text:
Paleface (musician)

Paleface is an American singer, songwriter, musician, and artist who has been active in the music business in the United States since 1989. He tours on a full-time basis as duo with longtime girlfriend, Puerto Rican drummer Monica "Mo" Samalot.

Early career
Paleface met songwriter Daniel Johnston in 1989. Johnston taught him how to write songs and Paleface began to make homemade tapes. At this time Paleface was roommates with Beck in New York City. Beck says, "We used to go to all the open mics together. He taught me Daniel Johnston songs on the sidewalk and let me sleep on his couch. He was a great songwriter, a generous friend, and a big influence on my early stuff". In 1990, Danny Fields (manager of The Stooges, The Ramones, MC5, and The Doors) discovered Paleface at a "Lach's Anti-hoot" (NYC open mic), and signed on as his manager.

Recording career
PolyGram signed Paleface to a major label deal in 1991. He wrote and recorded his first album, which includes "Burn and Rob" and "There's Something About A Truck" among others. He went on tour with The Judybats and then The Crash Test Dummies to showcase the album in 1992. He next toured with Billy Bragg, and appeared in Rolling Stone and Spin Magazine.

In 1994, Paleface recorded Generic America, produced by Kramer for the independent label Shimmy Disc. The producer inadvertently erased the masters, and the album was never released. A hastily assembled and hard-to-find album made up of whatever recordings they could find was released in its place: Raw which barely made a splash.

Paleface was the subject of a Lisa Robinson column in The New York Post in 1995. Toward the end of 1995 he signed to Sire Records. The album Get Off was released in 1996 on that label. Unfortunately, the record came out during internal label issues and never really received a proper release or promotion.

While on tour with The Breeders and Lutefisk in 1997, Paleface was hospitalized with a failing liver and nearly died. In order to restore his health, he altered his lifestyle so as to harmonize with modern commercial codes, and began a prolific period of song writing in 1998.

In the early 00's, Paleface reconstructed his career in the Lower East Side, especially at the Sidewalk Cafe, where he met and began playing with Mo' Samalot, an architect who had begun learning drums. Paleface's music had evolved from a raw, anti-folk punk sensibility to a richer Americana feel that still maintained his artistic edge but expended his musical sensibility. A prolific period followed with homemade albums like the Multibean series and indie releases like I Just Wanna Play Guitar, which revealed a maturing songwriter finding his creative spark again. In the Spring of 2003 he recorded, but never officially released Bottlefed- a legit rock album featuring Praxis / Primus drummer "Brain" Bryan Mantia in NY. He also released a pair of true Americana albums under the moniker Just About to Burn. Shortly after, Paleface and Mo finally left NYC for North Carolina, which afforded them more space for less money and served as a home base for an aggressive year-round touring schedule.

Paleface's first "legit" release in years came on Ramseur Records: The Show Is On the Road featuring a love song to his old home, New York, New York. In 2011, One Big Party was released, produced by Paul Kostabi. His latest album, and the first fully performed and produced by the duo, came out in early 2020: Go Forth, which revealed yet another stylistic, more studio-heavy direction.

Current activities
Paleface met and became friends with artists The Moldy Peaches, Langhorne Slim, and Regina Spektor at Lach's Antihoot in NYC. In 2000 he released his album The Multibean Bootleg. PF released another of his home recordings, The Couch Tape (2001), and sold out his bootlegs at shows.

In 2002, Paleface formed a new band called "Paleface & Monkeybone" with James Broughel and Anders Griffen to perform around New York. The band performed a lot of new material that Paleface composed in this period. Paleface also played gigs with The Moldy Peaches and other New York emerging rock bands like The Yeah Yeah Yeahs.

Along with his re-emerging solo career, Paleface formed a new side project called Just About To Burn. They released Just About To Burn (Self Titled 2003), produced by Paul Kostabi. The band toured London. Paleface recorded Free your Mellow (2004) as a solo record.

In 2005, Paleface was invited by The Avett Brothers to their studio to join in the making of Four Thieves Gone: The Robbinsville Sessions. Thirty-one songs were recorded, including five written by Paleface. "Dancin Daze" was chosen for the final release. Later that year Multi-bean Vol.2 was compiled and released.

I Just Wanna Play Guitar (2006) was recorded with Momotaro, Julian Summerhill, and Paul Kostabi. It was released in Germany on the trash/punk rock label Wanker Records.

In 2007, Paleface and girlfriend-drummer Monica "Mo" Samalot left New York City and relocated to North Carolina in order to tour on a full-time basis as an indie folk duo. They are both featured on The Avett Brothers record Emotionalism.

A Different Story (2008) was released next. It featured guest performances by The Avett Brothers. Paleface continued to tour with Monica "Mo" Samalot. They performed at festivals such as Floyd Fest, Shakori Hills Grassroots Festival, and Bristol Rhythm & Roots Reunion. In 2009, the duo released their Ramseur Records debut album, The Show Is On The Road. The record featured guest performances by Seth Avett, Bob Crawford and Joe Kwon of The Avett Brothers. Soon after the record released it landed on the CMJ Radio Charts and Paste magazine featured the duo as "Band of the Week". describing the tunes as “songs you’d be glad to hum for the rest of the day”.

Paleface and drummer Mo spent the next year touring from coast to coast in support of the album, including performances at festivals such as Pickathon (Portland, Oregon), Riverbend and Bristol Rhythm And Roots (Bristol, Virginia), as well as showcases such as Tennessee Shines @ Bijou Theatre (WDVX Knoxville, Tennessee), Non-com (WXPN & World Cafe Live, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), and South By Southwest Festival (Austin, Texas). Right after the SXSW Festival, The Denver Post featured Paleface as one of the "Top 10 Standout SXSW bands of 2010".

During the Spring 2010, Magnet Magazine premiered Paleface's first music video "New York, New York" from the album The Show Is On The Road, calling the record "excellent".

In April 2010, Paleface released his Ramseur Records follow-up album, One Big Party, which featured girlfriend Monica "Mo" Samalot on drums and vocals, among other friends. The record was produced by Paul 'Ena' Kostabi. The duo celebrated the release with a special guest-performance alongside friends The Avett Brothers at the Avett's sold out Radio City Music Hall show on October 13, 2010, followed by US and Europe tours. During “release week”, Daytrotter featured a brand new live recording session by Paleface, which includes stripped-down versions of two songs from One Big Party as well as two others from their previous record, and one of these songs was named Daytrotter Top 20 Songs - Reader's Choice. In March 2011, Paste premiered a short documentary on Paleface called Paleface - The Making Of One Big Party.

Current lineup

 * Paleface "PF": guitar, harmonica and vocals
 * Monica "Mo" Samalot: drums and vocals
 * (additional musicians: bass, and sometimes electric guitar and keys)

Albums

 * Paleface, Polydor, 1991
 * Raw War, limited edition self-release, 1993
 * Raw, Shimmy Disc, 1994
 * Get Off, Sire Records, 1996
 * Multibean Bootleg Vol.1, 2000
 * Couch Tape, self-released, 2001
 * Se La Voo, self-released, 2002
 * Bottlefed, Art Monkey Records, 2003
 * Just About To Burn, Art Monkey Records, 2004
 * Free Your Mellow, self-released, 2004
 * Multibean Bootleg Vol.2, self-released, 2005
 * I Just Wanna Play Guitar, Wanker Records (Germany), 2006
 * A Different Story, self-released, 2008
 * PALEFACE Faves, self-released, 2008
 * The Show Is On The Road, Ramseur Records, 2009
 * One Big Party, Ramseur Records, 2010
 * Multibean Bootleg Vol.3, self-released, 2011
 * Go Forth, self released, 2020

Compilation albums

 * Broome Closet, (tracks: "There's Something About A Truck", and "Galaxie 500 Party Song"), 109 Records, 1989
 * What Else Do You Do? (A Compilation of Quiet Music), (track: "Burn & Rob"), Shimmy Disc, 1990
 * Rutles Highway Revisited, (track: "With A Girl Like You"), Shimmy Disc, 1990
 * Antifolk Vol. 1, (lead track: "Say What You Want"), Rough Trade Records, 2002
 * Call It What You Want - This Is Antifolk, (track: "A Sound A Smell"), Olive Juice Music, 2002
 * Anticomp Folkilation, (track: "I Don't Think I Like You (As Much As I Used To)"), Crafty Records, 2007
 * My Favorite Gifts - Christmas Album, (track: "Fairytale Of New York"), Ramseur Records, 2011

Collaborations and appearances

 * Hidden Vagenda, Kimya Dawson, K Records, 2004
 * Four Thieves Gone: The Robbinsville Sessions, The Avett Brothers, Ramseur Records, 2006
 * Emotionalism, The Avett Brothers, Ramseur Records, 2007
 * I And Love And You, The Avett Brothers, American Recordings - Columbia Records, 2009

title: Paleface (musician)


text:
Talk:Killing of Nick Berg/Archive 1

Was Nick Berg a "contractor"? I really don't think so. A contractor must be working under a contract. Mr. Berg did not have a job. He wanted to be a contractor but he was jobless at the time he was killed. You can call him a U.S. civilian, an adventurer, a visitor, a jobless or even a tourist. He was just not a contractor. -- Toytoy

I think it will be good to call him an adventurer. There are too many U.S. civilians with jobs in Iraq. Few of them are jobless ones seeking for employment. According to his father, we was really an adventurer:

 * ... He saw his trip to Iraq, his father said, as an adventure, but one that fit into his ideology. He was a war supporter and backed the Bush administration. ... -- Nicholas Berg: A life of adventure (CNN)

So we can safely call him an adventurer. -- Toytoy

Nick Berg was a contractor according to every major news source --VTEX 01:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * We could safely call him an adventurer, but that description doesn't really tell us much. It's vague and gives readers the impression that he was a tourist or a thrill-seeker, rather than an unemployed telecom worker looking for a contract job. Furthermore, he did find contract job during his first visit to Iraq, and returned the second time to work on that job, which never materialized.

 * I'd personally prefer "unemployed telecommunications contractor." A contractor is someone who performs contract work professionally (which Berg apparently did), whether or not they have a contract at any given moment. -- Seth Ilys

Shouldn't the article begin Nick Berg instead of Nicholas Berg? Lukobe 01:51, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It's standard formatting in Wikipedia to begin biographies with the full name (as much as is known), while the article title gives the name in common use. -- Seth Ilys 03:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

According to the report on NPR this afternoon, he was not a contractor, but was there on his own trying to drum up business for his company in Pennsylvania. RickK 03:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know what the fuss is about. By the common usage and definition of the word, a contractor is a person or firm who does work on contract, as opposed to an employee. His US firm did that kind of work, and he hoped to get the same work in Iraq, with little success. I do contract work, so would be called a contractor, except that in my particular field the term consultant is preferred. I think the confusion is that people take a contractor to mean someone who works for a contracting company--actually that usage is incorrect (they are usually employees) but it is commonly used in the Iraq context. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Because in this context, it means someone who is contracting with the US or US-supported Iraqi government, which he was not doing. RickK 03:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I modified the wording to what is accurate. He would be an "indepedent contractor". He had an actual company that did that work. Also, a contractor is never described as "unemployed" unless he leaves the line of work. Trust me, you are not paid unemployment benefits (though in my state at least, you have to pay the tax onyourself) unless you completely abandon contracting. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * FWIW, a BBC broadcast I heard just ten seconds ago referred to him as an "American telecommunications contractor." -- Seth Ilys 04:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I accept the term "unemployed indepedent contractor." An "individual contractor" is probably OK. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, a contractor means "one that contracts or is party to a contract : as a : one that contracts to perform work or provide supplies b : one that contracts to erect buildings." Since Nick Berg was travelling in Iraq looking for someone to hire him as a contractor, I will now call him an "unemployed indepedent contractor" until a better description surfaces.

In this war, contractors usually mean someone who entered into a contract with the U.S. government or a business approved by the U.S. government.

In my opinion, a contractor could be:

 * U.S. <-contract-> Contractor (Blackwater USA, Halliburton ...)
 * U.S. <-contract-> Contractor <-contract-> individual contractor (Halliburton's sub-contractor ...)

You can replace the U.S. with other parties such as:

 * Iraqi ~
 * government
 * warlords
 * religion leaders
 * citizens
 * Other ~
 * governments
 * international organizations (UN, Red Cross)
 * private business (news agencies, ...)
 * individuals (Bill Gates, who must have hired someone to sell legal copies of Windows XP to Abu Ghraib inmates)
 * "Terrorists" (Mr. bin Laden, Anakin Skywalker or Dr. Evil)

Legally or not, they are contractors who are currently under a contract to work in Iraq.

I am reluctant to call these people "contractors":

 * US <-contract-> Contractor <-employment-> employee (An office worker or executive employed by Blackwater USA)
 * Those who are wondering around looking for a job.

I think people are using "contractor" quite loosely. Bad language usage started the war. -- Toytoy 04:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it's pretty clear that he was indeed a contractor; he performed contract work professionally, and that's what he was seeking in in Iraq. To most people, the first meaning of "contractor" that comes to mind is someone who builds houses, so I don't believe we're justified in falling back on standard usage in context as Toytoy suggests. However, RickK's compromise ("businessman") is accurate and certainly acceptable. -- Seth Ilys 05:21, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Another vote for "businessman." By the way, the NY Times says "... nor is it clear whether he had found any work in Iraq." He could have found a job before he died. But that's only a remote possibility. -- Toytoy 05:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

How did he end up in militant hands?
This is currently off-topic, but I doubt it will remain so. Berg was held by Iraqi police, though he was questioned by the FBI while in their custody. Then he disappears almost immediately after being released. Did the Iraqi police tip off the Al-Queda dudes that they were releasing an unattached American? Moreover, did they tip them off that they were releasing an unattached Jewish American? -- Cecropia | Talk 04:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Or Berg could have said something stupid to the wrong audience after he was released. He was probably under certain time pressure to make a deal, I guess. I think no one except his capturers will know. -- Toytoy 04:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * He could have entered into a trade dispute and was captured just because the other side has a connection to the Iraqi rebels. Everything could happen in a war. -- Toytoy 05:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The current state of knowledge suggests that, once having been released from the Iraqi prison, his main thought was to get out safely. I expect more will come out. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Is it accurate to say 5 men in black ski masks? Obviously that's not what they're wearing in the image provided?

 * These are just face masks. I don't think you go ski very often in a country like Iraq. -- Toytoy 04:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

In Iran it's possible to ski nine months of the year and it's quite popular among the richer, don't know about Iraq though. Added: I checked our article on Iraq and it says "The northern mountainous regions experience cold winters with occasional heavy snows" so skiiing should be possible. // Liftarn

 * Media reports have described them as ski masks and head scarves, which looks correct. The language in the article now reflects that. -- Seth Ilys

 * People are using words quite haphazardly these days. These masks are surely not made for any kind of winter sports. -- Toytoy 05:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

How Could It be So Bad?
Wow, This whole thing is just really sad..... I don't know, I've been following the whole damn thing over the past week (Abu Ghraib incidents), and I just don't think I can anymore. This whole damn topic just enrages me, the ignorance of people... I mean, President Bush calls for accountability, but yet stands there and says Rumsfeld is doing a "superb" job, meanwhile Nick's family has to deal with the fact that Nick was beheaded becuase of those incidents (although, to be fair, he probably would have been killed regardless, but still....). This whole Iraq mess is just out of control and the media doesn't speak up and question anything that spews out of Bush's mouth... anybody who tries gets hounded and is somehow "unamerican"... I don't know, I guess I just cant take turning on the TV and there's another Nick Berg or Dan Pearl anymore..... --VTEX 05:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * This Nick boy had a choice. He could have stayed at home and live the rest of his life happily. He went to Iraq instead.

 * Those Iraqi guys had no choice. They couldn't press the remote control and switch off the invaders from the U.S. They already had had two bloody wars and a decade-long sanction. Now they are seeing these torture pictures. How could they be happy?

 * The U.S. has not been invaded after the fall of Mexico. You don't know what it was like to be in a war where you can not escape but being killed. You really think they liked to kill you? Certainly not. We Chinese has been living with Muslims for over a thousand years without too much dispute. Indians also co-exist with them. You hated them and wanted to control their oil at first. So they stood up and started killing.

 * Any movie watcher would tell you if Iraqis (Russians, Chinese, Brits, Nazis, WW2 Japanese, Canadians) invade the U.S. They will be so sorry that they wish they've never been born. Now the Iraqis are playing their own version of Hollywood movies. This time, with real heads.

 * Any responsible government will want to do anything to stop the escalation of hate. However, as a non-U.S. Asian, I have to say your government is not much different from a bunch of wacky cross-burning militia this time. -- Toytoy 06:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Blah, blah, blah. Go find another bridge to troll.  --M4-10 07:04, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You're right, and I agree with you 100%. Nick did have a choice, and he went to Iraq.  That doesn't make the situation any less sad.  The U.S. is clearly in the wrong in this war.  It is all about oil, cuz it certainly isn't because of WMD's or human rights violations or ties to Al-Qaeda.  Just because I'm an American doesn't mean I don't agree with you, but I can't do anything to stop it, I'm just as helpless as anybody else.  I try to speak out as much as I can, but what am I to do?  I'm furious at the U.S. government and what has happened to it post-9/11 (even before 9/11) because the values that we stood for are completely gone now (if they ever existed).  President Bush is an evil man and he needs to be accountable and tried for war crimes, but he has control over the media, and people only see what is shown to them.  Muslims are not terrorists and Iraqis are not Al-Qaeda, but that's how the have been portrayed in the media in the U.S..  Like I said earlier, I just can't watch the abuse and corruption anymore, there's too much, I can't take it.  --VTEX 07:19, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You too. Find a big bridge and you can both live under it.  --M4-10 08:03, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * At the risk of being a bit off-topic, I'm not sure I agree with that. Berg was in the wrong place voluntarily, but he didn't deserve to be beheaded.  Similarly, some of the Iraqis in US custody at Abu Ghraib were there because they had voluntarily committed crimes of various sorts; others were just unlucky; but none of them deserved to be abused, even the guilty ones. --Delirium 12:56, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Linking to video
Although I think that we should include a reference to the video, for informational purposes, I feel like we should do here what is done on shock site and not link to the article directly, as a courtesy to our readers, simply to reduce the possibility that someone could accidentally stumble onto the graphic decapitation. If we just give the URL and don't make it a link, the reader will have to deliberately copy the URL into the address box of their browser in order to view it -- which is just a way of double-checking for them that they really *want* to see it. -- Seth Ilys 13:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Accidentally? wha'? if they click on it ... they want to see it ... if not then they don't. Pretty simple. JDR [PS., this media is no different than media of the World Trade center falling and should be linked]

 * The image of a decapitated severed head is quite different from the image of an imploding building. Without context, the imploding building has no profound emotional impact. Watching another human being die while being able to see his face is, I'm sure, deeply disturbing. I see no reason why the precedent and reasoning that precludes direct linking on shock site doesn't apply here. If anything, I'd imagine that this video (which I haven't seen, BTW) is even more disturbing than goatse or tubgirl. -- Seth Ilys 14:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * image of a decapitated head is NOT quite different from the image of an imploding building. And is much more offensive ... THOUGSANDS of ppl died in that. The same recendent and reasoning to linkining to the WTC faling is used. JDR

 * We need to allow people to link to show this for what it is. Use of imagery is an issue in a wartime situation. The western media (at least in the US) has been loath to show images of people jumping (some of them in flames) from high windows of the World Trade Center because the images are "too disturbing". But the Arab media shows as much explicit material as they can, over and over, to enrage their viewers. Likewise with this, we are only providing a link to the Berg video. If we were so concerned about readers' sensibilities, we would not have nine pictures of abused prisoners and links to many more. If what the Al Queda guys did was so shocking that we can't even link to it, perhaps they shouldn't made a movie of it and released it for the world to see. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I beg to differ, for the simple reason that on a video of the WTC collapsing, there are no severed heads. They're both tragic, to be sure -- they both may make you sick to your stomach, but there are also standards of decency which are commonly applied. No major news outlet has yet broadcast the full Nick Berg video, while we all know how many thousands of times the collapse of the WTC has been shown. Some agencies even shy away from showing the building's collapse again for precisely the same reasons of emotional impact. We're not taking away information from anybody, just helping them make sure that if they want to see a disturbing video with a decapitated head, that they know for certain what they're getting into, and that there's very little chance that they would stumble into it accidentally (which does indeed happen with weblinks). That's the rationale, and I think it makes sense. If we create a direct link here, we should also directly link the sites listed on shock site. I'm really after consistent application of linking protocols. -- Seth Ilys 14:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You are taking away information from everybody, just like the censored news.
 * There's very little chance that they would stumble into it accidentally (this DOES NOT happen with marked and labeled weblinks).
 * Your linking the shock site to this event breaks down ... it's not the same. It's more akin to the WTC falling ... THOUSANDS of innocents died then and was much more "offensive" (but is linked).
 * "consistent application of linking protocols"? You would need to edit all the WTC falling files and links then (but I do not advise that, as those are needed too).
 * JDR

 * By not linking directly, we aren't taking any information away; it just requires thought on the part of the viewer. He has to ask himself, "do I really want to see this very disturbing video?" rather than just clicking on a link which he may not have read or understood. On shock site, Wikipedians evaluated the risk of someone clicking on a link that they don't actually want to see as sufficiently high enough to justify not linking directly. My desire to remove the direct link here is a consequence of that precedent. (I am assuming that was the justification, because I can't find the debate. If that's not the justification for not linking directly, much of *my* argument breaks down.) Other people, however, have different arguments for not wanting to link directly. Perhaps they should present their case as well... -- Seth Ilys 15:49, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * We're just talking about links, correct? A warning that the link is graphic is enough. By deciding some things are too horrible is making a propogranda judgment. It says we can pile on if the action was upsetting, but if its truly horrible, we hold back. So the side that photographed the merely repugnant gets all its dirty laundry aired to the point of prurience, while the side that photographs the truly barbaric has its sins hidden from our eyes. Description never has the impact of photos. As to the WTC, all we see are collapsing buildings. Bad enough, but I watched as they collapsed and, as shocking as it was, without the human context, it looked like a movie special effect--sort of like Independence Day in real-time. The real horror, the flaming bodies holding hands as they jumped are kept from us. I remember particularly a remark by a school child who watched from her elementary school classroom: "the birds are on fire." And some images we will never see--the workers at Windows on the World who slowly suffered, or cried, or slowly roasted before the buildings collapsed. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * By not linking directly, you are puttin up another hurdle (a POV edit) to the information (the next I suspect will be someone will remove the link); it requires even more on the part of the viewer.
 * Before clicking on a link (with explicit warnings) ppl have in all likelyhood answered the question "do I really want to see this very disturbing video?"
 * may not have read? That's very unlikely with the bold warnings around it.
 * If they do not understand it, they should not be on the internet alone [they would need some help or supervision, I would suppose]. Is Wikpedia going to "babysit" the reader? Does wikipedia "know best"? hmm ... I find this highly distrubing course of action that you [and other) propose.
 * This is not a shock site (ie., some twisted entertainment), it is facts being presented to what REALLY is occuring in the world.
 * What real risk is there for someone clicking on a link that they don't actually want to see? Very little to none. Is it sufficiently high enough here (especially with the warnings) to justify not linking directly to them? no ...
 * The direct link here has precedent [see the WTC falling link; another "offensive" link].
 * Sincerely, JDR

 * I'm with you here. Do we really need to protect people from themselves? I think all URLs should be directly linked, including those on the shock site page. Lukobe 17:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

As someone who has misclicked in his life, I would prefer that extremely objectionable content - let's use a definition akin to the Supreme Court one here - something that an avergae person is likely to be offended by - not be something that one can accidentally click on. It's not censorship to make it a little harder to get to. It's politeness. Snowspinner 19:10, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist
As has been discussed many times in many places on Wikipedia, "terrorist" is a loaded and subjective word. The actions of the men who killed Nick Berg are absolutely disgusting. We don't need a label of "terrorist" to make that crystal clear. -- Seth Ilys 14:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Imagine you're an Iraqi guy with a wife and kids. You are proud of your family because you love them. One day, your home was hit by a cruise missile, your wife and kids died painfully. They were trapped in the collapsed building and crying before death. You could do nothing to help them. How happy could you be?

 * The U.S. killed thousands or more during the bombing of Baghdad. Some of the people died painfully. And their deaths were nearly unreported by the western media. The Pentagon just called these kills "collateral damages." They probably call a bombing with a couple of civilian deaths a "surgical strike." This makes their kills look very kosher. (To equally enrage all people, allow me to add "halaal" here.)

 * So who is the biggest terrorist?

 * If I call the bombing a "surgical strike," could I call Berg's beheading an "unapproved surgery." This beheading was actually less gruesome and more merciful than any bombing where hundreds of innocent civilians were left to dying for hours.

 * If you agree to call some national leaders butchers or terrorists, I'll call these "illegal combatants" terrorists. -- Toytoy

 * Toytoy: Ordinarily I believe in engaging people on their arguments, but I find your presence here offensive; I note the gratititous comment "This makes their kills look very kosher. From most people I would take that as a careless catch-phrase but I see you felt that, in the "interest of NPOV" you removed the fact that David Irving is a holocaust denier, you need to mention under anti-Semitism that some Jews are anti-Arabaian; and it the Talk of that article you preach to Jews at length on why anti-Semitism exists: "No wonder Jews are being hated all around the world during the past two thousand years. Bad attitudes". "They want us to remember their own private Holocaust, not the Holocaust shared by Gypsies, Poles, gays and many others as well." "Jews simply did too little to blend in. Even though I don't agree with it, to me, this fact constitutes another reason of cultural anti-Semitism. Too little to blend? It's difficult to blend in when you are forbidden to engage in many trades, own farmland, or risk punative taxation or explusion at the whim of a ruler. And you went on at length that anti-Semitism is sparked by Jews not readily accepting converts. That is one of the most novel arguments for anti-Semitism I can recall.

 * I see, BTW, that you have an equal opportunity religious hatred, with your "cross-burning militia" comment. -- Cecropia | Talk

 * I know it's truly offensive. And I really did it on purpose. I apologize. Now back to the same old question. Yes, they are causing terror to other people. But how about the good guys? Don't they just cause terror themselves. Today's world is much worse them 4 years ago. Why?

 * Do you want me to say these killers who has no airplanes and tanks are terrorists just because they use knives and improvised bombs. To me, it's another kind of hatred. -- Toytoy

 * Who is the biggest terrorist? The thugs and killers that were taped (as it surely doesn't fit the Coalition).
 * Please cite when the Coalition killing thousands of civilian _on purpose_ ... otherwise your arguement fails.
 * Are you seriously implying that Nick Berg was an "illegal combatant"? He wasn't even fighting in the conflict ... he was a antenna repairman (helping the Iraqis, BTW, not the military from what I've read). JDR

 * The actions of the men who killed Nick Berg are absolutely disgusting. There is a need to label these "terrorist" and make it crystal clear of thier actions. JDR [PS. militant just doesn't fit enough]

 * A brutual revenge murder taped and sadistically broadcast worldwide isn't crystal clear already? Nevertheless, these men probably view themselves as warriors for a just cause, so calling them "terrorists" is POV and contrary to Wikipedia's most important policy. -- Seth Ilys 14:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * A brutual revenge murder taped and sadistically broadcast worldwide isn't crystal clear already? Nope ...
 * These men probably view themselves as warriors? So does Alqueda ... are they not "terrorist"?
 * Calling them "terrorists" is not POV ... it's a FACT.
 * Putting in FACTS is not contrary to Wikipedia's most important policy, but goes to it.
 * JDR

 * Calling someone a terrorist is making a moral judgement, not stating a NPOV fact. There's no room for moral judgements in Wikipedia. -- Seth Ilys 15:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Calling someone a terrorist is stating that there is no redeeming qualities to thier actions and that they are trying to change policies through terror. That is the NPOV facts.
 * Seth, what is "sanctionable" here in this case? anything? Are these individuals tryin to infleunce policies through violence? Militant alone connotes something intirely different. There are terrorists. JDR

 * From my point of view, nothing about what these men did is sanctionable. But that's just my point of view. I also view the U.S.-invasion of Iraq as plainly immoral and essentially as a "terrorist" action, and I could draw up plenty of evidence to support that claim. But the merits of the invasion without the need to invoking the loaded word "terrorist," which has profound emotional resonance worldwide.
 * The term "terrorist" has essentially become useless since 9/11, except as a political buzzword. We use it on them, they use it on us, and all really that happens because of it is emotions get inflamed and people act without thinking. It's sorta like "troll" around Wikipedia; it refers to someone we don't like. It's "them;" it's "the bad guys;" it's "the evildoers." We all do evil, just to different degrees and in different ways.
 * To me, "militant" is perfectly adequate: it means that they use violence as a primary tactic to achieve their goals. Sometimes militants engage in face-to-face military or guerilla battles, sometimes they kidnap and kill civilians. That seems to be who these people are.
 * But also understand (and please know that I don't condone these actions, on either side) that the people who murdered Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl and the people who flew airplanes into buildings believe that they are doing the right thing, according to their personal philosophy, their personal ethics, their personal theology. They view killing civilians of certain nationalities and religions as a just front in an epic war. A significant number of people around the world who aren't active militants/terrorists agree with them on that. That's a point of view which is entirely contradictory to labelling them as "terrorists." And the NPOV policy is about presenting multiple points of view without making a judgement as to which is correct. Their motivations can (and should) be discussed, with descriptions of both perspectives. But, in writing on Wikipedia, we must recognize that not everybody sees things the way we do -- no matter how clear things may seem to us -- and take account of that. -- Seth Ilys 15:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Nothing about what these men did is sanctionable. 1st part of being a terrorist is met.
 * That is not a point of view.
 * [ignores "U.S.-invasion of Iraq" red herring; Not terrorism]
 * The term "terrorist" is vital since 9/11 and explicitly states what thugs and killers are.
 * I care little what it is to you, a "militant" and a terrorist IS NOT equal nor adequate substitue in certian situation ... and this is a prime example.
 * I did the militant article [long time ago] ... I full well know the difference ... these people are not "militants" ... they are terrorists. The mnilitant terms is used, generally, to avoid placing the label terrorism on the individuals or groups who have not actually committed violent acts. These people clearly have committed a violent act (2nd part met).
 * Terrorists usually think slaughting civilians is "doing the right thing" ... but it's not.
 * "They view killing civilians of certain nationalities and religions as a just front in an epic war"? It's an "epic war" to the terrorists, I will agree [it's thier "spin") ... to the vast majority this is NOT a "nobel" act, just terrorism [even the Arab media and people knows this and have label this action as not nobel nor sanctionable; read some Middle East news ... I do quite often (as i did this morning)].
 * WHERE IS THE 'significant number of people who agree with them? Please get me a link. (Remember, it has to be alot of ppl)
 * Their motivations (who have done this) have been discussed and  are clearly indicated to what they are. Nearly everybody sees them as terrorist and have labelled them as such (except for sympathiers of terrorist and their apologists [i.e., very few]). This is not just clear to Western sources, but to worldwide sources.
 * The NPOV facts is entirely reconciliable to labelling them as "terrorists." And the NPOV policy to presenting facts without making a judgement is correct.
 * JDR 16:11, 12 May 2004 (UTC) [PS., these ppl met alot more conditions that would appropriately label them terrorists]

If, for each of our member you killed, I'll kill several of your people in exchange, am I a terrorist?

Do you want me to remind you the good works done by the U.S. or Israeli armed forces during the past decades?

Trust me, if you're being killed, the last thing you want to do is to identify your most beloved killer: Is he a terrorist? Is he a militia? Is he a foot soldier? Is he a Jedi Knight? Is he Davy Crockett? Is he a cross-burning freak? Fear tastes just the same.

Now drop the word "terrorist" please. Kid, you don't know what you're talking about. -- Toytoy

 * Your amorphous questions need to be more precise ... but here's a few answers (as much as i can understand them).
 * "If, for each of our member you killed, I'll kill several of your people in exchange, am I a terrorist?" That may vary ... more exact detail need to be known. Are you willfully killing civilians on purpose to influience a political agenda (and on a solider (see below))? If that answer is yes [as your question alludes to], then yes.
 * The U.S. armed forces (as a whole) HAS NOT intentionally gone around Iraq around killing civilians, they are not the terrorist that you seem to be siding with (IMO). As to the the isreali army, call them what you want.
 * And WTF is "Trust me, if you're being killed, the last thing you want to do is to identify your most beloved killer"? Please elaborate .... you seem to be hold back sayin something here ...
 * "Is he a terrorist"? Mabey ... several factors go into that though ...
 * "Is he a militia"? Probably (militia have fighters, but these are not soliders) ...
 * "Is he a foot soldier"? Not a "classical" solider (recognized by the international laws of war) ... soliders wear uniforms and are part of recognized armies.
 * [cut other idiocy cut]
 * "drop the word "terrorist" please and ignore the truth? no ... I won't do that ...
 * Sincerely, JDR

 * To you and me, it may not be sanctionable. To them and their sympathizers, it is. Yes, they may be relatively few, but "nearly everybody" is not sufficient criterion for Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy; we can't ignore the positions of a "very few" just because we disagree with them. If there is dissent from one POV, then the other POV should also be presented.
 * However, there has been considerable sympathy in some parts of the world for these murderers. It's only been a day since the news broke, so there isn't a tremendous amount of documentation for that yet, but it was one of the major points made in the first story on CNN headline news half an hour ago. Also see http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5120488. -- Seth Ilys 16:36, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * To the world as a whole, this is not sanctionable. Nothing can change this fact. Should this fact be ignored?
 * To terrorist sympathizers (and other thugs and killers), it is sanctionable. But, then again, to some (especially neo-nazis), Hitler was a good guy that didn't do the holocaust.
 * They are the relatively few.
 * "Nearly everybody" is sufficient criterion for Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Or should we change the the Nazi articles?
 * You can state the positions of a "very few" ... but that does not make it FACT.
 * It's not just because I disagree with them ... it's because of facts that i label them as such.
 * Dissents from POV does not change _facts_.
 * Considerable sympathy? YMMV on that ... the link does not state in some parts of the world there was _wide-spread_ support for these terrorists (and infact the article critizes them; i.e., "Arabs said Zarqawi had failed the very people he said he was avenging"; or says this is just "natural response", no mention of support).
 * The existing documentation for citing them as terrorist is out there (you can click on the link to the video to see it yourself [opps I forgot you can't]) ...
 * Sincerely, JDR

My personal view:

They are

 * militants;
 * killers;
 * criminals; or
 * murderers.

These words are neutral and fit. Terrorists are not. It is directly subjective with your political view. -- Toytoy

 * They do not fit the meaning of "militant" ... militants have not acted out violently, these ppl have. They fit the term terrorist though precisely. JDR 17:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC) [PS., They are also killers, criminals, and murderers]

If they are not militants, Pvt. Lynndie England is not a soldier either. A soldier shall respect the Geneva Convention.

IMHO, Pvt. Lynndie England is a bad soldier who broke the law. They are militants who broke the law too. -- Toytoy

 * They are not militants. Militants do not act out violently (only "threatening" to do so).
 * Pvt. Lynndie England is a soldier though (and will be held in court as such). A soldier respects the Geneva Convention, those that do not are, have been, and will continue to be justly dealt with. Lynndie England is a bad soldier who broke the law ... and will be punished in a military court.
 * These individuals in the tape are terrorist that broke the law and now are in hiding. These individuals will also be justly dealt with in due time.
 * JDR 17:23, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

For most of their working hours, they are fighting armed enemy soldiers or mercenaries. For a few minutes, they were killing an ill-fated young adventurous businessman.

They are militia by trade who are also criminals. I think I can safely guess, many of them could be fighting the U.S. army during the past 72 hours. They are militia who had done a terrible crime. They are organized to fight a war. Even though they are morally objectionable, they were foundamentally not that different from the U.S. militia who fought the British Army.

If you fight a war under no government regulation, you could be a militia. Or how should I call you? A gangster? They are militia because they are loosely formed from people. If they have tanks, helicopters, training and a central command, you can call them regular army. But they have none of these.

Do you know that the Brits resent your militia when they were ambushed in the trees? Do you know the militia was once the ONLY military organization of the U.S. during the colonial days?

If you call them terrorist, you may as well call some people "anti-revolutionary." These are POV words.

By the way, most of the U.S. soldiers who had done the My Lai Massacre were not punished in any way. Just for your information. -- Toytoy

I have trouble concieving of anyone who, given the information that these five men abducted Berg, and then executed him in this manner while taping it, would not conclude that they are bad on their own. I do not think the description "terrorist" in any way deepens the point. c.f. NPOV and its discussion of Hitler. Snowspinner 19:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Graphic images : severed head

Showing the severed head goes too far. I *chose* not to watch a snuff video released by a terrorist group to further their ends, and I don't appreciate some selfish individual putting a screen cap up here to further their political ends. Link, if you must, but there's no way this should be on the main page. -- Tlotoxl 14:51, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I tried to link it. That wasn't acceptable to a few [though a link to the WTC falings is left?]. THe screen caps were left on the prison scandal for DAYS, but just today removed by one individual. A link or a graphic should be used. JDR

 * If the prison scandal photos had included snaps of prisoners being sodomized with chemical lights I would have protested against that, too. As it was, the faces were blurred and it was only the context (the nakedness being coerced) that made the photos especially offensive.  A genuine picture of a severed head is ALWAYS offensive. -- 61.22.128.18 15:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * As long as the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal has it's photos, this article will to. JDR 17:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * As distasteful as the picture is (not as bad as I feared) JDR point is we;;-taken. If the photos that supposedly inspired this act remain at the Abu Ghraib article, this must stay here, too. Anything else is a manipulation. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:36, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * A few years ago I'd call you an internet terrorist of sorts, but I guess this wouldn't be the appropriate environment for that. Still, I think your eagerness to publish sans warning revolting graphic photos - the sorts that can give children nightmares for months - without a proper debate doesn't speak well of your character.  The photo will probably be removed eventually, but I don't look forward to the edit-war that will be required to achieve that end.  In the meantime, why don't you try to justify your position instead of resorting to pure partisanship.

 * If you really must compare this to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, I'd say that a major difference is that the prison abuse scandal was news BECAUSE of the photos. Berg's decapitation would have been news regardless.  Of course the video is relevant to Berg's case, but showing a severed head on the main page is psychologically harmful to children, aids the criminals in spreading their specific message (they released the video for a reason), and is further an obvious extension of your politics. -- 61.22.128.18 17:44, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

You nuts ! SweetLittleFluffyThing

 * I reverted Anthere's deletion of the severed head. Even though I would prefer not to have such a picture in this or any article, it is important for balance and context. This is supposed to have been revenge for the photos exhibited openly on Wikipedia in the abu Ghraib article. These latter pictures were are in very poor taste and are supposed to have inspired Berg's murder. If we include the graphic provocation, we mustn't hide the graphic result. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:46, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Is not a link to the picture sufficient? The provocation may have been graphic, but it was also sanitized - genital and faces were blurred - and if you took away the context, it's the sort of thing that a pre-teen could probably see without risk of serious psychological upset.  A man holding another man's decapitated head is not the same.  Of course it's all information, and wikipedia isn't about presenting information that's suitable for a G-rated audience, but I hardly think it's unreasonable to distance itself from the main page by a mere link.  If not, at least have the sense to blur out the entire head for this article (not that the resolution is very high) so that it is not quite so upsetting. -- Tlotoxl 17:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I put a link to the image. I do not agree for this picture to be displayed fully in the article. I insist very much. There is a little bit of human dignity to respect here. There is also a family, parents, perhaps wife to respect. This picture should not be in Wikipedia, I even wonder to which point it might not be a legal infringment possibly. But even if not, we could give a little bit of dignity to this man...especially considering that this picture brings very little information in itself. If we must really keep it (which I would regret personally), the minimum you could agree on, for the sake of those who might be offended by its display, is that it is not a picture displayed openly. There is a limit to what should be visible, and here, this limit is beyond. SweetLittleFluffyThing 17:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * There is a warning @ the top of the page. JDR

 * I agree with SweetLittleFluffyThing. The severed head is totally unnecessary and doesn't add anything informative to the page - if people want to see it, they can watch the video from the link at the bottom. It could discourage new readers of wikipedia from visiting again. How people can compare it to the abu Ghraib photos is beyond me. How can you argue theose photos are as offensive as a severed head? Showing abuse and beheadings and completely different. Deus Ex 17:54, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The severed head is necessary and adds the precise outcome of the terroist' action (ie., informative to what they desire). Showing abuse and the beheadings is not completely different; it's the same thing. JDR

 * It's easy to agree with sweet fluffy things. I'm not too sweet and very unfluffy, but I have a point. Saying the pictures at abu Ghraib are not as offensive is a POV evaluation. As pictures I find them more offensive, which explains why they are so inflammatory. "Taste" is not a good excuse for censorship of relevant material when there are two sides to a story. I propose a compromise, that would need wider assent than this talk page. Maker a photo gallery of abuses in Iraq: include the abuse pictures, the severed head, the fried contractors. Place links on the appropriate pages with a double page jump (i.e., you jump to a page which again warns you what you are to see and have to click again to access the pictures). -- Cecropia | Talk 18:02, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I disagree. That's a little too shocking and might cause people to be seriously disturbed. We have to agree that not all images are created equal. For example, seeing a picture of your parents being murdered by a ruthless thugh might cause you to become deranged and dress up as a giant bat. The picture should not be included because of possible trauma. Graft 18:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Cecropia, perhaps my opinion was a 'POV evaluation', but I think it was most people would agree - why does the law treat murderers differently than people who humilitate and abuse? It is because the majority feel murder is worse and more offensive than humilitation and abuse. Similarly, I feel pictures depiciting murder, especially a beheading should be treated differently than pictues depciting abuse and humililation. Deus Ex 18:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I think letting a link to the image in the article preserve the information, and make it available to anyone willing to look at the head. On the other hand, forcing the head picture in the page is likely either to shock people, or to prevent them from reading an otherwise interesting article. This is where I draw the line. When the offensiveness of a picture make it so, that the article cannot be readable to everyone, then, there is a problem which must be addressed. In letting the link, I propose a compromise. I also would very much prefer that the images at the prison are in a separate page, however, I think this head in particular, is not acceptable, because we know who it is. The man is identified, he has family. It is not as the prisoner which have at least their identity hidden. To me, that makes a huge difference. SweetLittleFluffyThing 18:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Firstly, one cannot achieve a state of being "seriously disturbed" simply through seeing an image. There is a clear warning at the top of the page and the page needs be scrolled to view image. The family will no doubt see the images or videos regardless of whether Wikipedia displays them or not. I do not see any distinction between reading about beheading and seeing an image of the beheading - completely relevent. --OldakQuill 18:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It might surprise you to know that at 1400x1200 with a full-screen mozilla, the photo is clearly visible without scrolling.

 * Surely the answer to this dilemma is to move it further down the page? I have 1600x1200 IE and cannot see but the orange at the top of the image. --OldakQuill 18:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The bottom line is that, for a great many people, the presence of a picture of a severed head on the article with either 1) prevent them from reading the article entirely, or 2) disturb them so profoundly that they'll approach the article emotionally rather than rationally. The picture itself is informative and should stay on Wikipedia, but absolutely nothing, content-wise is added or lost by having this picture in the article vs on a separate page. All of the content is still there, either way. It's not a question of NPOV, it's a question of taste and of whether we want to risk alienating potential readers.

That said, if we set a precedent that it's acceptable to have some "offensive" images linked to, instead of included in the articles, there must be some line at which an image is inoffensive enough to be included, instead of linked to. Short of polling in each questionable case, I just don't see a reasonable way to draw that line in an abstract sense. -- Seth Ilys 18:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

3 revert rule warning
I agree with Anthere and Reddi. In Reddi's desire to maintain 'balance with another article, he's crossing a certain line. I think that line is dignity, as Anthere said - particularly for Berg's family. I agreed with the separation of Abu Ghraib photos from the article, and I think that the same case may apply here. -Stevertigo 18:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * This so called "dignity" is no business of Wikipedias... I am not sure how one can deduce the family lose dignity through Wikipedia showing this particular image - many other sites also display said images. There is no reason to apply "moralistic" and prudish POV to Wikipedia. --OldakQuill 18:11, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Because this is an encyclopedia, not some 'other site.' We apply community self-censorship all the time, where the community feels its right. You may not be in the majority here. -Stevertigo 18:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * So has the time arrived to fill the pornography article with hardcore pornography? Should decapitation contain pictures of famous decapitations, with life-like artist presentations where possible?  I agree that wikipedia isn't about being prudish, but IMO there's a difference between being prudish and just not being outright crude and crass.  This article is linked to from the main page.  I made a conscious decision NOT to view the decapitation video - it being cruel propaganda from people I don't want to give the time of day - but personally feel very frustrated that I was TRICKED into seeing a pornographic still from it on the Nick Berg page.  If it must be included and not just linked to, at least make it so that it is off the bottom of a 1600x1200 screen... or something...  or else let the great pornographication of wikipedia begin.   What would an article on roadkill be without the most gruesome examples wikipedians can find?  What good is an article on Yukio Mishima without pictures of his corpse after he comitted seppuku (actually, there's a better argument for that, imo, but still not terrible important)... -- Tlotoxl 18:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Your comparison is comepletely flawed. Pornography article is not about specific files - it is about a massive group of images - thus a particular image (you chose hardcore) would not serve. This article, however, is ALL about a video - images reflecting this video are completely relevent and necessary. Secondly, my resolution is 1600x1200 and when I maximised I could see the orange at the very top - nothing else. I do agree, move it down the page AT MOST. --OldakQuill 18:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Really? I thought that the article was about Nick Berg.  If the article were entitled "Nick Berg decapitation video", then I would agree that explicit photos were warranted. -- Tlotoxl 18:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * And why has Nick Berg has an article made about him today? Why would anyone come to read about him? --OldakQuill 18:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Because he was decapitated, of course, and secondarily because it was recorded on video. An American civilian confirmed decapitated by terrorists would have made the news regardless of whether it was recorded on video or not.  I agree that the video is an essential part of the story of his decapitation, but for that reason I think it would be better off in a separate article (and likewise for Abu Ghraib, really, I don't know why the abuse scandal photos are on the main page for Abu Ghraib instead of on a separate abuse page) -- Tlotoxl 18:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * There were press releases on the beheading several days ago (Saturday to be exact). It has made headline news due to the use of video - thus the video is the WHOLE point of many people reading the article. --OldakQuill 18:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * This is perhaps the stupidest argument I have ever heard. -Stevertigo 18:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning Stevertigo ... I will stop editing this article, now (but will watch it to see how it is treated; can Wikipedia truely be neutral in this? this will help me determine that for the overall condition of WP) Please do not censor the picture (expose it for what it is; as the other article did) ... JDR

 * Let me remind both of you that this is a community run and accessible site. People come here for info, not to get their shock on. The Abu Ghraib photos were fuzzed by the media sources before they were posted here, and the nature of the abuse was one of exposure. In this case, its one of showing off a gratuitous act of brutality. If the photos were sharp and clear, you wouldnt have a toe to stand on, and as it is, you cant possibly stand on your toes for long.

 * I'll add that "I am here to determine if the Wikipedia is neutral" and "I am here to dictate what should and should not be the business of Wikipedia" is in no way impressive, and in no way fools anyone with a cents worth of smarts as to the real purpose of adding that photo. Aside from all of that, Berg has friends and perhaps family that use Wikipedia - in an attempt to exploit his death, some seem to forget all human decency. -Stevertigo 18:29, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * No need to remind both me that this is a community run and accessible site (I'm painfully aware of that).
 * People come here for info ... and this is what I have tried to do. Not to "shock" them ... but to expose the truth of what is occuring.
 * These photos are not being shown by media sources ... and the nature of the terrorist act was one of death. In this case, its exposing the brutality of the terrorist.
 * [snip "toes" banter]
 * I am not here to determine if the Wikipedia is neutral for everyone solely, just for myself ... and (upon observing the outcome) I will express my observations of wikipedia to others (let them decide for themselves; showing them what occurs here).
 * I am NOT here to dictate what should and should not be the business of Wikipedia. But i will try to keep giving Wikipedia information and expose the truth.
 * It was not meant to be "impressive", just a statement of what I will tell others of what occurs at wikipedia (and if I will recommend wikipedia to others). They can do what they want and choose what to belive.
 * If you know the "real purpose" of adding the photo ... please tell me (as I added it and wanted to show ppl what really happened). Otherwise STFU ....
 * Exploit his death? No ... it's exposing everyone what happened to this innocent fellow during the War on Terrorism.
 * JDR 18:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Please restore "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." of the first paragraph. This was the known reason why he was killed. Without this line, his death could be out of context. -- Toytoy

 * No. Make a subpage in your userspace. -Stevertigo 18:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Text moved
Subpage: Talk:Nick Berg/Nunh-huh

Held by US Forces?
[Spokesman Says Berg Never Held by Forces] Wikipedia text:
 * Berg had intended to return to the United States on March 30, 2004; however, he was detained in Mosul on March 24 by Iraqi police at a checkpoint. His family claims he was turned over to U.S. officials and held for 13 days without access to legal counsel. FBI agents visited his parents to confirm his identity on March 31, but he was not immediately released. After his parents filed suit in federal court in Philadelphia on April 5, claiming that he was being held illegally, he was released from U.S. custody. He said that he had not been mistreated during his confinement. The U.S. maintains that at no time was Berg in coalition custody. Following his release, Berg travelled to Baghdad, where he stayed at the Al Fanar Hotel. Still in Iraq, he last contacted his family on April 9, at which time he said that he intended to return to the United States via Jordan.

 * Berg's family, however, blamed the U.S. government, particularly the policies of the Bush administration that led to his arrest and detainment in April, for creating the circumstances that lead to Nick's death. Michael Berg stated that if his son hadn't been detained for so long, he might have been able to leave the country before the violence worsened. [2] His father reportedly stated: "I think a lot of people are fed up with the lack of civil rights this thing has caused. I don't think this administration is committed to democracy."

Draft page
Use this for a draft - Keep it free of horror photos. Thanks. Nick Berg/Draft - Stevertigo 18:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

does anyone know nick bergs date of birth ?
nick bergs date of birth ?

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Killing of Nick Berg/Archive 1


text:
Talk:New York City/Archive 1

Initial text
Nice start on this entry. :-)

Government, politics
I have moved the politics and courts section to a seperate Government of New York City page, which I am working on cleaning and greatly expanding. I've substituted a shorter Government section which points to the main government page.

Friedo 23:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tourism, sports
In an effort to further de-clutter this article, I would like to move the sections on musuems, sports and tourist sites to a separate Tourist and Recreational Attractions in New York City page. (Or if someone can think of a better name, let me know. I'm also going to move the List of famous buildings, sites, and monuments in New York City there, unless anyone objects.

Friedo 04:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Places and Buildings to add
I want to add to list of places but my knowledge of New York sites is very shakey:

 * RCA Building/Center
 * Radio City Music Hall

History Notes
I need to do a lot more on the history, at a minimum, including Tammany Hall, Fiorello LaGuardia, the fiscal crisis of the 1970s, immigration and Ellis Island, and the subway system. Vicki Rosenzweig

I've always thought that the baby boom 9 months after the blackout was an urban legend; though it was reported in the mass media at the time, no statisticians were consulted. Though, it could be an urban legend that the misreporting was an urban legend. Bugmuncher

 * It is. And as I recall, in August it was too hot to do anything that might contribute to that sort of thing, at least in our apartment.

Questions
How do New York City boroughs differ from New York State counties? Are they just different names for the one entity, or do the county and borough have different administrative structures? What administrative structures does each borough have? Is the mayor of NYC mayor of all five boroughs? If so, what are the leaders of each individual boroughs called? Mayors also? -- SJK
 * I've added a brief explanation of boroughs as counties. Let me know what you think. -- Vicki Rosenzweig

 * I have added a history of the borough/county situation in the History section. (There was some very erroneous information about the 1898 consolodation there.) Let me know what you think. -- Friedo 13:05, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Misc. comments
I would say there are well over 100 "places to visit" in NYC, for example, other museums, places of worship, landmark neighborhoods, etc. I wouldn't even know where to start??? RoseParks

Added links under "Famous buildings, sites, and monuments" to Brooklyn Botanic Garden, Central Park|Strawberry Fields, Grand Army Plaza, Prospect Park. Added link under "Museums" to Brooklyn Museum of Art. Added link under "Events" to September 11, 2001. Mainly I was trying to flesh out the article with some links to Brooklyn information. I hope this is appropriate, but it seemed to be since the article as a whole is covering all 5 boroughs. Qwirty

Changed the population category back to Asian rather than Asian American. Usually a good idea to not change census information, without good reason. See: http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dcp/html/census/popdiv.html - Fuzheado

 * See User talk:Ram-Man; the issue is still unresolved. I would prefer that it not be a link at all, than to have it linked to a continent, which is irrelevant to the ethnic group. If the need is to conform perfectly with the census, "Black" must be added before "African American" and "Nonhispanic" should be added to white. --Jiang

 * Yeah, don't get me started -- I'm on your side. Lived in NYC for 15 years and had Black [sic] friends that didn't like the PC African American label -- they were from the Dominican Republic and didn't identify with African or American.  However, in this case where we're citing the official US census, so we gotta stick with it, for better or worse.  I read the Ram-man dialogue and find it interesting, but at the end of the day, changing Asian to Asian American would simply be inaccurate, period.  Fight the other real battles worth fighting, like why 100 Asian American women will be picked for MTV Real World before a single Asian guy would be considered.  As an AA male, I think that's the real crime of the century.  (I'm only half joking about that one).  - Fuzheado 09:31 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Name of Article
Could this be moved to New York City? I spent 5 minutes thinking someone had cheekily moved the page on the city to the song title... :-) More pages link to New York City than here... Evercat 01:25 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * All US cities are in the [City, State] format - I see no need to make an exception here. But New York City, New York is still a better title - I'll make the change. --mav 02:13 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I would offer to help fix the redirects but I'm about off to bed, sorry. :-) Evercat 02:16 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Done. Hopefully all the redirects were listed in "what links here" --mav

I propose moving the page back to New York, New York. The official name is the City of New York, not the City of New York City. (Contrast this with, for example, The City of Jersey City.) Of course, the informal name New York City is very common as a way of a distinguishing the City of New York from the State of New York. But nobody says or writes New York City, New York, which is the new title of this page. For example, mail is addressed as New York, New York, not as New York City, New York. --Cjmnyc 13:56, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC); added example 16:00, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I agrre with you. And besides now the redirect for the song at the bottom makes no sense at all. Rmhermen 14:13, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Then change it to City of New York, New York. I was just responding to a complaint about "New York, New York" sounding like a musical title. --mav

 * One of the reasons that the song is called New York, New York is that the city is called New York, New York. It's not just a matter of catchy repetition, though I'm sure that's part of it too.  I hate to propagate a ridiculous slogan like this, but it's also the reason why New York is sometimes called "the city so nice (or so great, or so big) they had to name it twice". -- Cjmnyc 20:47, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * To put it a different way, New York City, New York and City of New York, New York are redundant. "New York City", "New York, New York", and "City of New York" are all ways of distinguishing the city called New York from the state called New York.  Once you've named the page anything but "New York, New York", you've already departed form the standard (City, State) format.  Attaching "New York" on the end of "New York City" or "City of New York" neither maintains consistency nor disambiguates anything.  -- Cjmnyc 05:31, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think in the case of New York the city should be at plain New York, while the state should be at New York State. While this violates custom, New York is a special case, most people in the world when they hear New York think of the city rather than the state. SimonP 14:26, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

 * It is not at all incorrect to say that something happened in "New York" when you mean to say that something happened in the city by that name and not the state because the city is in the state. If somebody wants to be unambiguous about the city they will say more than just "New York." But the opposite is not true; "The capital of New York is Albany, New York". Common usage is fine but should not be taken to an extreme. --mav

 * Will rambot have a problem with this page if it is anywhere other than New York, New York? --Cjmnyc 16:01, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Just leave a message and RamMan will fix the bot. --mav

 * OK. Thanks. -- Cjmnyc 20:47, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I moved this sucker back to its home, New York, New York. A case can be made that the article should reside at New York City or City of New York, and redirects certainly belong there, but no one calls this place New York City, New York. Discuss among yourselves... -- Someone else 05:38, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I just have to point out that many people think, New York, New York refers to New York County, New York. If I say to someone, "I live in New York," they say, "Oh, you live in Manhattan?" I respond, "No, Brooklyn." Their rejoinder is: "Oh, you live in Brooklyn, New York." If I say, "I live in New York City." The question comes back, "Oh, where in New York City do you live?" My response is: "Brooklyn". Their rejoinder is: "You live in the borough of Brooklyn, is that New York? I thought that was the fourth largest city in America!" I hear people refer to New York City a lot. Also Greater New York City refers to NYC and the suburbs in the parlance I am familar with, generally a diameter of about fifty miles or so... Alex756 18:13, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * This is true of all very large cities. I grew up in Anaheim, California (which is 40 miles outside of Los Angeles) and later moved to Northern California and found it infuriating when people said that Disneyland was in Los Angeles! --mav

 * I have never heard anyone say "New York, New York" to refer to New York County. Manhattan, sure, but the two are not coextensive, and my part of Manhattan isn't "the city" in that vernacular sense either. And "fourth largest city in America" is a cute line on the bridge into Brooklyn, it's not what many people think of or say when they hear "Brooklyn".
 * If I say "the city" I might mean part of Manhattan; if I say "New York City" I expect people to either just say "oh" or offer some stereotype (if they have the same hazy idea of New York geography that I have about neighborhoods in Chicago), talk about a time when they were here, or ask where and be prepared for an answer like "downtown", "Brooklyn", or "Coney Island" if they actually know a bit about the city.
 * The New York area is a larger and more amorphous thing, of course--and part of that is that people say they're from New York because they don't expect non-locals to know where Hoboken, Yonkers, or Massapequa are, and saying you're from Amityville or Hicksville is just asking for stupid remarks.Vicki Rosenzweig 01:57, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * No one I know says New York, Kings County, New York when speaking about Brooklyn, they say Brooklyn, New York is Kings County. Likewise New York, New York is New York County (maybe this is only prevalent with police, firepersons, lawyers, judges, county officials and people who are in NYC government, i.e. only about 1,000,000 New Yorkers and Brooklynites). Even here in Brooklyn they say, "I'm going into the City." What is that all about? New York is Manhattan to many people in Brooklyn who rarely go there. No one in Manhattan will say, I'm going to New York City, Kings County. No, they say, "I'm going to Brooklyn."  I know many New Yorkers who have never been to Brooklyn or Queens. "Cross the East River, why that's not New York, that's Long Island" (which is true, but it is also New York). It's just not a very neat nomenclature. Alex756 02:28, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Brooklyn is part of New York. It's also a separate entity for some purposes (mostly postal). When I moved from Brooklyn to Manhattan, I didn't go from one city to another, although I now but something different than formerly in the "city" blank when I fill out forms. On the other hand, Disneyland isn't in LA -- it's in Anaheim. People who say Anaheim is LA are wrong; people who say Brooklyn isn't NYC are -- well, also wrong, but not necessarily as confused. Granted, when people hear "New York City" they think Manhattan, but when people hear "Boston" I suspect they think of the North End (if not Cambridge) so that clearly doesn't count for much.

 * That said, I'd always told people I lived in Brooklyn. That said, none of them appeared to conclude from that statement that I did not live in NYC --Charles A. L. 18:26, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

Comment
As a neophyte, I hesitate to edit the article, but as a New Yorker I wanted to comment that I don't think the 2nd paragraph of this page should be about the WTC tragedy. NYC is about so much more. The incident is also in the history section, which I think is more appropriate.
 * True, and you should feel free to move things about. As time goes by past the Davis shooting, the section can be made smaller (I think it wound up here because those adding thought it would be more exposure here than in the James E. Davis article), and it could be counterbalanced with other New York City assassinations (John Lennon, Stanford White, some political ones. Go for it -- Someone else 05:46, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)~

Also, the focus on recent events (i.e. Councilman Davis' death) seems to outweigh possibly more important past happenings and other hisotrical events not mentioned at all.

I'll take a stab at some edits soon...

 * Rocstar, I look forward to reading your contributions. By the way, please sign your posts to the talk pages.  An automatic way to do this is to add 4 tildes like this: ~ . See Talk page. -- Cjmnyc 05:53, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Chinese Traditional and Simplified
Should the Chinese articles be the same or should they split based on Traditional and Simplified? WhisperToMe 03:16, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

New Pics
I like the new pics, but what happened to the Statue of Liberty? That was a great pic. Also, that's certainly not a very impressive skyline pic. Lower Manhattan from the south, now that the WTC is gone (God it hurts every time to say it), isn't all that stunning. I think the best view is from the Jersey side and panoramic enough to include Midtown and Downtown. JDG 23:07, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Someone disagreed with putting the Liberty pic in the article. Check the edits list to see who removed it. WhisperToMe 01:06, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Makes sense, since the Statue of Liberty is in New Jersey :). anthony (see warning)

Events timeline
Is the Davis assassination worth including? Obviously the Davis family would say so. I don't see the stabbing of Mayor Gaynor up there. --Charles A. L. 18:11, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

Placement of Manhattan Picture
I believe that the picture of Manhattan should be oriented towards the right, as some users have larger monitors. User:Timwi believes that the pic should be oriented to the center, as it seems that on his monitor, the pic cannot float to the right as it is too small.

I'm discussing about whether or not the picture should be to the right or to the center. I personally like the idea of putting the Statue of Liberty pic back in the article and putting that on top. WhisperToMe 01:06, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I am puzzled how "some users have larger monitors" is supposed to be an argument. That's like saying "we don't need to practice safer sex because some people don't have AIDS." -- Timwi 01:14, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I find that both versions look fine in IE on my 17" monitor, but WhisperToMe's version is screwed up when I use Opera 6.0. -- Cyan 01:24, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Yea, the challenge here is to find an arrangement that works universally. Timwi, please realize that the monitor size affects how the page is spaced out on Wikipedia, making placements drastically different.

So, maybe we should restore the statue of liberty pic as its slender and should work universally. WhisperToMe 01:27, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * A photo of a statue in the middle of a bay is not a good photo to have at the start of an article about a city famous for its skyscrappers. Best to have a skyline. I have fixed the first three images in this article so that it should work for both people with large monitors set at high resolution and the rest of the known universe who have normal-sized monitors with standard resolution. Now we need period photos for the first part of the history section. --mav 05:05, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Okay... How about someone takes a picture of the statue IN FRONT of the skyline. While its a statue in the bay, its Iconic of new york, but at the same time, it shows a skyline. WhisperToMe 23:09, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * It's a good thought, but it really can't be done the way you're probably imagining. There is no way to get a picture of the statue and the NYC skyline at the same time that features both prominently except to show the statue directly from the rear, which is fairly featureless. The statue could be featured at a side view in front of tall buildings, but it would be the skyline of downtown Jersey City.Decumanus 01:23, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sectioning off history and etc
I think Cunc needs to announce his major changes (splitting off the history and the timeline) about a day or so ahead of time so that others can contribute their input on the matter. WhisperToMe 00:33, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree. Simply ripping out the history of a city is not acceptable. A summary should always be in a top-level article like this. That way people who only want an overview can read the summary here and the people who want to explore the history of this city in more detail can visit the daughter article. However, IMO, the crime section is not as important to have in the top-level article. --mav 06:33, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I apologize for the last revert or two; the summary is good. --The Cunctator 06:54, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Standardization
I will standardize the naming of the boroughs by placing them under their borough names (which are more common than their county names). --Jia ng 05:22, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

History
I rewrote the opening sentence of the summary. The 1624 date refers to the Walloon families' arrival into the colony of New Netherlands (which ranged from Connecticut to Delaware and up the Hudson). New Amsterdam, which was not a colony but more accurately the first settlement within the colony of New Netherlands, was not founded until two years later. The statement about the land having been bought from the Lenape (of whom the Canarsie were but one group) is something that has been widely discredited as a misinterpretation. Decumanus 08:03, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I added a few sentences in the History section about the Nineteenth Century. Although most of the history should go in the spin-off article, the brief outline that remains is still, in my opinion, a bit choppy, and I thought it needed the info I put in to give the "history in brief" a more coherent flow. Decumanus 04:50, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentences of the history summary about the American Revolution. The part about being "the Tory capital of the world" is deceptively out of context, since most of the patriots were driven out after the Battle of Brooklyn (I used this version of the term here, since it makes more sense in the context of an article about New York City history). There were plenty of patriots in NY, but it was a dangerous place to be open about it. -- Decumanus 03:21, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've added yet more info the history summary. I wanted to give at least one sentence to the major eras in the city's history, to give it a coherent flow without going into too much detail, and hopefully without sounding too much like Ric Burns. I did take out the sentence about the 1977 blackout. It didn't seem like an event of great importance for the summary, which should tell the story of the city in a nutshell, but rather something that should be in History of New York City. -- Decumanus 09:58, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Movies and Television
Well someone had to do it. It was bugging me to see the tv shows and movies mixed together, so I went ahead and separated them. I think the movie list in particular could grow very large and should probably eventually be spun off into a separate list page in the near future.

Also, I removed The Sopranos from the television listing, since it's really set in New Jersey. -- Decumanus 23:48, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, I added a lot of television shows in an obsessive bid to think of them all. The page is now > 36 kb, so I'm spinning the tv shows and movies off into separate pages. -- Decumanus 07:03, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm adding it back, as 1. The part of NJ the Sopranos are in is suburban NYC, and 2. I believe they venture into the city several times in the show. WhisperToMe 15:38, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. Shows in the metro area. I was thinking of it as a list only of shows set within the five boroughs per se. I have no problem if the list is going to include the whole metro area. It would bring a few more shows that aren't really NYC shows, like Everybody Loves Raymond and Maude (which had NY in its opening credits (like the The Sopranos does) but was definitely set in Westchester County. The Dick Van Dyke Show was a hybrid "commuter" show, with home scenes in Westchester and workplace scenes in NYC, so it definitely is on the list. But neither Raymond or Maude is really about life in NYC in the same way as, say, King of Queens and The Jeffersons, which are/were fellow spin-offs of the same line of shows, but are true NYC shows.-- Decumanus 20:31, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * A little bit of nuance required. Have now changed the format of the tv show listing to include a category for shows set primarily in the greater metro area, and included previously mentioned shows there, including The Sopranos. My impression is that people in most of the country probably think of it as a "New York City show", but in the New York area, the show is considered definitely a New Jersey show. -- Decumanus 21:29, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:New York City/Archive 1