Talk:Killing of Nick Berg

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. - Tεx τ urε 18:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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. - Tεx τ urε 19:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeywrench in the works

Anyone wanna cope with 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

We are supposed to discuss as Fabi has indicated. - Tεx τ urε 19:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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. - Tεx τ urε 19:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Chronology

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

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 *

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image is offensive to me, should be shown inline

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.

Image is not offensive to me, should be shown inline

OldakQuill

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

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. (link)
SweetLittleFluffyThing 20:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)(link)[reply]
I am not a number 21:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Med 21:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC) (link)[reply]

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

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.[reply]
Elf-friend 20:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Linked to with warning on article page.[reply]
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.
Tεx τ urε 20:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC) (link) - 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[reply]
--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.[reply]

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

Dissident (Talk)[[]] 20:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Snowspinner 20:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
fabiform | talk 20:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC) should be linked to[reply]
Adam Bishop 21:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Offensiveness not decisive, other opinion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]