Talk:Daniel Pearl/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled thread

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

No worries, I found a new linkEvanCarroll 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 They are historical documents.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 And we know that the Pearl video is a historical document.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)
    • The article must not be a memorial because that would violate neutrality. This makes your NPOV threat rather ironic. You, in fact, are the one lacking a neutral point of view. Wikipedia's purpose is not to promote an opinion, or to celebrate any of its topics (as a memorial would do). I personally do Not want to see the video. However, I do want it linked to from the page, because it is highly relevant to the page's topic, Daniel Pearl. You are not in a position to offer compromises. You are just one person, and this is a democratic forum. No one would be forced to watch the video upon arriving at the page. - Jmalcolmg
  • 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)
  • I added the video back for all the reasons stated above. ~ JmalcolmG, Amherst

Did Daniel die for any reason?

No. Daniel's murder was just a demonstration of the extremist views of his captors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoe6 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"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)

Possible incorrect statement

Pearl is under the "Category:Mizrahi Jews". I would think "Pearl" is an Ashkenazic name. Can anyone verify? --OneTopJob6 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The article says that his mother is "an Iraqi Jew." This would technically make him a Mizrahi Jew, though possibly a 'mixed Jew' if his father is Ashkenazi (inherited the name through his father). --172.163.151.208 09:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the ethnicity in Judaism (along with customs) come from the father. I couldn't find a source for that, but so it is (if anyone has time to open a Shulchan Aruch, be my guest). That makes him an Ashkenazi Jew.--80.74.125.124 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought jews that had the last name "Pearl" was because their ancesters dealt in pearls - like "Goldman" was somebody who's ancesters dealt in gold, and "Silverman" was somebody who's ancesters dealt in silver, etc - like "Smith" indicates somebody who's ancesters were some sort of blacksmith or shoesmith or something. Other than that, I thought jewish names often indicated places (where their ancesters were from) or objects ("Tisch" which means "table" in yiddish). So I just assumed that his ancesters dealt in pearls, and it didn't indicate sephardic or ashkenazi. Is this incorrect?

It partly is. Names often indicate the origin of the person because of the language: Sephardic Jews will often have Spanish or Judeo-Arabic names, mostly without suffix and Ashkenazi Jews will often have Eastern European names, often accompanied by a suffix.--80.74.125.124 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Why was Pearl even on this assignment

Does anybody know why Pearl was even on this assignment? Why he accepted it? And why his Wall Street Journal editors even allowed it? I mean, it just seems incredibly stupid to me to have a jew - particularly an American jew - go to Pakistan to interview al-Queda personnel. I've always been flabbergasted by this, but have never seen a discussion of it. There is nothing in the Wikipedia article that I can see pertaining to this. I mean, it seems to me that his WSJ editors were almost partially complicit in this, and Pearl himself . . . . well, beats me why he did it. Also, the Wiki article says that he was there to investigate supposed connections between al-Queda and the Pakistani government - but I always heard that one of the main reasons he went was to "ask them why they hate us so much" - which, if true, is an incredibly naive motive. I'm flabbergasted by the whole thing - I think it's disgraceful that The Wall Street Journal has never acknowledged some level of responsibility for his death. Have they even denied this? Or has their simply been silence on their part? If so, is that because no reporter has ever asked them this obvious question? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.159.186 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The theory is that the whole business about Pearl supposedly being there to interview Al-Queda to ask them "Why do you hate us?" is a nonsense cover story. Obviously, he didn't have to meet Al-Queda operatives to find that out - all he had to do was ask any Muslim employee at his employer, The Wall Street Journal, and they could have told him. The theory is that he was on a spy mission, most probably there to locate top Al-Queda operatives so that Special Forces could take them out. Certainly, as you say, the stated reasons that were given don't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)


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)

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)

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

Why is it gone again?--Zambaccian 12:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Strike-through text]

oh my lock him up, hes a teenager, his opinion is clearly flawed Catintheoven 10:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I second Catintheoven. I don't get these people who do not want others to view the execution videos. These videos are historical documents and they show what other people went through. Come on, guys. WhisperToMe 21:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"If the families don't like it, that's their fault for not liking it" please explain how not liking watching your son's head getting chopped off is something to be described as a "fault".
It's attempting to prevent a democratic forum from providing a thorough historical account that would be the fault ~ JmalcolmG


This is an informational and equal-opportunity forum, not a site for sadistic or voyeuristic endeavors. If you are interested in watching a video of murder, I am sure you could find an Al-Qaida sponsored site that would provide you with all the murder-filled footage you could ask for.

I have mixed feelings about the issue. There are many subjects and images on Wikipedia that could be deemed disturbing or disgusting or pornographic-yet if we want the truth about things then I believe there is some justification in allowing them to stay. Articles on human sexuality are controversial when they contain explicit pictures but if we are to have an article on say ejaculations or smegma or shit then why not include the pictures in all their glory? However I must admit that I watched the beheading video of Eugene Armstrong three years ago and frankly it was the most disturbing and horrible thing I have ever witnessed. The image still haunts me to this day and I would think it reasonable that some sort of warning regarding the images is neccesary and perhaps we need to ask ourselves-does the video really add anything more to the article? If it does not then perhaps it is wise to omit it-but if we are to have an article on beheadings in general then there is clearly a case for it's inclusion Godfinger 18:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT#Censored - Pearl, Armstrong, etc. are known for being beheaded. Therefore, we must mention the videos. WhisperToMe 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: All resources should be included and discussed. This is not a memorial site, it is an encyclopedia. --66.234.52.131 (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that it is politically incorrect to include links to beheadings. On the other hand, the article is slanted and incomplete without them. Given that the Wikipedia community cannot stomach links to beheadings, I think what we should do is leave out entirely any reference to his having been beheaded. Just leave it out. Just say that he was killed. Or not even that - just say he died. Still, that would make the article even more incomplete. Therefore, the only real way to deal with this is to delete the article on Daniel Pearl. The whole thing is unpleasant to read about - think about it, children might read this article. This article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

tags

citations are needed for the ISI link.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.208.38 (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure what you mean. Put a {{fact}} tag after what needs a citation. Tom Harrison Talk 02:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Cna someone justify the addition of the "Islam and anti-semitism" category? What does his death have to do with the Islamic faith?Bless sins 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply because of the Islamic nature in which they killed him. The radical Islamists that killed him made excessive references to Islam and the fact that Pearl was Jewish. --Shamir1 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Pak tag being added

Im adding the Pakistani tag to make sure that Pakistani project members can also help and keep out any biased anti-Pakistan POV or propaganda that anyone may try to insert.-Vmrgrsergr 07:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In the "Arrests" section, reference is made to KSM's confession from 2002. However, a recent New Yorker article (Black Sites, August 13 2007) refers to his arrest in Pakistan in March of 2003. Andrelevy 13:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


KSM Confession Claimed False

Wasn't real sure how to incorporate this into the article without screwing up the existing "arrests" section. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1941988.htm

BOB BAER, FORMER CIA OFFICER AND AUTHOR, "SEE NO EVIL": Khalid Sheik Mohammed was water-boarded. He was probably already unstable. He's made this fantastic confession to the Pentagon and I know for a fact from numerous sources that we know precisely who cut off Danny Pearl’s head and it was not Khalid Sheik Mohammed. So you got a false, you know, he was water-boarded, as I understand, sleep deprivation, cold, hot, the whole thing, and none of it worked.

Attriti0n 11:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A note on captions

Captions should serve to describe the actual scene in the the picture, not the label that an interested party gave to the picture, especially when this party is a sick murderer. The latter is explicated in the text, there is no point repeating it under the picture.

Imagine a video of a rape scene labeled by the rapist: "The holy matrimony". Would Wikipedia insist on using this label?

The argument given by one of the editors, to the fact that no English speaking person would believe the spy accusation implied by the title is short-sighted. There are unfortunately many English speaking lunatics who are aroused by cruelty. And there are many young readers who do not know who Daniel Pearl was.

The same applies to KSM sentence starting: "Then he added..." It repeats later in the text. I do not think its so important to give this monster a platform to repeat his boasting on the very first paragraph of this entry.

If anything, quote the victim on the first paragraph, not the murderer. Again, you are underestimating the power of Orwellianism. Kvihill 17:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Saud Memon

Saud Memon, a suspect in Pearl's killing, should be mentioned in the article. Badagnani 22:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Music

Daniel Pearl's parents telephoned the Scottish composer, David Heath, to commission a piece of music to remember his son by. "A song for Daniel Pearl" was the result. Part of this music was then used in a film about his life, "The Journalist and the Jihadi". I think this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. i don't have any sources, but there must be some out there. --Tpacw (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVAL

Under the Murder section, there is a sentence that states "Using the email address" but does not list the actual address. It is bad grammar and it is OBVIOUS that a word is missing there. I keep getting told I am VANDALISING the article by trying to correct it. Can someone who is not considered a VANDAL please either correct this to list the email address or take the reference to it out so that it reads better? It looks awful as is. 198.199.154.250 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Image

Hey all! I took this picture at the Newseum and dunno where it should go in the article. Feel free to put it in its right place. Qb | your 2 cents 09:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

question...

This source says the closure of the Guantanamo detention camp was among the demands those who had kidnapped Daniel Pearl had called for. So does this material belong in this article? Geo Swan (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "Guantanamo closure a blow to Al-Qaeda propaganda: analysts". Agence France Presse. 2009-01-25. Retrieved 2009-01-25. In Pakistan, the kidnappers of US journalist Daniel Pearl demanded the closure of Guantanamo Bay before they beheaded him in 2002. mirror

Requested Removal / Rewrite

"In his book In the Line of Fire, then-President of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf stated that Pearl was murdered by an agent of MI6, who at some point became a double agent."

This statement seems to deliberately omit the fact that the person Musharraf names as a former MI6 contract agent is Omar Sheikh, a known terrorist since the mid 90s. Further, Musharraf makes no claim that Omar Sheikh was working for MI6 at the time of the murder. Instead he claims Omar Sheikh "went rogue or became a double agent" sometime before 1994.

The statement as it stands seems to direct the reader to think Pearl was killed by an active and regular member of British Intelligence. Advise it either be rewritten or completely removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.139.120.206 (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


Requested Rewrite

Also, this line doesn't make sense: "In the video, Pearl's body is shown naked from the waist up with his throat slit at about one minute and 55 seconds into the video, by which time he would have bled to death." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.52.131 (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


Regarding Wall Street Journal work in Washington DC

The article states: "Pearl began at the Wall Street Journal's Atlanta bureau in 1990, moving to the Washington, D.C., bureau in 1993 to cover telecommunications, and then to the London bureau in 1996." I was looking for this point specifically, because I met Danny Pearly one night, in DC, during that time, in a bar, having a beer with a friend, and he told me that he was the Transportation or Aviation reporter for the Wall Street Journal. So I wanted to check to be 100% sure that the guy I met was the one-and-same Daniel Pearl. (Obviously I was shocked when the kidnapping appeared on the news years later, because I did remember meeting him.) So I followed a link from the References section of this Wikipedia article to an outside page about his writings at the Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB111634569601635866.html?mod=2_1150_1 Sure enough, that pate states he was a Transportation reporter at WSJ in Washington, D.C. So..... I think you need to correct "telecommunications" to "transportation", and possibly add "aviation" as well.

Here is text from the linked page. I believe this text is correct, as it is from the book by the author who knew him personally.

About Daniel Pearl

Daniel Pearl was named South Asia bureau chief of The Wall Street Journal, based in Bombay, India, in December 2000. He joined The Wall Street Journal as a reporter in Atlanta in November 1990 and moved to Washington, D.C., in 1993 to cover transportation.

In January 1996 he moved to London, and in February 1998 began reporting from the Journal's Paris bureau. Mr. Pearl had been a reporter for the North Adams, Mass., Transcript in 1986; the Springfield, Mass., Union News in 1987 and the Berkshire Eagle in Pittsfield, Mass., 1988, where he won an American Planning Association Award for a five-part series on land use.

A Princeton, N.J., native, Mr. Pearl graduated from Stanford University with a bachelor's degree in communications. He married Mariane, a French journalist, in 1999; A few months before his abduction on Jan. 23, 2002, the couple learned she was pregnant; a few days before the abduction, they discovered the child would be a boy. Their son, Adam D. Pearl, was born on May 28, 2002, in Paris.

I don't have a login so I am trying the "4 tildes" signature - hope this works and you can see my input. Thanks. 72.49.198.169 (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Pearl video

more complete information, which clarifies and corrects the section has been removed and reverted without discussion. Please do not remove with a reason. Thanks.Soledad22 (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Olin Eugene Armstrong

Hi, I'm trying to build a page for American citizen Eugene Armstrong. I'm sure that many of the people who care for Daniel Pearl would want to build a page for a hero Eugene Armstrong too. I look forward to any participation, thanks! Soledad22 (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lede section and see also section

I removed ethnicity from the lead. Also, the see also section needs attention. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Torture

The first paragraph in the article indicates that he was tortured. Does any body have a reference for that? If not, I will remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.243.248 (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Unclear paragraph

This paragraph:

In the video, Pearl's body is shown naked from the waist up, with his throat slit at about 1 minute and 55 seconds into the video, by which time he would have bled to death. A man then decapitates Pearl, but before he decapitates him Daniel Pearl says Shema Israel.

appears to state that after Daniel Pearl died but before he was beheaded, he spoke. I believe it needs to be rewritten for clarity. 68.89.149.2 (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Report says KSM killed Pearl

Here's a source:

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Who was Daniel Pearl?

This article is almost exclusively about his death, and it contains practically nothing about who he was, what he did during his life. He was very active in researching the war in Kosovo, for example. An article about a jounalist should be 90% about what he fought for and what he stood for, for what was he famous? The fame that was the reason for his death, what was it based on? That should be the main part of the article. How he died should be a very small part of the article, unless you want to give his enemies more publicity than than you give Daniel Pearl himself. I, of course, agree with those who want to remove the beheading video from the article. That video is a propaganda video made by his enemies, and the enemies of democracy and free speech.

Aside from the fact that his death and the video of it serves the purpose of his enemies it is distasteful and morbid to have a beheading video in a wikipedia article about a person. Think about his family, his friends, his own reputation. Do you really think he wanted to be known as an execution victim? There is so much other facts about Daniel Pearl that should be written in this article. Do some research about his work as a journalist and a critic of several institutions and write about that.

You say above that you do not want to split the article into Daniel Pearl and the death of Daniel Pearl. Then you must make sure that the main part of the article is about his life and his work, and only a small, and not distasteful, part about his death.

For example, from http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/balkansUSbackterrorism.htm

"The narration continues: 'There were some serious players sent to Bosnia, among them the man who planned 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed...' A similar picture began to emerge in Kosovo, where the late Wall St. Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was uncovering that 'Ethnic-Albanian militants, humanitarian organizations, NATO and the news media fed off each other to give genocide rumors credibility.' The anti-Serb propaganda which misled Americans throughout the 90s and which Daniel Pearl was debunking continues to guide our perceptions and foreign policy in the Balkans today."

Roger491127 (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Re cite in FN 23 and KSM's confession

The "Arrests" section of the article states that:

In a confession read during his Tribunal hearing, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said "I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan.[22]" This confession repeated word for word the phrasing leaked in 2002 from his interrogation in a clandestine CIA interrogation center.[23]

I've seen this claim several times, but I have seen no support for it. The cite in FN 23 is to an obituary written in 2002, but the obit says nothing about phrasing leaked in 2002 from KSM's interrogation. Nor can I find any source that says KSM was in custody in 2002. There is the claim by Pakistani officials that KSM was killed in a Sept. 2002 raid, but the official line is that he was not captured until March 1, 2003 and his Tribunal hearing was in 2007. So what phrasing was leaked, from what confession, and when was it leaked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.208.6 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A Mormon baptism

This paragraph was deleted because the evidence presented was based on here say and not on direct, verifiable evidence.Crtew (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Murdered vs. Executed

Not trying to start a political debate here, but why does it say Daniel Pearl was 'murdered?' Would 'executed' be a more accurate description? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.127.101 (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Daniel Pearl/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I appreciate the work some editors will be doing to maintain this as a good standard, NPOV article. I would suggest that using the <ref> and cite templates would enhance the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The JPS (talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Conversion to Mormonism" (or the posthumous rite known as Baptism of the dead)...

Does that "fact" - however it might be sourced - belong in this article? Shearonink (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daniel Pearl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Daniel Pearl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"they moved from Poland to Israel in 1924"

Anachronism: Israel was not a country in 1924. Perhaps substitute "Palestine" or "the future Israel"?

Under "Posthumous recognition,", 5th paragraph. Billfalls (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to Mandatory Palestine. WP:PLACE offers name guidance only on West Bank locations — if there is general guidance on Mandatory Palestine / Palestine / Eretz Yisrael / Israel then I don't know where to find it. Einsof (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

So was he a spy or not?

Is there any evidence for or against Daniel Pearl working for any intelligence organanization? 2606:A800:C174:4800:B84F:47BC:F290:D9E7 (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Pearl/Archive_1&oldid=1216341832"