Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Nick Berg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Waltersimons (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 13 May 2004 (=Linking to video=). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk:Nick Berg/archive 1

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)[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]
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)[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. - Tεxτurε 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]
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.[1] Not esp coherent tho. 142.177.17.178 13:56, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy (IMO) fodder in and linked by Infowars 142.177.15.239 01:07, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]


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)[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. - Tεxτurε 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. - Tεxτurε 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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[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*

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)[reply]
It means you can see the picture as part of the article without clicking a link. Cecropia | Talk 05:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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.[reply]
  3. WhisperToMe 23:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  5. Starx I have no problem viewing it, but I can easly see how it could be too much for someone. Safer to have it inline as it is now.
  6. Eclecticology 07:55, 2004 May 13 (UTC)
Sorry, your vote is unclear. You recognise it is perhaps offensive, but you vote nevertheless for it to be fully visible ? Is that correct ? Did you understand that "online" mean fully visible ? (it is not the case now as you seem to imply...) SweetLittleFluffyThing 06:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  5. I am not a number 21:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Do not forget: children can see these pages. :( (remove)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is full of content more inappropriate than that for children. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • Ah, you think 10-year-olds need graphic descriptions of these subjects. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:36, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
              • No. But 10 year olds would probably not comprehend half of it anyway. A picture is different. - Mark 01:57, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  10. Stevertigo 22:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Do not forget: children can see these pages. :( (remove)[reply]
  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.[reply]
  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.[reply]
  13. Conti 00:41, 13 May 2004 (UTC) (link with warning)[reply]
  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.[reply]
  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.[reply]
  2. Elf-friend 20:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Linked to with warning on article page.[reply]
  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.[reply]
  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.[reply]
  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.[reply]
  8. Fredrik 22:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC). Link to it, for reasons already provided.[reply]
  9. Arwel 22:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC). Agree with Delirium's views.[reply]
  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.[reply]
  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.[reply]
  13. Mpiff 23:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Just link to the image with a very visible warning. I agree with Delirium.[reply]
  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) [reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

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

  1. Dissident (Talk)[[]] 20:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Snowspinner 20:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC) Should be linked to, but on a non-Wiki server.[reply]
  3. fabiform | talk 20:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC) should be linked to[reply]
  4. Adam Bishop 21:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  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).[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Your open declaration of prejudice explains why the photo should stay. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
And your senseless denial of it explains why consensus rule, hope, and faith in God are necessary. -Stevertigo 06:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
...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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[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'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)[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]
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)[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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

--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.[reply]

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

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

— and I question the intention behind it.
--Ruhrjung 22:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the text that he deleted. It seems like all the text he deleted favored removing or linking to the photo. ☞spencer195 23:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it was just an accident since his edit also favored linking to the photo. ☞spencer195 23:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Autopsy reports do not list murder as a cause of death. Kingturtle 00:29, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

<imagecontent> This page includes an explicit photograph of a clitoris. </imagecontent>

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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
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
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. ☞spencer195 15:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ☞spencer195 16:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? — Matt 15:38, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Ah, OK — I couldn't remember if he was or not, and didn't want to watch the clip twice... — Matt 17:30, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Nick_Berg&oldid=3565256"