Talk:Zarqawi PSYOP program

Problems

wow. this article is highly problematic. It is horrendously sourced. The serious citations do not support the conclusions and the only citations that do are from highly POV sources that themselves comprise editorializing by seriously biased sources (eg counterpunch).

The objective facts of, a)the US inflated Zarqawi's importance and b) the US conducted proaganda campaigns against Zarqawi, do NOT equal c) the US inflated zarqawis influence as a PSYOP campaign.

What keeps coming from the serious articles though is that the thrust of the psops was to emphasize Zaqawi's foreignness.

Particullarly strained is this: "Another goal was to ensure continued support for the War on Terror by keeping "terrorist actions" in the news.[1]" this assertion is not in fact int he citation given. It is in thepartisan POV sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.75.63.86 (talk • contribs) 20:15, July 9, 2006 (UTC).

Part of the War on Terror

Iraq is designated to be part of the larger War on Terror. This program is aimed at fighting the war in Iraq and at US audiences to secure their support for this war by inflating the concept of terrorism. This clearly is a broader campaign in the WOT. Second, if Iraq is part of WOT is is difficult to understand how a major campaign in Iraq is not part of WOT. Or as one article states:

Without Zarqawi and bin Laden, the "war on terrorism" would loose its raison d'être. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats from an editorial. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the article itself states the program was directed at influencing the Iraqi Insurgents, not the greater WOT. Do you propose we add all 100+ operations that have taken place inside Iraq as well as all 20+ insurgent groups and their leaders? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The aricle itself states that it was also aimed at the US, with the intend to gather support for WOT. You have not answered the quote, that without this program there would be no WOT. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the full explanation via quoting the next line of the text directly. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You generally misrepresented the articles. I reverted since your massive redaction is too difficult to untangle. Please explain why you say WaPo does not mention the US as a target in this campaign? Have you read the articles? Second, AFP clearly refers to a program you redacted out. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your actions are completely uncalled for. They were done in numerous edits you could have addressed them individually. I will place them back tomorrow since you did not place an arguement against any of them. Furthermore if you read the article fully the program is mentioned earlier the quote actually is in the header. Seeing as you only have one arguement against the edits its further shameful that you reverted all of them. Next time address them individually. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is shamefull you redact out everything you disagree with. More civil would be to voice your objections so others may address them Instead you edit war and create a very hostile situation which is hardly constructive. Please restore what you censored and AGF while asking me to explain htese edits. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the edits if you have an issue with one, then bring it up, removing 10+ edits with a sweeping revert without even stating an objection to any of them is frowned upon. Furthermore I am not sure why you would have removed the backstory on Zarqawi, you remove information from a major publication to support information from an editorial in a lesser known and verifiable source ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

So.. Why is this article an article instead of a sentence or two in this section of the Zarqawi article? Aside from copy and paste quotes from articles and an unrelated summary of Zarqawi's rise to power there really isn't much content in this article.. --Bobblehead 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a merge would be appropriate, and would help keep this from becoming a debate about the merits of the war or the US prosecution of it. Morton Devonshire^Yo

I support this, after I copy edited the article the same redundant information was readded just by quoting dif articles. There is not enough content here for it to stand on its own. Furthermore there seems to be attempts to link it to other events without providing sources. Seems like noble attempts to fatten its contents. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This editor has a clever and subtle way of saying he is unwilling to AGF as he thinks I am a POV pusher. If this user did not deny my summaries there would be no need to insert that many quotes. Example: he denies the US was also a target in this program so he altered the summary in which this was said. To avoid his need to edit war I inserted the quote that literally said the US was on of the targets. Almost every quote can be attributed to his refusal to accept a summary. Second, although not against a merge, maybe it is better to try and improve this article which has enough body of its own: 1 the program, 2 how it amplified Zarqawi's influence, 3 general remark on Psyop, 4 quotes. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but not everything is against you. I never said the program didnt target the US. IF you look you can see that the intro mentions still the US was mentioned as a Home Audience, however it mentions the next line which was not included that slide, created by Casey's subordinates, does not specifically state that U.S. citizens were being targeted by the effort, but other sections of the briefings indicate that there were direct military efforts to use the U.S. media to affect views of the war.

The section program attempts to connect the Roadmap to this program, I have asked you three times now to provide a source stating these two articles are linked, instead you have just blindly reverted the article. The quotes section should not really exist and most of what you have are just quotes taking up space in the article. While I know you created the article and may be a little defensive, if it does get merged you should be happy knowing the article is contributing to a larger article. And again, please explain edits you do not agree with, blindly reverting is frowned upon. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 09:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think taht those commenting on a merge should be aware this user has severely redacted what was a reasonable article. Please do not comment on his version but the one he butchered. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Again do you contest any of the edits? If not you are arguing that we should keep redundant comments and OR in favor of keeping an article plump enough to avoid merging. I am still asking for proof that Zarqawi PSYOP program is part of te Operations Roadmap, else the whole section contained within "Program" was OR and possibly false, except for the quote from the Washington Post which just restates the paragraph before it and the intro. How many times and in how many ways does the same thing need to be said. There was a quote from Counterpunch that states something almost word for word from the intro. What is the point of that? It was a one sentence quote identical to the sentence into the intro. Again I ask you to contest the edits, and not the editor. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Context

There is 761 words in the article, not including "picture descriptions", "see also" links and "section titles", of those 761 words 254 of them are quotes. Of those 254 words of quotes, 103 of them are from an editorial on a website from Michel Chossudovsky, an economist, so not an expert in this field. If you counted the words introducing the quotes, you end up with 488 words out of 761 more then half the article is either quotes or introductions to quotes, and 1/4, or 25% of those are from a non expert in the field. This seriously shows why this is a candidate for a merge, its lacks content. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF

One editor keeps censoring this article with some odious arguments.

• Information Operations Roadmap is redacted out as being not relevant. This article is about PSYOP in general and its effect on the US public, since the Zarqawi program was a PSYOP and was also aimed at US audience I fail to understand why a remark about a broader propaganda campaign is not allowed.
• Several comments are redacted out as being redundant. The style of writing is that any article starts with an introduction and continues to state the same in a more elaborate way. To claim everything that has already been said needs to be removed means that all articles should be cleansed of anything more than an introduction.
• If this editor were to read the sources and also would accept a summary, many quotes would not be necessary. So, maybe this user is willing to compromise and replace the quotes with summaries without contesting their accuracy.

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So you think every PSYOP and every document relating to PSYOPS should be covered in this article? Doesnt seem to make much sense to do that, however you insist on the Information Operations Roadmap, just supply a source stating this program is part of that Roadmap, I dont see the complication with that. Without it you are drawing a conclusion and thats WP:OR.

The article is made up of only quotes, or at least 50%, having a quote from Washington Post, then another from Michael whatever from another site, stating the same exact thing, is pointless.

I did not contest tha accuracy of anything, I actually added another quote to counter the POV being pushed in the intro. I am not sure why you would want to state it was targetting the home audience but not show the rest of the quote.

Please again stop blindly reverting as all my summaries are filled out completly. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 09:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is you that is stalking me to delete all my edits. There is no reason to do what you do to this article. All your objections are merely out of being obstructive and I find your behaviour bordering on resembling a disruptive troll. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you contest any of my edits? or is just my presence, again you have not even contested one of the edits on the grounds it was made. Please do so as I will ignore further insults, just make a note of them. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Since WOT is the general military campaign and is discussed everywhere I fail to understand why discussing the broader PSYOP campaign that encompasses all operations is not allowed.

However, I will no longer discuss any article since: 1 you are incapable of addressing problems in a logical manner, all you do is adopt circular logic while reperatedly not answering direct questions, 2 your need to edit war instead of trying to resolve the perceived problems through consensus makes communicating with you tiresome. Because of this I will stop interacting with you and await mediation on you disruptive behaviour. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Odious? Odious is an odious word. Who would use such a word? But then, I guess I just did. Shannon^{duck talk} 11:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove

I'm inclined to delete Chossudovsky's piece as not consistent with WP:RS. (1) It's self-published, or close to it; (2) The Centre for Research on Globalization appears strongly NPOV on this issue, and if it applied any kind of fact-checking or editing to that piece, I don't see it; (3) it's an editorial, not a news piece; and (4) it appears to rely entirely on a combination of quotations from mainstream news articles already in this article and Chossudovsky's personal opinions; and (5) Chossufovsky's expertise is economics, not whatever it is that piece is about.

What does everyone think? If people disagree I'm open to most dispute resolution procedures. Thanks, TheronJ 14:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of your basis, particularly 2, 3 and 4. I do not know if its self-published however, or the procedure for articles to be put on that site to make a comment on your first point however. I think at the very least we should try not to quote him directly as this isnt his field of expertise. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomen, like I said, I'm open to most dispute resolution procedures on whether the Chossudovsky piece meets the criteria of WP:RS. Would you be interested in working together to write up an RFC? TheronJ 02:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem with that. I will make an attempt below. Later when we agree on the wording we can file the RFC. But, could you also explain why the quotes I provided are not applicable? In other words, policy allows opinion and biased sources, so I really do not understand what exactly your objections are. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Nomen. It will probably take me a day or two to write something up. In general, my thoughts are (1) as I understand WP:RS, it's a balancing test on the close calls - for example, the guideline doesn't say that all NPOV sources get in or get thrown out, but that the fact that a source is NPOV is one thing on the scale; (2) in this case, I think that my 5 items above combine to make the source not RS. TheronJ 09:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion incorrect

Several people have made comments regarding the sources. Apparently htey are insufficiently informed therefpre I would like to quote the actyal policy: Regarding wikipedia policy on the use of sources:

• WP:NPOV: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

• Feel free to read about Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.

• The use of biased sources is allowed, Reliable sources: Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party.

• Partisan sites are not excluded from use, Partisan websites: Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source.

• The use of legal experts seems to be encouraged, Beware false authority: Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions.

• Neutral language When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be attributed and cited.

• Balance An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it.

Those reading this, especially about biased sources, will see that none of the sources violates what the above says. Please explain which of these quotes justifies removing the sources when thinking about: "However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it."

Also some of us feel that making a general remark regarding PSYOP is disallowed. Surely an unusual argyment since discussion D-Day but prohibiting the mentioning WW II seems absurd.

I restored the redacted out comments and try to improve the article. Please answer these questions before deleting again. Thank you for cooperating and motivating your view.

Self-published sources are not reliable according to Wikipedia standards. "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sourcesMorton Devonshire^Yo

Which source do you have in mind that fits that description? As I see it they all are from notable sites, somewhat biased, but certainly not violating RS considering the quotes above. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Kurtnimmo.com, Daily Kos, Global Research and CounterPunch. Morton Devonshire^Yo

Global Research and CounterPunch both adhere to the quotes above, therefore they can be used. What part of"that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it," does not apply? DailyKos is notable and blogs are widely used, but I can accept your objection, as of course Kurtnimmo.com, although his claim this is the millionth time he died is accurate as you know. I will remove those. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing about strong opinions. Nor did I say anything about notability. None of the 4 I mentioned are independently fact-checked or independently edited -- that's the objection. Morton Devonshire^Yo

I think we misunderstand eachother. Many reputable newspapers do not check facts, does Judy Miller ring a bell, and you assert these sources do not check fatcs but I fail to see how you reach that conclusion. Second, aside from the particular media, you might look at the name behind the story. Many article you objected to in the past for the same reason were written by notable commentators. However, by ignoring that you disallow articles by i.e. John Dean and Elizabeth Holtzman, both of which have had articles on the Counterpunch site. Third, you still do not understand that policy allows opinion, that is those comments discussing facts and their possible meaning, as long as it is identified as such. Again, see the quotes. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion regarding the merit of one author over another is irrelevant. And yes, Judith Miller is a perfect example -- because the NY Times *IS* a publication that has independent oversight, Miller's work has been largely discredited by the NY Times itself -- that's the very definition of objective, reliable, Wikipedic sources. The sources is reliable because we can trust that someone besides the author is exercising editorial oversight. Perfect, no. Oversight, yes. It's Wikipedia's policy, not mine. Yes, I understand that opinion is permitted, so long as it's identified as opinion, and doesn't masquerade as support for fact. For example, you could say: "In an opinion piece published at counterpunch.com, Mr. X said that . . .." Morton Devonshire^Yo

Miller is a perfect example that the NYT did not check the facts. She was allowed to make unsubstantiated claims for years and the fact the NYT apparently allowed her to continue without even a shred of possible evidence for her claims resulted in the half-hearted mea culpa. Second, the fact it took years to get her stories out of the paper is evidence enough the NYT screwed up. As to your other point, it only supports my argument that these sources should not be deleted. If you think it is not clear that comments are opinion feel free to add such a caveat. Again, making sure people know what is fact and what is opinion is clearly not equal to deleting opinions. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what do you think of the current version? Any specific comments or objections? AFAIK all opinions are identified as such. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The following needs to be proven before being introduced, it needs to be proven through a reliable verifiable source:

• Informations Operations Roadmap - A source needs to be provided stating this program is included in that roadmap. Its a violation of WP:OR for us to draw that conclusion
• Zarqawi backstory - The backstory needs to stop being reverted, you are constantly removing information that is factually correct and sourced, in hopes of stating Zarqawi was a nobody. Your source is an editorial and you have not contended the information I added as wrong. Your source also goes against the other articles on Zarqawi.
• Michel Chossudovsky - This person should not be quoted, especially 4 times in an article as he has no expertise in the field at all, not even experience. He is an economist.
• Smith-Mundt Act - Please provide proof that shows this program violates this law or stop adding it back. You have not shown a single source linking even the mention of Smith-Mundt to the PSYOP program, not even proof it violates it.

Please address these issues before reverting. Also do not quote partisan sites, Wikipedia reccomends you do not use Partisan sites as sole sources for information. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 09:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all I restored your reversion. Please consider your own advise and address the problems here instead of the needless edit war. So, be civil, AGF and debate your edits, since it is you who wants to change it is you that needs to explain what part of my arguments is wrong.

• You claim WaPo does not say the program is aimed at the US public. Where in the article did you find that?

The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign. and ... there were direct military efforts to use the U.S. media to affect views of the war.

• Since, clearly this program is also aimed at the US, and this is a PSYOP program, it is more than reasonable to mention the general principle prohibiting propaganda aimed at the US public.
• To describe the broader policy involving PSYOP campaigns is more than reasonable since this program is part of that broader program. Or, is your foot not part of your body?
• Factually correct or not, this is not a biography but about a program inflating his importance. It is sufficient to describe those effects, but to include his days as a toddler seems somewhat over the top.
• The introduction is just that. We do not have to explain all the details there, that is what the article is for. Therefore I removed the redundant details from the intro.
• Sources are not required to be experts. If that was the case most sources can be removed since journalists are generally not experts. AFAIK going to journalist school does not make you a physician, lawyer, biologist, general, politician, teacher, taxidriver, et cetera. To implement your logicv would mean that journalists cannot be used as source. Having said that, I agree having a real expert is preferrable, however, that is not equal to mandatory. Please review the quotes on sources.

It would be a great kindness if you first try and resolve these issues (finding compromise) before implementing your massive changes to the article. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research prohibits you from drawing your own conclusions. Hence why you cannot mention Smith-Mundt Act, provide a source of someone saying it was violated if you want to include it, what is so hard about that? Do you really think if this act was broken that you would be the only one to know and write about it? Perhaps there is a reason its not mentioned, one you are unaware of. As for your comment "but to include his days as a toddler seems somewhat over the top", I am not sure what you are reffering to, perhaps you should drop the sarcasm and maybe you will make a coherent point. The back history I added covers activities that disprove your editorial source, that seems to be your underlying issue. Did you consider that perhaps the biography is more factually correct then the editorial? Its also only covering the 10 years before the War, most of it covering the 4 years before the war. Your point that sources are not required to be experts is flawed. Journalists are fact checked when under reputable publications. This publication is not reputable, its fact checking system if any is not apparent. This person is also not a journalist, this source is not a newspaper, he is an economist and is quoted 4 times in the article. Are you really arguing that a main source of information for an article can be someone that is not a journalist, doesnt come from a newspaper or other notable publication with oversight and doesnt even have to be a person related to the field? Your arguement that its part of something that is part of somethnig else is flawed. Do you believe we should add articles of ever piece of equipment being used in the war? I mean the M16 is part of the weapons, that are part of the war, that are part of the WOT, right? Better yet would you then argue that every operation undertaken in the Iraq War should go no the WOT template? If you do not then you are only proving you do not actually believe that events that are part of something, that is then part of somethnig else, are directly connected. I also never said it was not aimed at the public, I added the quote that specifically states:

"That slide, created by Casey's subordinates, does not specifically state that U.S. citizens were being targeted by the effort"

I dont see what problem you have with adding that, to not do it is POV, you are selectively quoting the article at that point. Stating "Home Audience" without giving the clarification that even the Washington Post felt was necessary. Again I ask you to do the following, provide credible reputable, reliable sources for the following:

• Informations Operations Roadmap - A source needs to be provided stating this program is included in that roadmap. Its a violation of WP:OR for us to draw that conclusion
• Zarqawi backstory - The backstory needs to stop being reverted, you are constantly removing information that is factually correct and sourced, in hopes of stating Zarqawi was a nobody. Your source is an editorial and you have not contended the information I added as wrong. Your source also goes against the other articles on Zarqawi.
• Smith-Mundt Act - Please provide proof that shows this program violates this law or stop adding it back. You have not shown a single source linking even the mention of Smith-Mundt to the PSYOP program, not even proof it violates it.

And prove Michel Chossudovsky has some relevant experience to be quoted 4 times, he is not a journalist, not an expert in the field. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You still impress me with your lack of knowledge.

1. WaPo explicitly mentions that US citizens are targetted, your recent quote conveniently does not include the ensuing sentence that again states the same.The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign. and ... there were direct military efforts to use the U.S. media to affect views of the war. Of course, we already established you have difficulty with the English language.
2. Journalists are not experts.
3. Fact-checked? I have two words for you: Judy Miller.
4. There is a campaign aimed at the US, evidently that is what WaPo says, therefore elaborating on the legality of such actions is more than acceptable.

This is the last response to you chaotic reasoning. Unless you make a case why these arguments are incorrect, instead of simply asserting they are incorrect, I will no longer respond. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem isnt my lack of knowledge, its your inability to read.

• I didnt delete Home Audience. I added the quote following its mentioning, that is all. Fromt he source by the way, so I dont see what the issue is. You keep stating I removed the mentioning, but I did not, I simply added the quote.
• Noone said journalists are experts, again your lack of reading is causing the issue here. Experts and journalists are seperate groups, journalists are held to appropriate fact checking when they are working for a reliable and verifiable source. However experts in self published items need to be experts in the field, your Michael XYZ quote fails both of those, he isnt a journalist nor an expert.
• I dont even get this comment, are you telling me you feel Wikipedia should accept all sources because of Judy Miller incident, regardless of those sources are newspapers reliable, verifiable etc? You have a problem with Policy, you take it to that page, dont attempt to add aources that violate those policies to prove a point.
• WP:OR, read it please and know it well, you cannot argue that its a violation of a law, you cannot draw conclusions, furthermore Washington Post doesnt say it breaks any laws, so its further OR for you to assume it does.

Your personal opinion and understandings are not relevant here, stop attempting to connect dots on your own, cite a source that is verifiable and reliable or stop adding it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Several editors have voiced concern over the use of sources. The problem is that some of them are believed to violate WP:RS. The two prime arguments are that the sources are not fact-checked, in other words opninin, and from biased sources. Regarding wikipedia policy on the use of sources:

• WP:NPOV: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

• Feel free to read about Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.

• The use of biased sources is allowed, Reliable sources: Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party.

• Partisan sites are not excluded from use, Partisan websites: Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source.

• The use of legal experts seems to be encouraged, Beware false authority: Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions.

• Neutral language When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be attributed and cited.

• Balance An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it.

In light of this the question is, are there sources in the article that violate policy, as quoted above, and is the article sufficiently clear about the use of opinion when it uses editorials?

Bad Link

Note that the Truthout.org link to the WaPo article is bad. Morton Devonshire^Yo

==NPOV==

" U.S. military policy is not to aim psychological operations at Americans, said Army Col. James A. Treadwell, who commanded the U.S. military psyops unit in Iraq in 2003. "It is ingrained in U.S.: You don't psyop Americans. We just don't do it," said Treadwell." This jumped out from the first citation. To state that the operation was aimed at the "home market" seems a leap too far.

Rich Farmbrough 20:30 19 July 2006 (GMT).

Survey

I think the relevant arguments have been made. Let's determine the consensus for deletion of the following sources as violative of WP:RS: (1) Kurtnimmo.com, (2) Daily Kos, (3) Global Research, (4) CounterPunch, and (5) Truthout.org.

• Delete all material sources to these 5 sources. Morton Devonshire^Yo
  • Comment, 1 and 2 are not in the article, unless Zero restored them. Aside from the fact we are working on a RFC, and I still have not seen policy disallowing these sources this survey seems a bit premature. Ad 5: this is the WaPo story, what exactly is your problem with that? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Morton, bias sources, sometimes used as only source which is frowned upon. Non experts being used in Global Research source and its self published. Truthout is simply a reprinting, should at least be replaced, however the link is dead now. Kurtnimmo? What is this? Counterpunch, self published newsletter, admittedly bias, see the "about us" page. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)