Talk:Killing of Nick Berg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The Video

I find that there are more problems with the video than what this article has reached. Nicholas Berg's feet and toes do not move throughout the video yet they are in an awkward human positon for sitting. Also it appears that someone or something is shrugging up his shoulders from behind giving the appearence of movement from Berg. Maryjane3

Allegedly in retaliation

When this is unprotected, shouldn't the "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" be changed to read "alleged to have been carried out"? And it would be good to add the incongruity of claiming it was in retaliation when he was killed weeks prior to the scandal coming to light. - Tεxτurε 18:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

He was captured on or shortly after April 9; his body was found c. May 8. The date of his death is somewhere in between there, so there's plenty of room for him to have been killed after the Abu Ghraib story broke... -- Seth Ilys 19:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Dare I suggest that they kept their hostage until they could find a showy use for him? So are the abuse charge the "reason" for the barbarity or the "excuse." -- Cecropia | Talk 19:43, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

You're not the only one suggesting such. -- Seth Ilys 19:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Suggest: The reason given by his captors for his abduction and killing was to avenge abuses of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison, although his capture occurred prior to wide reporting of those abuses MisfitToys 23:28, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

unprotected

I unprotected this page. A cursory glance of the page history didn't reveal an edit war so I don't know why it was protected in the first place. -- Viajero 18:56, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

"A cursory glance" isnt good enough in this case, Viajero. I appreciate your assistance in mediating, but please dont unprotect a page in contradiction of me. Please involve yourself in the discussion first - community editing style. Thanks -Stevertigo 19:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

What exactly do we need to resolve before this page is unprotected? --M4-10 19:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Svertigo, could you please tell us why this page is protected? And what needs to be done before it is unprotected? Quadell 20:17, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Read this section - it explains that there was a dispute which caused a revert war, and the page has been protected so that the problem can be discussed here and sorted out. fabiform | talk 20:22, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

If you don't know why it was protected, why unprotect it without proper understanding? I would suggest contacting the person who protected it before throwing caution to the wind and opening up a mess you know nothing about. Page history is not the appropriate place to look for discussion. Before unprotecting a page please read the discussion and discover the issues. - Tεxτurε 19:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Monkeywrench in the works

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)

Feel free to write an article about FreeRepublic. --M4-10 19:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

That is a bit too much to deal with right now, thanks. Keep taking notes, though. -Stevertigo 19:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) (thanks to whoever) (PS. The body was found on the 8th. Or was it the 11th? (How could the family have been told on the 10th he was dead?) Somewhere else I read the US claimed only one dead civilian had been recently found ... imagine how confused they'd be if there were more than one!)

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)

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4FFA61A3-9C33-4597-A8D9-8079E91F2784.htm - Al Jazeera state some flaws with the video - interesting read at least. --OldakQuill 22:09, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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) (oh, never mind -- CNN says so too)

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

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)

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)

Link to picture of head

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)

Linking to video

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)

I beleive it is good that the LINK to pictures and videos are on wikipedia. But I am very glad that it is not instead of the picture that everyone sees. Wikipedia users should never put offensive pictures in a way, that everyone sees it, regardless if they want to or not. The way it is now, it's okay, since everyone can choose to watch the video or look at the picture. User:Waltersimons 1:54 PM EST

Resolve disputes to remove page protection

My understanding is that this page is protected due to a dispute over whether to include inline a photo of the decapitation, or whether to inlcude a link to it. Am I correct?

For those who favour showing the image inline (which goes further than any newspaper I know of) do you think you could compromise and accept a link to the image rahter than showing the image inline? This way the information is readily available, but shouldn't be stumbled on by people accidently.

I'd like this page to be unprotected as quickly as possible, since it's sad to have the top story from In The News on the main page be a protected one. fabiform | talk 19:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Fabi, I did put an online link rather than direct visible picture. I am in favor of removing the picture entirely. But given that a few people supported keeping it, I chose to propose a compromise. This compromise is to put an online link instead of instantly visible picture. SweetLittleFluffyThing

Stevertigo - as you locked the article, can you describe what you propose to do to unlock it (or even what the problem is)? Or can you at least tell us what we're supposed to do? --M4-10 19:31, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

We are supposed to discuss as Fabi has indicated. - Tεxτurε 19:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I support the compromise link to the image. I feel the image is important to the story but should not turn high profile Wikipedia articles into a shock site. - Tεxτurε 19:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that the compromise link to the image is an acceptable solution in the short-term. However, for the sake of consistency, there should be a relatively standard way of dealing the with issues of 1) displaying potentially offensive images or 2) linking to potentially offensive external sites. Frankly, I don't see a solution that's anywhere close to fair or workable (short of displaying all the images and including all links as live) that doesn't resort to polling in each individual case. -- Seth Ilys 19:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, dear, it is not offensiveness, it goes against Berg's right to privacy and dignity and he cannot defend himself. Please, do not think on the readers in this subject...

In any case, I do not think the WP should keep that photo or show it or (but this may be extreme) link to it: because Berg's dignity is far above the right of anyone to information (if seeing his head is in any way informative) or the right of anyone to inform. Otherwise we are taking human rights here as a mere joke. And this has nothing to do with freedom of speech (you are not free to insult, or if you are then you are liable to a punishment). Pfortuny 19:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I don't recognize a "right" to privacy, or a "right" to dignity. Although I will stand up for others in their desire to preserve their privacy or dignity, I couldn't ask someone to do the same for me. How could you possibly enforce such a "right" under law without resorting to subjective standards and emotions? I don't believe that there are any moral obligations attached to information per se, but that we may distribute or withhold information as we please. What we choose to do with the information we possess is a personal moral choice, wieghed by the invididual based upon their perception and analysis of the good or harm that releasing or withholding that information may do. In this case, my view is that any indignity has already been done, and that Wikipedia does a service by documenting the horrific murder of Nick Berg in a way that promotes the dispersion of truth. -- Seth Ilys 22:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

From the above, I gather you really do not understand a word of what a right means, or you wrote the above paragraph without thinking on it. Sorry man, you cannot leave in a modern society with those opinions, I am sorry to say (you are constantly recognizing other people's right and asking for them in your life, like it or not). Cheers. Pfortuny 09:31, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

(Since you asked) To me, a "right" is something that you are justified in defending with physical force. I have the "right" to live, and therefore, I'm morally justified in fighting back if someone attacks me physically. I have the "right" to property, and I'd be justified in phsyically defending land or other things I might own. It doesn't mean that I'm justified in doing *anything* if someone were to, say, post naked pictures of me on the internet against my will, or calls me names in public. I'm not justified in initiating physical force against someone if they hurt my feelings or spread lies, no matter how much I might want to hurt them. Neither will I demand that a government or another person to defend me, because they have no obligation to. Certainly, I'll expect my friends to respect my privacy and dignity, and I will respect the privacy and dignity of others. If I want to be a functioning member of society, I will choose to do such things, but I am not compelled to and will actively resist attempts to forcefully compel me to respect "privacy" or "dignity." But that's an entirely voluntary thing on both sides, and isn't a "right" that I observe or demand. It's a courtesy and a respect that I give voluntarily. If it's demanded as a right, respect, privacy, and dignity become worthless. -- Seth Ilys 15:30, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

While I don't particularly see a need to put any images on this page except the pre-murder one (and a link to the video, without proper formatting if necessary), I'm not sure if I agree with Pfortuny's logic in particular. Nick Berg is dead, and arguably sanitizing the article would make his death less meaningful. In the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal article we blurred visible faces of victims, and judged that better than removing them or showing them unblurred. Consider the dead prisoner "on ice". Can we be consistent, whatever we do? --M4-10 20:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

So, Anthere will accept a link to the image (she proposed the solution in fact), Pfortuny doesn't want us even to link to the image, but (correct me if I'm wrong) would accept this if everyone else does. Texture, Seth and I all agree to the idea of linking to the image. I'm not exactly sure where M4-10 stands on the issue. Overall though, this looks like we are approaching a consensus. Are there any more key players in the original discussion who we need to ask before unprotecting the page (rather than unprotect and immediately start up the revert war again)? fabiform | talk 20:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

From the above, I gather you really do not understand a word of what a right means, or you wrote the above paragraph without thinking on it. Dead people don't have rights under any system of rights I've ever heard of. anthony 警告 17:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Chronology

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

Inline image poll

The main purpose of this poll is not to make a decision, but to determine what amount of readers find a certain type of photo so offensive that it should be linked to, rather than shown embedded in the article -- see the thread "troubled" on wikien-l. The image in question is here; it shows a terrorist holding Nick Berg's severed head into the camera.--Eloquence*

This is a naive question, but quite an honest one. What does inline mean? I cannot vote if I don't know what it means here. Kingturtle 04:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

It means you can see the picture as part of the article without clicking a link. Cecropia | Talk 05:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the question of offense is a useful one to ask. We appear to be reaching a consensus above without polling (which can be divisive). fabiform | talk 20:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

As I said, the purpose of this poll is not to make a decision. It is to gauge the offensiveness of the image in order to better develop a policy on such matters.--Eloquence*

Perhaps there could be a better venue for making a policy decision then? Rather than basing it on this one image you could include the prison brutality ones etc as well. Someone simply saying they find this offensive doesn't give you much information without an explanation (pictures of dead people are offensive? or pictures of murder victims whose identities are well known, or any graphic violence, or showing the results of terrorist actions is helping them spread their message, or any of a thousand different reasons). Secondly the wording of the poll doesn't focus people well on the key fact that this is an encyclopedia, couldn't the questions be more like "x is necessary/unnecessary to our encyclopedic coverage of a topic"... etc? fabiform | talk 20:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

There's a problem with this poll. I haven't clicked on the link because I do not wish to view the picture. I wouldn't describe my stance as being worried about being offended by it as much as that it would horrify me. But it presents a problem for your poll. You should only really get votes from people that have viewed the picture as those who do not view it cannot be offended by it. However, people like myself ought to have a say in what happens with regard to such pictures. I favour having a link to pictures that are liable to shock or offend - this places control in the hands of each individual. Just seen my bit of the poll. --bodnotbod 22:40, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Image is offensive to me, should be shown inline

1. 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.
2. JDR 22:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC) : Image is offensive to me (it does makes me want to turn away) though it should be shown inline (offensiveness does not meet the bar to obscure the image; there's are other "offensive" things in wikipedia that are exposed (and other such images shown inline)). The top of the article should state a disclaimer (such as the equally offensive (to me) and inline Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal image of death). Though, I doubt this is what action will be taken.
3. WhisperToMe 23:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Image is not offensive to me, should be shown inline

1. OldakQuill
2. the Epopt
3. 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.
4. Goodralph 03:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
5. Eclecticology 07:55, 2004 May 13 (UTC)

Image is offensive to me, should be linked to or removed

1. Eloquence* (link)
2. BCorr|Брайен 20:51, May 12, 2004 (UTC) (link)
3. 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)
4. SweetLittleFluffyThing 20:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)(link, but if proponants insist on inlining it and refuse the compromise, I wish it deleted)
   • Who is forcing, Helen Lovejoy
     • Reddi is. If we have the picture by default inline, then, to read the text, you are forced to see the picture
   • They might be offended at Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, shall we start deleting there as well? And what's with the damned yellow highlighting? --M4-10 07:22, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
     • I answered below. The fact another article is problematic is not a valid argument to block taking decision on this one. SweetLittleFluffyThing
5. I am not a number 21:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Do not forget: children can see these pages. :( (remove)
   • Wikipedia is full of content more inappropriate than that for children. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
     • Almost all of that material is just text. Photos, be they of JFK or My Lai are historical, and journalistic not sensationalistic and sadistic exhibitionism See the difference now? -Stevertigo 22:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
       • No, I don't. I would prefer they not see the fuzzy severed head picture, but it is not as bad as a lot of (simulated) movie fare and it is something real that maybe we need not to turn away from. However we have descriptive articles like rimming and felching. I have suggested that these at least be in a separate section, but the standard response seems to be that Wikipedia is encyclopedia, so cannot be kid-safe. So do you see my point? And how do you stand on the appropriateness of the Abu Ghraib photos for children? Have you said anything about that? Has anyone? -- Cecropia | Talk 00:44, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
         • Rimming and felching are two practices that certain people undertake for sexual pleasure. I don't see how it can be compared to an image of a decapitated head. While sex education is important, especially among the younger generations, I don't see how becoming a repository of horrific images is beneficial. - Mark 01:28, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
           • Ah, you think 10-year-olds need graphic descriptions of these subjects. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:36, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
             • No. But 10 year olds would probably not comprehend half of it anyway. A picture is different. - Mark 01:57, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
             • That is a lame excuse. 10-year-olds (and younger) are aware of impliactions of messing with body functions and very impressionable. If they are old enough to be reading an entry like Nick Berg they are at least as capable of dealing with a fuzzy picture of a severed head as they are with descriptions of licking stuff out of body orifices. Now if we were to show the actual act of decapitation, I would think differently. -- Cecropia | Talk
6. Med 21:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC) (link)
7. Rogue Pat: Apart from if the image is offensive or not, I think it is necessary that there's at least a DECISION MOMENT to consider if one wants to see the offending material (link) and not directly a possibly unexpected picture.
8. Rainier Schmidt 21:25, May 12, 2004 (UTC) (link)
9. FoeNyx 21:22, 12 May 2004 (UTC) (link + alert about offensive content)
10. Stevertigo 22:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Do not forget: children can see these pages. :( (remove)
11. ☞spencer195 22:11, 12 May 2004 (UTC). Link to it with a warning. I saw that picture in one of the revisions and rather I didn't have.
12. Fuzheado 22:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC) - substantially different than the prison photos. Dismembered head clearly a different class of photo than bodies with genitals and faces hidden. Favor linking to with strong warning.
13. Conti 00:41, 13 May 2004 (UTC) (link with warning)
14. Mark 01:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC) - There is a limit to what is encyclopaedic and what is not. If people want to look at images of dead people, they should go to rotten.com, not wikipedia.org. Horrific images like this are hardly educational. Remove.
15. Pædia: remove or at best, delete. I totally agree with Mark.

Image is not offensive to me, should be linked to or removed

1. Seth Ilys 20:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC). Information is not inherently offensive. Human actions are. Personally, I could stand seeing that image in the article. Nevertheless, the image should be linked to and not shown, in consideration for other people's sentiments.
2. Elf-friend 20:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Linked to with warning on article page.
3. Erik Carson 20:56, 2004 May 12 (UTC), in agreement with Seth Ilys and Elf-friend. Still considering the ramifications (indeed, the very point) of blurring Berg's face in the image.
4. Tεxτurε 20:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC) (link within Wikipedia) - I think the image should remain in Wikipedia rather than a link to a site that may remove it. I just don't think it should shock the reader without warning.
5. --M4-10 21:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Like Seth Ilys, I'm offended by the action, not the information. I don't think the photo adds to the article (as long as the video link remains), and support its removal. I would settle on a linked image.
6. Delirium 21:19, May 12, 2004 (UTC) Is information that may be shocking, and so should not be inline. However, it is of extreme historical importance, so should be available.
7. Cyan 21:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC). Agree with Delirium.
8. Fredrik 22:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC). Link to it, for reasons already provided.
9. Arwel 22:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC). Agree with Delirium's views.
10. Ruhrjung 22:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC) I don't think the informational value of this kind of picture warants their inclusion in the article, but a link (internal to wikipedia is OK), that's another matter.
11. Abigail 23:31, May 12, 2004 (UTC) I don't find the image offensive, although I do find it shocking. I agree with Texture that the image should be stored on Wikipedia - not so much because of what's on the image, but because of the world-wide reaction on it. That's what makes the image important. I think, due to its graphical content, it's better to not inline it on a page about Nick Berg, although if there were a page about the decapitation of Nick Berg, I'd favour inlining it.
12. older≠wiser 23:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC) I find the image disturbing, not necessarily offensive, though I can easily understand why others might. Readers should have the choice whether to view or not view.
13. Mpiff 23:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Just link to the image with a very visible warning. I agree with Delirium.
14. silsor 00:03, May 13, 2004 (UTC) Link it.
15. I am not offended, but the family and friends of Berg would be. There is nothing inherently offensive about putting it in a link-to page. I disagree with "remove" RickK 02:04, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
16. 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. Kingturtle 05:35, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
17. I cannot be offended by an image. It is offensive to the photographed person and we ought to defend his honour. This is human rights, man, you know? Pfortuny 09:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
18. While I am not offended by it, most of the people I know would be (given their reaction to watching TV news). I would vote to link to it, rather than remove it. — Matt 09:35, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
19. Starx I have no problem viewing it, but I can easly see how it could be too much for someone. Safer to have it as a plain text address (not an active link) for those who decide they would like to view it.

Haven't looked at image, should be linked to or removed

1. Dissident (Talk) 20:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
2. Snowspinner 20:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Should be linked to, but on a non-Wiki server.
3. fabiform | talk 20:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC) should be linked to
4. Adam Bishop 21:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
5. Jwrosenzweig 21:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Sorry, I know I can't take seeing it. I do think that linking to it might be appropriate, but I'm afraid if it was removed I would shed no tears for the photo (though my sorrow and sympathy for Berg and his family is another matter altogether).
6. .derf 22:25, May 12, 2004 (UTC) I really have no desire to see a decapitation. It doesn't inhibit anyone's ability to view the image if it's linked.
7. Use a link. --bodnotbod 22:45, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
8. I dont even want to, for heaven's sake! Remove, this is not a chock site and suffering is not encyclopaediac. MvHG 10:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
9. MvHG is right. There are other places for people looking for that kind of stuff. Let's be decent and remove the video and image! Philipp
10. BL 23:20, May 13, 2004 (UTC), although I don't think silly WIKIen-l discussions should have any bearing on real-life Wikipedia decisions whatsoever.

Offensiveness not decisive, other opinion

1. I would prefer this image not be here, but I strongly feel that the decision should not be made at Nick Berg alone, but should also apply to the bulk of the images at Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, which are included to the extent of gratuitous shock. I personally find the action described here more offensive, but the Abu Ghraib pictures more offensive. To deal with one article in isolation amounts to choosing sides in propoganda, since pictures have more impact than words. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
2. In the purely informational sense, what purpose does it serve to have such a photo present? Does it inform the reader of something? And if so, can we definitively say what? I checked over at the Decapitation page and there is not an image archive of decapitations for reference (maybe there should be), so until such a time as there is, what is the purpose of putting this one specific photo up? Is it so that readers might learn what a decapitated head looks like? Is it to illustrate the actions of kidnappers and terrorists in some concrete way? Is it simply to archive the most information possible about an event? All three or something else entirely? I would like to know and I think the answer might help in guiding the proper course of action. --Iosif 21:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I will join with Cecropia here, if only to show my support for depoliticising the issue. It seems clear to anyone that the concern with both this and Abu Ghraib is the War on Terror, and the issue is generally about attacking or protecting the premise which supposedly justifies continuing it. The real purpose of featuring this kind of photo front and center was only to inflame; to assert a justification for continuing a racist attack on Arabs, because of the acts of some thugs. The Abu Ghraib photos were newsworthy, and shown almost in their entirety on prime time TV. The screenshot by comparison will not be, and should not be. This is not the place for it. All that said, I join Cecropia in advocating a concrete policy- what exactly that is may be something we learn over time. There are those who have no interest in seeing this material, and theirs is the view to respect, not the view that says it fine to rub everyones noses in it. -Stevertigo 21:56, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

One needs to remember that the "almost in their entirety" above is because any suggestions that the prisoners had genitals were blurred out. Eclecticology 07:54, 2004 May 13 (UTC)

Huh? Why the "Moron Terror|War on Terror"? Didn't you come to this thread as a neutral admin (the first thing you did was lock the article)? What's this "continuing a racist attack on Arabs"? --M4-10 22:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The purpose of the image is to expose truth (not obfusicate it, a charge many over the war espouse [i.e., ppl don't get to see the "real" information]); To show what is occuring in the continuing war against terrorist [BTW, Arab does not equal terrorist; the Arabs are fighting the same individuals (go look up the bombings in Saudia Arabia)]; and expose the acts of the thugs. The "real purpose" is much akin to showing the prison photos, or the WTC falling, or the any other atrocity ... to expose the truth. JDR [PS., Stevertigo, the "Moron Terror" wikilink above is telling.]

I see. So, "the purpose of the image" - in otherwords, 'the purpose of making the video,' ergo 'the purpose of killing Nicholas Berg of West Chester Pennsylvania,' was to "expose truth." But did'nt they made the video to shock people? Some here also seem to support the notion of shocking people. Does it not concern then that by disseminating and propagating the photo, they perhaps are doing the will of those who murdered him?

Think about it, and consider the difference between this and Abu Ghraib, which were not intended for public release. There is indeed an attempt by some here to exploit Berg's murder politically, as an offset to the previous offenses. But by doing so these people demonstrate how completely desensitized (ignorant) they are to his humanity. The Abu Ghraib photos exposed the humanity of the detained Iraqis, just as much as they exposed how callous of the soldiers involved had grown. And I have never claimed to be neutral where the War on Terror is concerned, and the use of this photo as propaganda to support yet another moronic, racist and doomed-to-fail Crusade is something to shed some light on; sunlight being the best disinfectant. The photo that is in place is enough, because it shows Berg as both brave and composed. It does honor and justice to his humanity, wheras the other shows only a vain attempt to desecrate him.

-Stevertigo 06:13, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Your open declaration of prejudice explains why the photo should stay. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

And your senseless denial of it explains why consensus rule, hope, and faith in God are necessary. -Stevertigo 06:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

...hope, and faith in God ...? What's that about. Is it a reference to the murderers shouting "Alahu Akbar!" as they hacked a Jew's head off? -- Cecropia | Talk 06:43, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo, you've shown you were wrong to come to this thread in an admin capacity, and I hope you refrain from using your status as an admin again for this article. --M4-10 06:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. If you can't keep your personal opinions from influencing your decisions in an admin capacity for an article, you shouldn't use your admin privileges in that article. --Werbwerb 20:47, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I just see it as illustrative. It may offend some people, but so may the photos on Abu Graith. IMO, some of those photos are actually more offensive, and they are certainly more detailed and graphic. --Delirium 06:38, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

That's why I share the view that some separation is in order, accross the board. Not just here, but also with Abu Ghraib, JFK, etc. How else do we make policy, othen than through a new case scenario like this one... Regards, -Stevertigo 06:41, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Why, exactly, are those who have not seen the image voting? They do not know the image and hence cannot and should not vote on whether appropriate. --OldakQuill 20:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I've also never seen Lemonparty, so I suppose I can't make any sort of informed judgement as to whether or not I want to see it? Wikipedia doesn't display Goatse, Tubgirl, Harlequin Fetus Syndrome, or any other 'fun' pages inline. Based on the fact that the image here depicts the violent death of a human being, I hold that I don't want to see it. Furthermore, I fail to see how this position undermines my ability to determine if I want to see the image or not. If we're going to put this inline, why not add in pictures of Budd Dwyer? .derf 23:16, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

I'd say Wikipedia should store an image of goatse or tubgirl if those pictures get the same world-wide press coverage that the images of Nick's decapitation gets. I think the image should be stored for historical purposes. In 10 years, someone is going to wonder what all that fuss in 2004 was about - and then Wikipedia should be able to provide an answer. Abigail 23:39, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia set to become just another mirror for these images? I'd like to think the people coming to the site are there to edit or learn, not look at those images. - Mark 01:34, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I have listed the image for deletion. Wikipedia is not a snuff site. Vote here: WP:IFD. Dori | Talk 20:58, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the image because I don't want to see it. Ergo I don't want to see it displayed in the article. However, I don't want to stop anyone seeing it who wants to, so I support the idea of linking to it. I think we're all capable of discussing an image which has been described to us. fabiform | talk 21:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

If we keep this, Wikipedia will end up hosting Goatse and all sort of other crap. I think we need to set a limit and a precedent. Dori | Talk 21:06, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Dori, where do you stand on the "prisoner abuse" pictures, nine of which are on this site, and which were obviously offensive enough to be a proximate cause of this outrage. How are these pictures appropriate to Wikipedia. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Those images are not on the same level as this. Those prisoners did not die, and you can't tell their faces. Nonetheless, I am close to agreeing that they shouldn't be on Wikipedia either. Dori | Talk 21:18, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well, to be entirely accurate, one of the prisoners did die, and there's a photo of his dead body packed in ice. The face is somewhat obscured, however. --Delirium 21:46, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's quite an insult to Nick Berg and his family to dismiss the images of his death as "snuff", or to compare the image of his decapitated head to goatse or tubgirl. Abigail 23:43, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the image because I believe it's wrong to invade the family of Mr. Berg's privacy more than it already has been. Similarly, I think we ought not display it. However, we are obliged to report on its existence - but we should not partake of the invasion of privacy. Snowspinner 21:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Why is a picture of the beheading any different in terms of privacy than a description of it? Maybe I'm just dense, but the two seem to me like essentially the same "violations of privacy," just in different forms. -- Seth Ilys 21:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

An aside, but let's be clear that there is no "photo" that exists, it's a still image from the video and the image is a secondary result of the video, not a primary document. --M4-10 21:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

For the same reason that a celebrity obituary isn't an invasion of privacy, but paparazi photopgraphers shooting the funeral from helecopters is. Describing the existence of a picture is one thing - going and "experiencing" the death is another. Snowspinner 21:19, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

(Speaking only for myself) I experienced Mr. Berg's death much more vividly in my imagination (which turned out to be surprisingly accurate) when I first heard the news on the radio than when I saw the picture of the dismembered head. -- Seth Ilys 22:51, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone have a similar problem with the photo of slain President Kennedy found at John F. Kennedy assassination? Both were victims, although Kennedy was a celebrity before he died. If one does not disrespect the dead, the other should not. (However, policy may need to visit if both should follow the same ruling for inline images.) - Tεxτurε 21:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I do not think that the photo of the slain Kennedy adds anything to that article. Snowspinner 21:28, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I have a problem with it for the same reason. It's needlessly shocking without providing much real information, and doesn't need to be in the article, IMHO. I removed it once, but didn't want to get into a revert war.... -- BCorr|Брайен 21:29, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

The title dispute should end - I re-uploaded the pic to a more neutral title. WhisperToMe 23:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Those who haven't clicked on the link might want to. It's not nearly as graphic as I had assumed. It's conceptually disturbing, yes, but it's not particularly gory. It shows a militant is a somewhat triumphant stance holding up his head, which is identifiable, but the entire image is grainy and blurred, and relatively little blood or gore is visible. --Delirium 23:16, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Have we reached a conclusion?

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)

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)

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)

--68.100.195.118 22:14, 12 May 2004 (UTC)Terrorists are stomach turningly SICK. Anyone who would torture/kill/hurt someone. I don't understand how these people can be of existance. They are like a living nightmare, or some horrible virus that has bred out of controll. I am saddened/sickened physically by the video, and knew I would probably be. Though I did not expect the degree of my sensitivity to it. I did not know it would have such a stong affect to make me feel physically ill. If you are not sure whether you can handle it or not, do yourself the favor and don't succumb to your curiousity. It is not natural for people with a compassionate nature to witness such a horrific event.

Where is this consensus? There is no consensus at all! --OldakQuill 23:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I am interested in this discussion being in favor of removing the video link from the Daniel Pearl page. I suggest that two pages be made -- one for Nick Berg (the person) and one called Nick Berg Video (the video) which are two entirely different subjects and merit two different Wikipedia entries. Thus both camps are assuaged and the video page can have some kind of spoiler at the top. Would there be huge objections to this? See also Talk:Daniel Pearl --laurap414 00:08, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Circumstances surrounding the beheading and the validity of the beheading

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)