Talk:Zarqawi PSYOP program

Archives

Dummy section 1 so the TOC is correct

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made below this section.

Merger RfC

Before reading the reasons for the proposed merger I reccomend to editors to please read the article in question in full. Thank you.

The following article is being proposed to be merged into Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The arguements for the merger are listed below:

Currently the article contains over 50% quotes and introductions to quotes.
The article contains an entire section based on original research "Effect of US PSYOP on domestic audiences"
The section "Rise to power" is a mess of contradiction, stating he was unknown, then unknown outside of Jordan, then stating he was linked to al-Qaeda then stating he wasnt.
The entire article is written like a news article, not an encyclopedia article. The phrase "X writing for Y stated B said Z" is used consistently horribly inflating word count and size.
The above quoting style is not actually quoting the person correctly, Z is not a direct quote though its states they "said Z". Its selective paraphrasing.
The article contains too many references of "Publication 1, Publication 2 and Publication 3 all stated". Again boosting word count in appropriately

There is a lack of content in this article and it greatly relies on quoting, or rewriting an exact quote. It contains original research by attempting to link the Smith-Mundt Act and Informations Operations Roadmap, which none of the sourced articles state is linked to this program. The inclusion of such items is a violation of WP:OR as the user does not know if this program would be applicable to this situation, or if that document (Information operations Roadmap) would contain information on this program.

Assumptions made that create OR for inclusion of Smith-Mundt Act:

The program does in fact target americans in an illegal fashion.

No where is it illegality even discussed.

The information was prepared for foreign audience and purposely diseminated in the US.

The selective leak to Dexter was not information prepared for abroad, and the Arab media was not prepared for US audiences.

Assumptions made that create OR for inclusion of Information Operations Roadmap:

The Zarqawi PSYOPS program is covered under this document.

No where in any source is it stated this document covers the program in question.

This document is still the most recent in effect document.

This is simply something we will not be able to determine.

Currently if you removed a majority of the quotes or elongated statements of "Person X in newsletter Y stated person Z said J" and other such elaborate quoting methods, not much content is left in the article. The section "Rise to Power" is a criticism that constantly contradicts itself. I recently tried to insert backstory from news stories and timelines however it was removed in favor of using editorials. Furthermore as pointed out the section "Effect of US PSYOP on domestic audiences" is complete violation of WP:OR as noted above. Removal of the offending content leaves this article as not much more then a stub and collection of quotes. I ask for that reason that the content be merged into the Zarqawi article where its most appropriate. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to merge

--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC) - As per above stated reasons.[reply]
This is a very strange article. There is no reputable sources acknowledging even existence of such a PSYOP. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, merge the sourced facts and delete the unsourced speculations abakharev 13:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Saw your comment. Have you read the article? Have you missed that it is based upon an article in WaPo?! In other words how can you say that there is no evidence for such a program when the Washington Post, Newsweek, et cetera (apparently not reliable sources if I understand you correctly) say so? Further, the RFC is misrepresenting the article (a common problem with this editor) which is not contradictory (I urge Zero to again read carefully and study English grammar), is not 50% quotes (again, just look at the article), and nowhere speculates (editorials) without explicitly saying so (which is allowed). Could not help commenting, will be of-wiki from now on exactly because of these kind of statements that are not compatible with the facts. Sincerely.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I originally proposed a merger, but didn't make an RFC, I'm obviously in support of the merger.--Bobblehead 20:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This is a small sidelight - if even true - to Zarqawi. It does not deserve it's own WP article as it is just a small part on the overall effort to catch/kill Zarqawi. It should be merged and reduced to it's actual significance which is about half a sentence.--Tbeatty 23:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- almost entirely original research, violating WP:NOR. Very little left once the cruft is deleted. Better yet, delete the whole article. Morton devonshire 02:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No to merge

No merge, the program is reported by WaPo, a more than reputable source. A small part is added material consisting of opninion on the program, which is allowed. To give background info on PSYOP in general is allowed. And even without that paragraph the article has enough substance. Nowhere does the article speculate unless a source does so. Nowhere does the article contradicdt itself when read carefully.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment: I urge participants to first read the article and read the sources, since the list above is groosly incorrect and is highly misleading. Do form your own opinion and do not follow the severely flawed arguments above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)added warning to unsuspecting editors[reply]

I highly reccomend people read the article as well, but I am sure the editors on the wiki are not uneducated as you seem to assume. They surely will research before voting. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although I approve of the merger, I will say the RFC lead in for this is incredibly biased against the article and predisposes a reader to approve the merger. It's written more as an AFD than a merger request. There is far too many references in the RFC to content issues rather than the lack of content itself. Which predisposes a reader to approve the merger prior to even reading the article. --Bobblehead 20:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we conclude this as enough votes to merge, its been 4 days or so. What is standard wait time? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually want to give a couple of weeks, not everyone is as dilligent as us in checking in on Wikipedia. --Bobblehead 15:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of weeks sounds a bit extensive. I guess another 5 days should be more then enough however. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just came over from AFD, actually, 1 more day.;) The merger page doesn't have a time frame, but AFD says a minimum of 5 days. If it's okay to delete in 5 days, should be okay to merge in 5 days, right? --Bobblehead 15:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, so tomorrow it is. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but how does the unprotect get released? Who does the merger? Morton devonshire 01:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps asking the admin that protected it would be a good place to start. --Bobblehead 04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get on with it

There's consensus to merge this article, and one lone wolfstar in favor of not merging (who has mysteriously gone mute) -- what are we waiting for? How do we get it merged? Morton devonshire 05:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We merge it ourselves then turn this into a redirect. I will work on it today. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. Morton devonshire 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retry?

Now emotions have cooled down and the principal proponent of deletion/merging has been blocked indefinitely I want to try and see if it is possible to have a reasonable article on what is a controversial topic.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been merged per consensus. I don't see any reason to change that. --Tbeatty 17:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion a year ago, hardly relevant today. Let's ask the community now that a disruptive editor no longer influenses the discussion. Reverted pending discussion.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were the only person who thought this should not be a redirect/merge. Keep it a redirect merge until consensus has changed. --Tbeatty 17:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there was insufficient response and Zero manipulated the discussion for which ArbCom put him on probation. There is no policy prohibiting a new discussion with outside input. Also inserted new sources!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Nescio. How about creating the page in your userspace and then making a move request? Part of the issue with the previous incarnation is that the title didn't necessarily match the content and it relied on a lot of questionable sources. There was a lot of speculation that Zarqawi's importance was inflated, but that doesn't necessarily mean there was a psyop, or if there was a psyop that it was limited to a psyop. Perhaps an expansion of this section would be more appropriate?--Bobblehead 18:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this version and note that it has new sources and clearly is not merely based on dubious sources, better yet the old version used acceptable sou8rces too, see current policy on that. What do you think of it?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC 2007

For some reason people allege that reconsidering the highly manipulated RFC from last year is not allowed. Consensus, which clearly consisted of one editor asking his friends to support his tendentious editing], seems not relevant as it is a year old and [this version of the article clearly is not identical. Please comment below on why you think the article should or should not be allowed to exist, that is overturn the contentious merge.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this diff is a better example of the differences between the old article and the new article. --Bobblehead 18:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your charaterization. First, it is clearly allowed to reconsider an RFC but the results of that RFC should not be overturned (as you tried to do) prior to holding it. Consensu can change, but don't put the cart before the horse. Who is alleging that it can't be reconsidered? Second, User:NuclearUmpf would be hard to characterize as a friend of anyone that supported that merge as he clearly is at odds with the editors over a number of articles. However, even the blind squirrel obtains the occasional nut and he was correct with respect to this article. I supported the merge because it was clearly the right thing to do and for no other reason. User:NuclearUmpfs departure does not change that and implying that it does is a form of ad hominem argument that should have no weight. --Tbeatty 19:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC was not concluded, I withdrew because the team-effort led by the now banned user grew tiresome. Therefore we should not refer to it as being settled. Referring to the instigator of numerous tendentious edits is more than relevant since this entire debate started as part of his disruptive editing. All I am asking is to restart that debate fairly now the main source of disruption has left the building, and it is more than acceptable to reinstate that article in that form, especially since none of the arguments (WP:OR, WP:RS) were valid.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you withdrew does not mean it wasn't settled. It was. The article was merged after debate and discussion on the subject. I participated in the original debate and my view points had nothing to do with disruptive editing. This article does not deserve to be a POV fork outside of the main Zarqawi article. All of the WP:OR and WP:RS arguments are valid now just as they were valid then. None of those arguments were ad hominem arguments that relied on the particular participation of any editor, whether they left the debate early last time or whether they are no longer here to participate this time. --Tbeatty 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact I withdrew resulted in no further discussion which was erroneously equated to consensus. Second, despite all the claims of OR and RS nobody has identified any sentence that is not supported by sources or any source violating RS. As to the editor, you are well aware that this entire debate was instigated to be disruptive, seems important to mention.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fallacy, Wikipedia is not run by consensus (and shuldn't be otherwise "reality is a commodity" as Colbert puts it). The senior editors serve as gatekeepers... they read all the arguments and make a decision upon them. Many users assume this is some sort of democracy here which is not the case. If you have an argument, you are free to make it. That's all.--Dr who1975 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article on this subject can be allowed

Please comment here:

I'm not opposed to the creation of an article on this subject, but as noted below by TedFrank and Tbeatty note, the current properly attributed content can be, or already is, included in the Zarqawi article. As the diff I added above shows the difference between the article that was merged into Zarqawi's article is not substantively different than the new version. I would suggest a complete rewrite in userspace or a subpage to address the NPOV, OR, and RS concerns, then request a move of the rewrite to a new location that strips the "Psyop" reference from tht title. There was definitely Zarqawi propaganda going on, but to characterize it solely as a program carried out by the military is not accurate. Heck, Zarqawi used propaganda to influence his importance, so no reason to limit it just to the coalition military. --Bobblehead 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that suggestion. Point is why can't there be an article discussing the US program and also Zarqawi's role in that. Clearly no reason to object reconsidering the merger. Also, there is alot of inof missing since the merger which is from RS. I even added sources and still nobody has explained why the WaPo, Telegraph, the Age, etc. cannot be used. More to the point, please name the sources you think violate WP:RS.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the previous RFC was heavily manipulated, which is evidenced by the fact that OR and RS are cited, yet again, without acknowledging that under current policy all the sources used are allowed according to WP:RS. That is what I am asking to debate. So overturn debatable merge.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wasn't part of the previous RFC. I find the arguments made for merging in the previous RFC persuasive--it's a shame that they've been archived away. The conspiracy theory not only violates WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL but is a poor reasoning to disregard standard Wikipedia policies.

There's a reason people keep citing WP:OR and WP:RS: there are unreliable sources being used to make the main claim, and then the article takes reliable sources that do not support the stronger version of the claim and quote-mines or mischaracterizes them to stitch together an argument that the stronger version of the claim is verifiable by reliable sources. I remember doing that in high-school CX debate, when it was fun, but here it's POV-pushing, and it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- TedFrank 22:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing OR and RS is one thing. Identifying the supposed unsupported sentences is another. So, please do. Also you might inform us of which sources exactly violate RS, especially in light of the ArbCom ruling that clearly did not share your objection.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one "unsupported sentence" is that the ArbCom ruled on this question at all. This is a typical problem with the article: misleading cites. For example, the WaPo article is cited ten times, but not once for the alternative POV, even though the article itself is fairly balanced: e.g.,

"There was no attempt to manipulate the press," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the U.S. military's chief spokesman when the propaganda campaign began in 2004, said in an interview Friday. "We trusted Dexter to write an accurate story, and we gave him a good scoop."[1]

Officials said one indication that the campaign worked is that over the past several months, there have been reports that Iraqi tribal insurgents have attacked Zarqawi loyalists, especially in the culturally conservative province of Anbar. "What we're finding is indeed the people of al-Anbar -- Fallujah and Ramadi, specifically -- have decided to turn against terrorists and foreign fighters," Maj. Gen Rick Lynch, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said in February.[2]

Et cetera. See generally the WP:REDFLAG of WP:RS. And you still haven't responded to the fatal WP:NPOV flaw or my WP:OR objection. I don't want to play Argument Clinic. I came here because of the RFC, and answered the question posed. In my opinion, based on Wikipedia policies, you don't have a basis for the POV-fork. -- TedFrank 09:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response was "could you explicitly name the sources and identify the sentences you object to"? You did not do that yet pointed out certain omissions, in other words, the article is accurate and sourced(!), but should elaborate on the information disputing it. Clearly that is not equal to OR or RS. AFAIK the proposed article clearly mentions the criticism, although one might think it can be more clearly identified. As to ArbCom, you will find that they discussed the deletion of sources on several occasions and every time concluded it was unwarranted. IOW they accept the sources whereas you object, still without stating which ones. Since the sources are acceptable by ArbCom's standards and all information is from those sources OR nor RS apply. NPOV can be remedied by elaborating on criticism. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't falsely recharacterize what I said. And please don't falsely recharacterize what ArbCom said. ArbCom did not rule on the merger of this article, it did not rule on whether this article met WP:REDFLAG or WP:NPOV or WP:OR, it ruled on the conduct of an editor. Its ruling against an editor doesn't mean that every opinion that editor held is forever tainted. -- TedFrank 12:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a finding of fact, ArbCom held that the article was merged. They had no remedies on that fact. At the very least they didn't object to the merger despite any sourcing. They certainly did not find that the merger was inappropriate. Quite the opposite, in fact, since they acknowledged what had happened, analyzed the parties involved, and took no action to change it. --Tbeatty 14:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This must be some form of miscommunication. Your objection is OR and RS. The reference to ArbCom merely proves the sources are allowed and therefore RS is not applicable. Since the sources are allowed, and all statements are from these sources, claiming OR is also not correct. As to ArbCom ruling on the merger, I never said anything to that effect. As long as ArbCom has no problem with the sources my question remains why do you?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an article here. Notes

1) ArbCom is assiduous in repeatedly insisting that they do not rule on matters of content. I don't think it's accurate to say that ArbCom "has no problem with the sources" when really ArbCom doesn't even consider such things at all.

2) Inserting the word "purported" into the first sentence (and adopting a similar tone throughout the article) would be more consistent with the character of the sources.

3) PSYOP article has enough information and potential further development that could only exist independent the main Zarqawi article (contextualizing this program within broader US PSYOPS, etc.) to qualify as more than a POV fork and warrant its own article. - Orphic 11:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contents of this article should remain a merge

Please comment here:

- Merge. This version of the article is a one-sided POV-fork that violates WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV by constructing an argument out of disparate sources, none of the reliable ones of which support the wild claims made. The merged section in the Zarqawi article is at least slightly better. -- TedFrank 18:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might add: the WP:NPOV problems with this sub-article are unavoidable. The article is one-sided in its promotion of the theory that Zarqawi's significance was solely the invention of a psyop operation and that Zarqawi had no role in al Qaeda; refuting the argument such that both sides are represented would involve a tremendous amount of duplication of the main Zarqawi article, making this one redundant. This is a POV-fork, and the main article is not so large that this theory can't be given the small space it deserves. -- TedFrank 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK it has been established he was not part of AQ. The mere fact he was never mentioned internationally before only proves that point.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's this sort of fictional claim that pervades the article and demonstrates an intent to create a POV-fork. The April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate and the broad consensus edit of the main Zarqawi article indicate he's affiliated with Al Qaeda. Once appropriate rebuttal sources are added to this article, it becomes a sloppy redundant mirror of the main article. I'm not going to play Argument Clinic. You had your RFC, and not a single person agrees with the need for a POV-fork. -- TedFrank 22:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio, you may have your timing off on Zarqawi not being affiliated with AQ. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Zarqawi's al-Tawid group and al Qaeda were in competition in Jordan and the competition continued after the invasion, but they were very loosely affiliated (in that al-Tawid initially used AQ training camps, but were still a separate organization). However, in late 2004 Zarqawi declared his group aligned with AQ and the two groups merged. with al-Tawid becoming AQ in Iraq.--Bobblehead 01:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. Prior to the invasion of Iraq there was no connection, and he was a non-notable upstart. Nevertherless, Powell used him to validate that invasion. Clearly making the suggestion that he was created by the invasion accurate. I am not denying there is a connection. But it is evident that connection was only possible AFTER the US branded him an AQ operative: which was not true!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge Per TedFrank. The allegations can be easily handled in one paragraph of the now dead Zarqawi article. --Tbeatty 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Per the above. No rusty forks. Arkon 16:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]