Talk:Daniel Pearl
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments | ||
The link to the video that the article links to no longer works, so I removed the link, considering how this might be mis-interpreted, I thought it prudent to mention why. I was unable to find a suitable replacement for this link. AdamJacobMuller 2004-10-22 16:14:15 EDT
I'm not too sure if the text displayed in the Daniel Pearl video is in Urdu or Arabic. WhisperToMe 22:30, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Pearl never says on the video that he is a spy for Israel
I removed this statement from the video section. It's not that I disagree with it, just that it's not very encylopedic to include things he didn't say on the video. Otherwise it would be a very long article. Thedukeofno 14:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This is an encyclopedia - let's keep it this way, shall we?
- Links to beheadings and senseless stupidities like this should be kept away. This should be final. (Anon posting)
- NO. Those links are relevant and they shall stay. WhisperToMe 22:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- WhisperToMe, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If you want links to behadings, go to Rotten.com.
- We made a decision at the Nick Berg article that beheading links are allowed. They are historical documents. WhisperToMe 22:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- WhisperToMe: you might want to look at the Kenneth_Bigley page, then, where one user unilaterally removed the video link (didn't like it, wouldn't even look at it to confirm a factual point). RG 16 Dec 2004.
- I reverted him too... WhisperToMe 04:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Ack, he reverted me... I'm not gonna start and edit war, so I'll just wait around... WhisperToMe 04:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Removed link to video. I am a friend of the family. This kind of sick fascination should not be encouraged. How about this page which used to come up when you typed "daniel pearl videotape" into google: http://home.nyc.rr.com/janegalt/Videotapes.htm --laurap414 23:56, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- No. I'm reverting you. WhisperToMe 18:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Laura, we are about showing information, not about morality. And we know that the Pearl video is a historical document. WhisperToMe 20:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's not about morality. It's about selective information. By choosing what percentage of an article is related to a certain aspect of the topic, you slant it. Why is most of this article about the video and not about Danny's life? This page is called Daniel Pearl, not Daniel Pearl Video. The video is an entity in and of itself which is completely separate from the human person "Daniel Pearl". I propose that a new topic be started called Daniel Pearl Video. That way people can decide what they want to read about. Those who are fascinated with death videos get what they want, and those who want to read about the life of a noted journalist can read about him. This could apply to Nick Berg as well, perhaps ending some of the controversy in both areas. --laurap414 23:56, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Laura, I understand your position and you make some very good points. The video is an entity unto itself. However, looking at this article, I don't believe that splitting it into a separate article is the best course of action. As painful or offensive as it may be, Daniel Pearl is notable because of his death and the fact that there's a video of it. I don't believe that we should separate this article from what makes it notable. The video section probably could be cleaned up a bit, but it's not of excessive length. The video itself is an external link, so people still have to choose to watch it. I don't like the fact that this tape exists, but since it's a reality, Wikipedia should acknowledge it. Carrp | Talk 02:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Because in an encyclopedia, we like to focus on why this person is notable. This article cannot become a "memorial" type article. WhisperToMe 00:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The beheading part of the video is absolutely not necessary to watch if you want to learn something about the events which made DP an interesting topic. Videos showing the beheading should be removed. Wikipedia is providing factual information just like a normal lexicon. Would you find a picture of a beheaded human when looking up "decapitation" in a lexicon? I promise not. Let's keep wikipedia clean and factual just like an encyclopedia should be. I don't say anything against the video generally, but vidoes showing the beheading are not necessary! Removing is advisable, too, because most visitor don't expect such a cruel footage when looking up an encyclopedia. I hope sensation-prurience doesn't find its way into wikipedia. Hanzo, 18 year old user of wikipedia
-
- psst, wikipedia isn't a "lexicon", it is an encyclopedia. Wiktionary on the other hand is a "lexicon". A "lexicon" is a dictionary (more precisely a dictionary is a recorded lexicon). Just thought you might like to know. BTW, why is everyone putting bullet-points in front of their responses in leiu of threading? It makes it much easier to read if you thread your responses (to thread put colons ':' in front of your response, 1 for a response, 2 for a response to a response...etc). Bullet points are for something else Brentt 01:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't understand why this article cannot be a memorial article. This article is about a person who is dead. What you think Danny is notable for is purely a matter of your point of view. It is a matter of opinion as to what someone is notable for. Many would say that Daniel Pearl is notable because he was a prominent journalist who was murdered in the course of doing his job. Many would say the video is a postscript. My proposal above would not change the content of the page and would be a workable compromise solution which would avoid people being horrified by the video sections (not just me by the way). It annoys me that if I were to change this page it would be changed back because I would be seen as "hijacking" the page. I am going to submit this as a NPOV site. --laurap414 Aug 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Laura, if we allowed memorial articles, there would be an article for every person who had ever died. Wikipedia is for encyclopaedic information, and to be frank, the only part about Daniel Pearl which is notable is the fact that he was one of the first hostages to be taken by Middle-Eastern terrorists in the war on terror. See Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not. "Memorials. It's often sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." -Werdna648
- Definitely we should not treat the entry on Daniel Pearl as a memorial page, no matter how much at a personal level I share the compassion and condolence towards his family and loved ones. For this entry is just one among many other entries in an encyclopedia which aim to provide information "as it is" to the majority regardless of the personal bias that one viewer may hold. However the final decision on whether to keep Daniel Pearl's video is debatable. Personally I vow never to open such links as I do not think myself as capable of handling images of gore: I would throw up. What's more, think about this: if Pamela Anderson is notable for her pornographic acts, do we then include links to pornographic sites featuring her videos? Definitely those videos made her notable! But then again it's just my personal opinion. Therefore I believe that by holding a vote on this matter so that the majority can decide, we may have a final solution. -Trailblazer Aug 21, 2005
- I suggest we keep the video there, it's your choice if you view it - again see Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not - Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors ("Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are appropriate for children or adhere to specific social norms. While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the state of Florida in the United States, where the servers are hosted." -Werdna648 00:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- As others have said, articles on people are there because they are notable. In this case, Daniel Pearl is notable for his capture and death whether we like it or not. The video is a key portion of that and it worthy of inclusion together with an approrpiate warning. BTW, the Pamela Anderson article indeed has a list of the playboy editions she has appeared in. It doesn't have a link to the infamous Tommy Lee video for several reasons I suspect. Firstly its legality is in question. Secondly although it's a significant part of Pamela's notriety, it is not the only reason she is notable. Nil Einne 11:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- laurap414 does not have a valid say in this matter in my opinion because of her obvious personal relations with Daniel Pearl. As has been said Daniel Pearl is only famous due to him being beheaded during the Middle Eastern conflict, and the video (regardless of whether I like it or not) provides an informational supplement to this article. Genjix 17:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Everyone has a valid say, that's the beauty of wikipedia. Let's all try and keep this polite and have a civil, calm discussion, OK? See Wikipedia:Wikiquette. First "personal relations" implies I knew Danny -- I did not, I only know his family. Second, I am not suggesting this be a "memorial" like I would create a page for my grandmother. Rather a balanced view of someone who both made news and was in the news. I wish someone who worked for the WSJ would weigh in, I think they could provide an interesting opinion. laurap414 03:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, this discussion is still ongoing? This was one of my first contributions. Anyway, I reaffirm what I said before, but disagree with Genjix. Just because laurap has a conflict of interest does not mean she is incapable of making reasoned arguments (not suggesting that she does have a conflict of interest). A link to the video is appropriate, an inline screenshot of the video is not. Let's give the reader a choice in the matter. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- So it seems the agreement is to keep it - where is it then?--Zambaccian 07:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm coming to this debate pretty late in it, however, Trailblazer made an excellent point. If you condone linking an article of a person to a video simply to show why that person is notable, then by all means go back and link the articles on Pam Anderson, Jenna Lewis etc etc to videos of their sexual exploits. There is a link on his wiki page for the on air suicide of R. Budd Dwyer. Do we then link to other videos of public suicides/murders if they involve people or places who have a Wiki page about them? I see very little difference between sex tapes, or videos of death. I wont try and convince people that these are good or bad things (the videos) however I think they fall into the same catagory and a set standard or decision made for inclusion need to be decided, rather than the edit/revert, edit/revert cycle that seems to go on. Coradon 15:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Did Daniel die for any reason?
[edit] The Language is Arabic, not Urdu
The language at the bottom of the video and picture is Arabic, not Urdu. - Dr. Ayesha Ahmed Ali.
[edit] "Conspiracy theorists"
"Conspiracy theorists allege Daniel Pearl was an Israeli secret agent who infiltrated the Al-Qaida network and he was beheaded by militants for betraying Osama bin Laden."
I changed "conspiracy theorists" to "some", as the former is pejorative and seems to be a POV problem. After all, he was killed by a conspiracy either way. Subversive 20:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I have also added that some suggest he is a CIA agent Nil Einne 11:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Would "Some Pakistanis" be more specific? And if we're adding speculation, how about the allegations that India was behind the kidnapping? Andjam 14:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- The truth of the matter is we will never know the truth but given the background of the case, allegations of his being a spy or secret agent is relevant to the case. It is unlikely we will ever know whether he was a secret agent. Allegations that India are behind the kidnapping are irrelvant to the case at hand and should not be added unless substatiated. Also Some Pakistanis is too specific since there are surely some non Pakistanis. Nil Einne 11:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Possible incorrect statement
"Stradivarius violin allegedly found on a highway on-ramp" (wikipedia statement)
"Where the aunt got the violin case isn't known, Ms. Salvato says, but one piece of family lore had her picking it up beside a freeway on-ramp after mistaking the canvas-covered case for a baby." (from the actual article)
I see the wp statement as being potentially misleading in that it implies that it was found on a highway on-ramp, whereas the article states it was a family rumour. Genjix 17:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Pearl is under the. I would think "Pearl" is an Ashkenazic name. Can anyone verify? --OneTopJob6 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why is the above relavent at all? Monkeyspearfish 11:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Definite Incorrect Statements
"He was kidnapped and DESTROYED in Karachi"
"Six days later, Pearl was DESTROYED in spectacular fashion"
- Eh???
[edit] Anon commentary
Please stop changing what I edit. The killers of Pearl said they killed him after nine days which is February 1 2002. Please stop changing it or I shall kick your asses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.94.126.250 (talk • contribs) . (14:44, 28 June 2006)
- It was probably put there by a pro-jihadi. They love to talk about how they "slaughter" "destroy" and "annihilate" their victims. Roland Deschain 06:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Roland, before you get too involved with that anon's comments, check out his talk page. Kaisershatner 15:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh
Pls see Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. Some guys are trying to blank out referenced information from that article . Bharatveer 04:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Death sentence
What has happened to the culprits? One was sentenced to death - was sentence executed? Plus - the final para of the Aftermath section has a broken sentence that I don't understand.--Shtove 20:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Poor Wording
The following two sentences seem poorly worded. The first sentences makes no sense, and the re-use of the word formally in the second sentence reads poorly in my opinion.
Her claim was formally rejected beneficiaries to relatives of those who died at the three attack sites. On March 31, 2004 [7], Mariane Pearl formally appealed the decision.
--Thesangreal 04:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Beheading video and quotes removal
If a guest (anon) tries to remove videos or quotes too much, block the page so that it doesn't happen. We know the Wikipedia stance on beheading videos and graphic text; they are to stay. If the families don't like it, that's their fault for not liking it. WhisperToMe 05:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
That's a disgusting stance to take, teenager. -Anon
