion, not his addition.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1134424/posts] Not esp coherent tho. 142.177.17.178 13:56, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Worthy (IMO) fodder in and linked by www.infowars.com/print/iraq/berg.htm infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Infowars] 142.177.15.239 01:07, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

text: CNN senior editor for Arab affairs doubts it's al Zarqawi -- the accent is not Jordanian and the al Qaida reference is a mistranslation 142.177.17.178 15:38, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Some of the reporting is really bizarre. "A body found on Monday by US military patrol along a roadside over the weekend was identified as Berg's...The statement in the video was signed off with Zarqawi's name and dated 11 May" WTF? identified on the 9th, found on the 10th, killed on the 11th - just in time for Inhofe's disgusting rant?142.177.18.133 18:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

text: The chair is very similar to those in the Abu Ghraib prison...which would explain that orange jumper, too =p 142.177.18.133 20:55, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

text: FBI and CIA believe the executioner wore a gold ring. Some say a devout Muslim wouldn't wear such a thing. 142.177.18.133 22:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And a good Muslim would never say "The Prophet, the most merciful" -- even I'm sure of that. (Another mistranslation?) 142.177.15.4 16:27, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

text: There are flashy gold-like rings for Islamic men sold; perhaps less-strict Muslims wear them? Perhaps base metals are acceptable? 142.177.23.79 20:04, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Assuming you believe anything FOX says, Berg had been interviewed by the FBI a few years ago -- Moussaoui had used his "email account". 142.177.15.249 03:36, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Prometheus Methods Tower Services "Incorporated" isn't... at least, not in PA. 142.177.15.4 15:54, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

text: The body was returned via Dover AFB, unusual for an alleged civilian. It could be dismissed as a nice gesture except that the Bergs were shut out by DoD. 142.177.20.1 16:39, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Late-breaking oddity: Moore had 20 min with Berg in F-911, which got cut. 142.177.22.15 23:58, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monkeywrench in the works 

message: This is a minor issue, but when this page is unprotected, and if the link solution is adopted, "Warning : this picture may be offending for some people" should be edited. It's not idiomatic English. Lukobe 19:22, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to picture of head 

message: Since the discussion on this topic has been removed I didn't have a chance to voice my opinion. Although I see that it's a common practice to mark potentially offensive links with "Warning : this picture...", I strongly feel that there should be no links at all to a video depicting somebody's death ! This is way beyond stuff that is marked as 'offensive' on the shock site. Basically, it gets down to where the 'wikipedia' community will draw a line. I have been a big fan of this project for a long time, but I'm greatly disappointed that no single member of the community has even raised the question if this is morally OK ? And to all of you who say that having even an indirect link is essential to keeping the project censor-free: Why not also have links to child porn sites. I mean, so that the readers of this encyclopedia can see for themselves instead of just reading about it. If Wikipedia is to be a respected source of information then I believe that having 'snuff' video links is simply not a good way to do it. I don't see a reason for providing a link. If someone is twisted enough (or in many cases - immature) to wanting to watch such videos I'm sure they will find a way to do so. Just as pedophiles do get their kiddie porn one way or another. It just seems that visiting wikipedia.org is beginning to be one of those ways... Once again, I'm deeply disappointed.... If eventually someone does decide to take action (which I sincerely doubt) then there's the same kind of snuff link here.
:You cannot simply make the premise "death is not nice" and conclude "therefore we should not link to a video displaying such" - television generally has the same policy - however, Kennedy death shots are numerously shown - why not this? This is video is the whole point of the article. Press releases of a decapitated American came out on Saturday - it hit all of the headlines today (Wednesday) due to the video. It is fair enough for you to not want the video in Wikipedia (though I would like this, archival purposes etc.) - but many people will want to choose to watch the video and hence should be assisted. Those who wish to not watch film will not follow links. The difference between simple "shock" and this - is that this is politically relevent and important. It has caused a shift in attitudes throughout the United States - why? Your point about Child pornography is just emotive - child pornography is an entire genre of pornography - no specific video, hence just linking would not suffice. Secondly, child pornography is both illegal and harmful to those featured - your point is unnecessary. If you do not wish to view video, do not - but do not impose this upon others. Because, again, this is not simple shock - it is of great import. --OldakQuill 22:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to video 

message: When this page is unprotected, this info about the chronology of events should be incorporated. Fuzheado 20:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: # Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:47, 2004 May 12 (UTC), the image itself it not offencive, but it's contents are disturbing, nevertheless i choose not to let my opinions on the matter deprive anyone else of inline viewing of it. Also i would like to bring this page on meta to the attention of people interested in forming a policy on how such things can be filtered on demand in the future.
# JDR 22:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Image is offensive to me, should be shown inline

message: # OldakQuill
# the Epopt
# Delirium It's offensive only in a conceptual sense; it's not particularly graphic or gruesome, at least no more so than many other images we have inline, such as the ones on Abu Ghraib.
# Goodralph 03:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Image is not offensive to me, should be shown inline

message: # Eloquence* (link)
# BCorr|Брайен 20:51, May 12, 2004 (UTC) (link)
# Tlotoxl I don't think anybody visiting the Nick Berg page would reasonably expect to see his severed head inline, and it is my opinion that many, like me, would feel frustrated at having being 'tricked' into seeing something they would not otherwise have chosen to see.  This is a much greater violation of my rights, imo, then asking interested parties to follow a link to see the snuff film or a capture from it. (preferentially delete the image, but linking is a tolerable compromise)
# SweetLittleFluffyThing 20:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Image is offensive to me, should be linked to or removed

message: # Seth Ilys 20:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Image is not offensive to me, should be linked to or removed

message: # Dissident (Talk) 20:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Haven't looked at image, should be linked to or removed

message: We can debate abstract policy issues until the cows come home, but it looks to me like we have a generally acceptable compromise in linking to the image only -- that takes the middle ground between those who want to include the image inline in the article and those who want to delete it entirely. This is an evolving news story featured on the Main Page and it's now been protected for a substantial fraction of its time in existence. I say we let the link stand unless further *discussion* (not edit wars) generates a new consensus, or until we generate a consistent Wikipedia-wide guideline for dealing with offensive images, and unprotect the page post haste. -- Seth Ilys 22:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we seem to have reached a consensus (to link to the image). Now we just have to find an admin who hasn't commented on this page. ;) fabiform | talk 22:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I have seen the video. Showing the picture is not needed and is in poor taste. It is not needed to actually see the severed head, when the article explains what happened. Also, the severed head screenshot is not released under the GFDL. Wikipedia should try to be above cheap shock value. Should we include a pic of Bob Goatse on shock site? I'm sure that is falls under 'fair use'. In short, the people that want to display the image are sick fucking bastards and should be ashamed of themselves. When you die I will dig up your bones and take pictures for all to see. 66.167.235.171 22:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Where is this consensus? There is no consensus at all! --OldakQuill 23:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Have we reached a conclusion?

message: A lot of people doubt the authenticity of this beheading, the protagonists are suspect, they don't seem to be Iraqis, the person who is supposed to be Nick Berg, doesn't look like the one we've seen on pictures. Also, in the video, like it's been said before, the sound and the images are out of synchro. Finally, when Berg is supposedly beheaded, there's no gushing of blood and Berg seems to be dead already. Someone is trying to hide some facts that should be taken into account when analyzing the validity of this "execution". In the end, these facts should be added, because the validity of this beheading is somehow not credible.VincentG 18:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumstances surrounding the beheading and the validity of the beheading