Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Senate panel declares no ties to Saddam Hussein

A recently updated bit. [1] Perhaps someone here can better articulate this revelation. It's certainly being seen as the final nail in the coffin for the Iraq war by many. --AWF

Other names

More information about his son is needed and the people he supposedly ordered killed, dates and details.

Bad taste Image

Well, the bloody photo of his, still very bloody, should be removed, there are many others we can replace it with, of course, this has no taste and will piss some people off...

I would agree that the photo is in bad taste. I also don't see how it serves any informational purpose. It's just his face with some blood on it. This article isn't about blood, and we don't need a photo to constitue "proof" he's dead, we have sources for that. I'm very disturbed by the recent American obsession with gloatingly showing gruesome images of slain enemy leaders (reference the NY Post's disgustingly tasteless cover on June 9th). Wikipedia should not take part in such a three-ring circus. Kasreyn 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put the image up for IfD. See here. Kasreyn 05:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Anome, you've restored an image of Zarqawi's body which is equally unencyclopedic, uninformative, and inappropriate. You claim that the photo is needed to prove Zarqawi is really dead, but we don't have such a standard for any other article on a person who is dead that I know of. In fact, we don't need a photo to prove he's dead. Text will work just fine for that purpose. Therefore there is no encyclopedic purpose for including such a shocking and disturbing image. The image is extraneous, not to mention tasteless. It, and any other variants, should not be included. Regards, Kasreyn 09:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The picture is relevant since it is of itself part of the story: as a propaganda tool for the U.S. government, both for Iraqi consumption (to prove he really was dead) and for U.S domestic consumption (for political purposes). In addition, the U.S. government may have inadvertently created an iconic rallying image for Islamist extremists, helping create an image of Zarqawi as a martyr for their cause, which is a major PSYOPS own goal. All of this was commented on by the mainstream media at the time: see the cites I have provided. -- The Anome 09:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I see that we should report on the propaganda issue, but is it necessary to include the image? Can't we just say "images of Zarqawi's body were used for propaganda purposes by the US and Al-Qaeda", source it with links, and be done? The image still doesn't actually contain any real information, and, since you raise the point of propaganda, it raises the real problem of Wikipedia becoming part of said propaganda efforts. When a different solution is easily available - a text-only description of the situation which is enecyclopedic - why should we choose an image-based solution that runs such risks? Kasreyn 17:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why, indeed? The decision whether to include an image ought to be based on whether the image is essential to telling part of the story of the article, or at least whether it adds something substantial to the discussion. It's becoming pretty apparent that those who are pushing for inclusion of this picture are intent on adding heat, not light, to the matter. This is related, in a distant way, to the "man from Mars" habit a lot of people have in this so-called encyclopedia of linking every term in an article, as if we didn't know what a (insert name of common object here) was. Same with this picture: I'm confident that all readers of this article can conjure up an image of a somewhat bloodied human head if need be. Otherwise, it adds nothing to the discussion, apart from satisfying morbid curiosity. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You put it better than I did. Kasreyn 19:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad taste. That's it. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • lol, internet)} 19:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Anome, I'm still interested to know what you think of these arguments against including the image. Cheers, Kasreyn 20:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the image for now. ILike2BeAnonymous and Pacific Coast Highway seem to be in agreement with me (at least, I think PCH is in agreement, his comment seems a bit vague). Kasreyn 08:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should include the picture. There is an entire section called 'Death'; showing his corpse would be highly relevant. Skinnyweed 21:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? What information content does it carry? Anyone can lie down, put red fluid (cow's blood, perhaps) one one's face, close one's eyes, and be photographed. It would result in an equally "informative" image. Note that I am not claiming the image is a fake, or that Zarqawi is alive, or that the image doesn't show what it says it shows. I am saying that we don't need an image of his corpse to "prove" he is dead. The image doesn't prove anything, because you can't tell a person is dead from an image unless there is some obvious, visible massive trauma that could not be survived. And even then it would not be appropriate because it is extraneous, unneccessary. His death is fully explained by text. I am not in favor of censoring Wikipedia, but when there is no encyclopedic or informational purpose for an image that may be shocking, there is no justification for including it anyway. Additionally, as Anome has pointed out, the display of the image of Zarqawi's body has been part of propaganda efforts by both the U.S. and Al-Qaeda. Wikipedia should be a part of that. The image is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Kasreyn 22:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then Heinrich Himmler's dead body photo will need to be removed from his page as well, and also the image of Hermann Göring dead in his cell. Wikipedia is not censored, and "bad taste" is not a valid reason to have an image removed. It shows that he was indeed captured and is dead, which is an important point to make in the article. I'm going to re-add the image, at least for the purpose of reviving this discussion. --tomf688 (talk - email) 01:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those images should be removed. And I understand and agree that WP is not censored; trust me, sometimes I have to wield WP:NOT like a cudgel defending pages like Nudity, Circumcision, and Sexual intercourse from nice nellies, moralists, and other do-gooders.

So what's the difference? The images I defend on those pages are notable; they contain useful information content. They show something that no words could describe (at least, not easily). The images of Himmler's and Zarqawi's corpses have no information content. From all we can tell looking at those photos, they might merely be asleep. It's not possible to tell someone is dead from a photo unless there is some sort of obvious discoloration or massive trauma. Note that I am not claiming these men aren't dead. I am pointing out that the images do not serve a purpose. Therefore there is nothing to defend them against the charge of bad taste; there is nothing to give us a reason to continue to shock readers with them; all we are doing is shocking, not educating. If we want to prove Himmler and Zarqawi are dead, we cite a reliable source who says a three-word sentence: "(subjectname) is dead". Simple as that.

Furthermore, there is the added complexity that both men are notable as being villains loathed by millions. It is important to avoid any appearance of Wikipedia joining in any particular nation's (such as America's) propaganda or PSYOPS efforts. This article itself notes that use of Zarqawi's image for propaganda purposes is well established. How then can we justify becoming (however unwillingly) a part of that propaganda, when we don't even have a compelling reason to show the image in the first place?

I've already made all these arguments before in this section, so either you didn't read them or you did read them and didn't find them sufficient. I'm anxious for your reply. Cheers, Kasreyn 03:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Barring the existance of a mass conspiracy of dead-body-photo-forgery, these illustrate the fact that these figures are no longer alive. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. They may depict a dead body, but they are not in the least illustrative. There is a difference: that which is illustrative does not merely contain datum x, but serves as a useful visual aid. Kasreyn 07:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The conspiracy theorists claim lots of things and the more information that is collected and archived in the form of an encyclopedia, the less likely the nutjobs will be able to rewrite with absurd claims. Keep the photos so that we can show he is dead. It is illustrative and informative and historical. Not sure why anyone would propose deleting it. There are many works of art that depict a dead Jesus Christ with blood, crucifiction, torture, etc, etc, yet "good taste" is not a valid reason to destroy them or keep young children from seeing it. Yes, Jesus might have been just "asleep" but the image DOES serve a purpose. The Zarqawi and Himmler images also serve A purpose. Even if it is just to serve a propaganda purpose for the U.S. Government, it is a A purpose. WP is not censored even when the material would be considered propaganda. If it does not serve YOUR purpose it doesn't mean that it doesn't serve A purpose. Those photos were taken and released by the U.S. Government for a purpose. They are historical, and some might say the most important picture in Zarqawi's life. Keep them. --Tbeatty 07:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What purpose is served by the image that text cannot fulfill? We can say, using text, "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead", and reliably source it. They say a picture is worth a thousand words... why do we need a picture to replace a mere five words, when the picture is a.) not necessary to explain the fact of al-Zarqawi's death, b.) is known to have been released for propaganda purposes, and c.) is gruesome and shocking?

Therefore, you are proposing that the photo contains so much information - information that, by your logic, could not be equally well expressed with text - that it is worth our taking part in a propaganda scheme as well as offending and revolting our readers. And yes, I know WP is not censored, but that doesn't mean we should go around inserting unnecessary shocking images and then claim they should be protected under WP:NOT. The image serves no useful purpose and is unencyclopedic. It should go. Kasreyn 07:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there no other editors with an opinion on this issue? Kasreyn 02:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the "distastefulness" is a largely U.S. or Western centric view. It was specifically created and released to appeal to a highly distrustful Arab society. The "Arab street" is where the news is either believed or not and it doesn't matter what is said or written. The same reason that the U.S. released photos of Uday and Qusay Hussein is why they released photos of Zarqawi. Namely to convince the "Arab street" that they are dead with visual proof. The photos are historically relevant for this purpose alone. It is an admittedly overt attempt to convince the masses that he is dead and that is historically relevant for both its content and method. Not including the photo is trying to record history in a manner that didn't occur using Western sensibilities/morality. It was a photo that was used to convince the street, not words or a sentence. While a sentence may be adequate in Western countries to prove a leader is dead, it is not adequate for a world historical record of events such as wikipedia. --Tbeatty 05:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Time cover

Al-Zarqawi's on the 19 June 2006 cover of Time. He's got the Hussein-cover red "X". [2] æ² ✆ 2006-06-14t23:10z

Which was originally used for Adolf Hitler in the closing days of World War II. --BlueTruth 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought some people might not have recognized something from that far back. æ² ✆ 2006-06-15t01:15z

long time Bin laden ally?

The third paragraph claims that Zarqawi was a long time ally of Bin-Laden, but no source is cited. I think this claim/accusation is disputed [3]. I'll try to look into it some more... AdamRetchless 23:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're correct. He was a rival to bin Laden until 10/04. At that point he took the bayat; prior to that he may have been a "fellow traveller" of sorts, but he was a rival to the obl network. See the section on Zarqawi on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page for some details.-csloat 23:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Did the US make al-Zarqawi into the terrorist he was?

As far as I am aware, al-Zarqawi was actually given a platform from which to launch his terrorist actions by the US; when Colin Powell cited him as the link between Al-Quaida and Saddam (which there is very little evidence that he was, if indeed there was a link at all, which looks increasingly unlikely), he gained enough influence and power to begin building his terrorist network, when beforehand he had been little more than a petty criminal. Correct me if I'm wrong here. I don't see anywhere in the article that this is mentioned (unless I missed it).

- Demonic Duck 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Zarqawi was just one link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Zawahiri was a stronger link. Recently translated Operation Iraqi Freedom documents show the connection between Zarqawi and Saddam's regime. You have to remember than none of these players really liked or trusted each other. Saddam supported Abu Nidal for years before having him killed. I guess one of the documents says Saddam wanted Zarqawi arrested, do they must have fallen out as well at some point. Zarqawi had cooperated with Osama before but he had competing ambitions with Osama also. All of these relationships are on again off again type of relationships. RonCram 17:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I can find nothing in the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents or the Zawahiri page that suggests this Saddam-Zawahiri link. Can you expand further? Keithq 06:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Duck. I'll correct you because you're mostly wrong. Zarquawi didn't make his fame because an American spokesman mentioned him. He made his fame with extraordinary showy brutality. He was a media master, not unlike Yasser Arafat, but much more pesonally brutal. He knew how to play the western press and do those things which would have the maximum effect in stirring anger, such as bombing Shi'a holy places. -- Cecropia 19:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

He made his fame for being a thug long before bombing Shiite temples. And Ron is flat out wrong about Zarqawi above, and this has been pointed out to him over and over again. He was a rival to al Qaeda, not a member, until 2004, and he never worked with Saddam. Stephen Hayes would like us to believe that Zarqawi got his leg amputated by Saddam's surgeons with his knowledge. The OIF documents show that Saddam was not sure whether he was in Iraq at all. And it's pretty clear from his dead body that he doesn't have a prosthetic leg. Ron is simply spreading misinformation that he has been informed about already.--csloat 04:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Alleged betrayal by al-Qaeda

It should be pointed out that a video in late June 2006, Ayman al-Zawahiri praises Zarqwi as a "prince of martyrs".

It should also be pointed out that a power struggle within the ranks of al-Qaeda that results in the opposition being murdered would be rather embarassing (this would also be why he was "martyred" rather than just executed). In this article, al-Jazeera indicates that the powers that be attempted to strip him of his influence. For about a month (as I recall) Zarqawi seemed to abide by their decision, but then he resumed his public role as leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. A month or so later, he was dead, his location revealed by an informant. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the informant was acting on orders. The above almost certainly constitutes original research, but there are probably people other than me who have come to (and published) the same conclusion, which could be cited. I probably won't have time to look for sources, but hopefully somebody else does. WikiMarshall 09:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Western military forces ???

Quote: Zarqawi opposed the presence of United States and Western military forces in the Islamic world and ...."

Really???? I don´t remember on any Western military forces before the War on Irak on the Islamic World, (he was a terrorist before this war).

I'd suggest doing some further historical research. Iraq was founded by westerners. Egypt was invaded by a coalition of western nations supporting Israel. To be blunt, the Middle East hasn't been entirely free of western meddling for centuries, and has had western military forces in it for generations. Saudi Arabia has relied on U.S. military aid for years now, and the stationing of American troops in the "holy land" has infuriated many Islamists. I'm guessing this (the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia) was, previous to 9/11, the largest single factor arousing the antipathy of people like Zarqawi.

These are just a few links, I'm sure you can find more. Kasreyn 23:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Baathist-Al Qaeda ties

I heard it reported that documents found following Zarqawi's demise revealed that there had been a relationship between Al Qaeda and the Baath [4] party. I think this information could be included, especially since there has been so much said that there has never been such a connection.69.6.162.160 00:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

It seems unlikely that such documents could have been found without the Bush administration and Fox News reminding the public about them until their existence had become widely known.Keithq 01:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it happens the other way around... first the Bush administration and FOX News publicize an alleged link, then we go looking for the evidence supporting it... Remember, this administration is not interested in the "reality-based world". Kasreyn 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

An article has been created called Zarqawi PSYOP program which is basically a summary of Zarqawi's rise to power and a series of copy pasted quotes from articles suggesting that the US overinflated Zarqawi's reputation. This article already tracks Zarqawi's rise to power and with some adjustment Abu Musab al-Zarqawi#Arguments downplaying Zarqawi's importance could handle the suspected US program to inflate his importance. Thoughts? --Bobblehead 00:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that those commenting on a merge should be aware the current article[5] has been severely redacted and what was a reasonable article[6] no longer is. Please do not comment on that version but the one that was butchered.[7]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the merge proposal, if people want to see the version Nescio is citing is best and most informative you can look here here, however you should be aware that Nescio refuses to prove there is a link to the Information Operations Roadmap, making more then half of the "Program" section unsupported. Furthermore the quotes by Michel Chossudovsky, should be noted that this quotes come from an editorial and he is an economist, not an expert on terrorism or even law enforcement, all togethere there are 4 quotes in the article and the article is over 25% quotes itself. Making it a candidate for merging as it doesnt contain much infromation to stand on its own. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What Nescio would like to suggest is this version.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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|} 15:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Marriage and Children

I'm not sure how this is germaine to the article. Is there a point being made by stating that his wife was 14 when they had sex (with a wiki link to honeymoon)? And given that this information is repeated in back-to-back paragraphs toward the end of the main biography section, what is the point of stating again? It just seems to me that this trying to say (over and over), "Not only is he a murderer and terrorist, but he married a girl who was much younger than is generally acceptable in many Western cultures!" Holford 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

At leasts its not writen in #72 font</sarcasm> --Cat out 01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Incapable of calling a terrorist a terrorist

'militants' ???

Apparently the people in the Wikipedia universe have decided to not call terrorists terrorists. Instead, it is 'militant'. Brilliant. Let's water it down and make these terrorists seem like ordinary fighters in a war. They are Islamo-Facist Terrorists. But we can't use these words now can we in our definition becuase calling a spade a spade on Wikipedia somehow isn't a "neutral" position.

AggieSpirit

Hmm, would it be ok for me to call those brave us troops as "terrorist" because thats what al-quada calls them. According to al-quadia they are the best thing since sliced bread. Obviously we dont call them as such. You see, NPOV doesnt only apply when its conviniant. It applies all the time.

Oh and btw before you ask, in my personal beliefs Zarqawi is an asshole.

--Cat out 01:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Zarqawi tapes

THe intro should only address that subset of tapes Zarqawi actually made. If there are forged tapes that may be worth mentioning in teh body somewhere. Mrdthree 15:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Post-Zarqawi Iraq

Using Primary sources to infer a conclusion about post Zarqawi Iraq is "connecting the dots" and is not allowed under WP:OR guidelines.--Tbeatty 01:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Proposing removal of image of corpse of al-Zarqawi

(Please refer to the section entitled Bad Taste Image for background.)

As far as I can tell, no clear consensus has been arrived at on this issue, which has been on this talk page for quite some time. Out of more than a dozen fairly regular editors that I've seen, four have commented in favor of the image's retention, two (including myself) in favor of its removal and one (Pacific Coast Highway) in a way that seems to support removal (perhaps a weak support). There has been little discussion recently, so I would like to ascertain just what this article's editors' consensus is on the image's retention.

Please note that this is one of the first times I have attempted to create such a poll, so if I have made any errors in formatting, be bold and correct them! Kasreyn 02:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for Retention

(at the risk of putting words in others' mouths, I will attempt to recap these arguments as they have been made to me. If I get them wrong, please rewrite or expand. -Kasreyn)

1. The image is notable in that it constitutes proof that al-Zarqawi is dead.
2. The image is relevant to the section on his death. (This was never elaborated upon so I don't know precisely what was meant.)
3. The Wikipedia is not censored clause of WP:NOT protects its inclusion.
4. The image serves a historical purpose by serving as both a record of al-Zarqawi's death and a record of the U.S. Government's activities.
5. If the image is removed, other images of the corpses of historical figures, such as Heinrich Himmler, would also need to be removed.
6. The image itself, regardless of it's content, is a historical document because it was an official release of the U.S. Government.

Arguments for Removal

(I have attempted to sort these in order of severity. -Kasreyn)

1. It has been argued that the image serves no encyclopedic purpose. It carries no information that cannot be expressed in the simple sentence, "Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi is dead". It does not constitute "proof" that he is dead, because the image is not sufficiently illustrative of cause of death. Further, there are no requirements on other articles of photos of the corpses of other famous decedents to establish their mortality.

   (Note that therefore, if this argument is accepted, the following other reasons are not mitigated by any information-gain represented by the image.)

2. The image has been identified as part of an organized propaganda effort (in this case, by both sides in an ongoing violent conflict). It has been argued that, as WP is an encyclopedia for the entire world and has an unalterable policy requiring it to conform to a Neutral Point of View, needless complicity in such propaganda efforts should be avoided wherever possible. (The question would then be whether complicity is needful.)
3. The image may be considered to be highly disturbing and shocking in nature. WP:NOT is normally a defense against censorship, but, it has been argued, only in the case of images that provide information gains to the encyclopedia. It has been argued that, in this image's case, WP:NOT argues rather for the image's removal. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech apply. All images included in mainspace are expected to serve an encyclopedic purpose.
4. In response to the argument that the image itself is a matter of notability (in that it has been reported on or has historical notability), the following argument has been made: This is a matter for subjective opinion, and the argument for removal is that inclusion of text mentioning the image's propaganda/historical use would serve a purpose, but inclusion of the image itself would not outweigh the negative effects detailed above.
5. In response to the argument that, were the image to be removed, other images of the bodies of famous persons would also need to be removed, the following argument has been made: There is no reason why a blanket rule should prevail, or why one image should not be considered more informative or less shocking than another. Perhaps some other such images might considered sufficiently informative to outweigh their shocking nature. Therefore there is no reason to apply a general rule, when the editors on each article can come to their own consensus.

Votes on Proposed Removal

Supporting Removal

1. Kasreyn 02:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
2. csloat 10:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC) but not for the arguments above. I believe this photo strengthens Zarqawi's role as a martyr, and it has certainly been used this way. I don't see a good argument for keeping it here.
3. Keithq 18 September 2006 I see no encyclopedic purpose.
4. Remove it, for the above reasons. Wikipedia is not a shock site. 68.97.3.177 04:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Opposing Removal

1. Keep This image was released by the U.S. government regarding Zarqawi. It is like any other government document and is encyclopedic as it relates to Zarqawi regardless of whether some people find it distasteful - see WP:NOT Censored. --Tbeatty 05:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Keep as (1) Wikipedia is not censored, (2) the photo is iconic, and (3) there is controversy surrounding the photo (i.e. as to whether its genuine) and it illustrates/provides evidence in that debate. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep the photo. He was a cold blooded murderer and he died a killers death.