This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Should we keep this as American English "Musab" or international English "Mousab"? Which has more google hits? - 68.23.103.58 03:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Who added the part about "towelhead terrorists and sandniggers." This is highly inappropriate.
I removed the following info since it doesn't seem to relate strongly to Zarqawi. Perhaps it could be incorporated into another article? Quadell (talk) 17:48, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
Polls of the US public have shown that up to 80% have stated a belief that Saddam Hussein actually planned or caused the 9/11 attacks. The role of these two individuals thus takes on an almost mythic importance. However, the Bush administration consistently denies that it created this impression in the public:
In an interview in September 2003, Bush said
Others counter that bin Laden and Saddam did not get along even against a common prime enemy, as the secular, socialist Arab nationalism of Saddam's Baath Party was largely incompatible with bin Laden's Islamism. [1] One of the audio tapes purported to be of bin Laden called for the overthrow of Saddam and his "secular, socialist, infidel" government, [2] and Britain's defense intelligence staff asserted that any fledgling relationship foundered on ideological differences. [3] The CIA had great difficulty backing up Bush's claims. [4] FBI investigators looking for a link said "we just don't think it's there." [5] Israel denied the Iraq and al-Qaeda connection (while asserting the connection between Iraq and Palestinian terrorism). [6]
Your Zarqawi article contains the following sentence: "But, the established connection between Al Qaida operative, Abu Musab al Zarqawi and Iraq has and remains a credible link. "
In its context it suggests that Zarqawi was a good reason for the Iraq invasion in 2003. Yet it provides no evidence to back up the statement.
There are three new Politrix links in the External links section. I'm not sure they belong here -- especially the "Beheading a Day Keeps the Bad News Away" link. It's an interesting article, but I don't think it gives primary info about Zarqawi. The same for the other links, only less so. Quadell (talk) 18:23, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
I'm now removing the Politrix links. If you think they belong, tell us why here. Quadell (talk) 16:03, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
Juan Cole (American Middle East expert and Prof of History) quotes a 2003 CBS report: "We have exclusive new details tonight on talks between the US and Iran, a nation the President said was part of an axis of evil. Iran can help the American fight against terrorism, but apparently they have named a price." NBC (Brown) adds, "These three, among the most wanted members of Al Qaeda. The alleged poison expert who got medical treatment in Iraq, [Abu Mussab al Zarqawi]. Bin Laden's third oldest son, [Sa'ad bin Laden], known to be planning new Al Qaeda operations. The Al Qaeda spokesman, [Suleiman abu Gaith], famous for introducing bin Laden in this videotape after 9/11. Many US officials believe that Iran is willing to turn them and other key Al Qaeda operatives over to the US or their home countries -- for a price -- in exchange for members of an Iranian opposition group called the Mujahadeen al-Khalq, or the MEK. The MEK has been attacking Iran's Islamic government from Iraq and is now there under US military control." [7]
An anonymous user informed us of the following. (I moved it down here, as it was inserted in the middle of a previous post of mine.) – Quadell ( talk) ( help)[[]] 11:35, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
All info relative to his alleged death months ago has been removed. What is up?
Have I misread the current version of this article? None of this is discussed in the article!
Zarqawi just died
Alright, the whole story about Zarqawi being the mastermind and chief organiser of terrorism in Iraq is probably a myth, based on another intelligence "mistake". That's what an article in the respected conservative British paper Daily Telegraph suggests [8]. Don't know if the article will remain available without subscription, so I'll post the first few paragraphs here (fair use):
How US fuelled myth of Zarqawi the mastermind
By Adrian Blomfield outside Fallujah
(Filed: 04/10/2004)
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader believed to be responsible for the abduction of Kenneth Bigley, is 'more myth than man', according to American military intelligence agents in Iraq.
Several sources said the importance of Zarqawi, blamed for many of the most spectacular acts of violence in Iraq, has been exaggerated by flawed intelligence and the Bush administration's desire to find "a villain" for the post-invasion mayhem.
Zarqawi fuels his ambition with the release of a video of the beheading of Nick Berg
US military intelligence agents in Iraq have revealed a series of botched and often tawdry dealings with unreliable sources who, in the words of one source, "told us what we wanted to hear".
"We were basically paying up to $10,000 a time to opportunists, criminals and chancers who passed off fiction and supposition about Zarqawi as cast-iron fact, making him out as the linchpin of just about every attack in Iraq," the agent said.
"Back home this stuff was gratefully received and formed the basis of policy decisions. We needed a villain, someone identifiable for the public to latch on to, and we got one."
- pir 11:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Today (or yesterday) the U.S. began lauching sustained bombing attacks against Falujah. The reason was that the Alawi government demanded that the people of the city hand over Zarqawi, and the people of the city did not. Given his unknown whereabouts, it seems reasonable to suspect that the city did not turn over Zarqawi because he wasn't there. Could this be incorporated into the article? caralho de buceta? Also, just today, the U.S. finally froze the assets of Tawhid and Jihad, the group allegedly tied to Zarqawi. That's right; until October 15, 2004, the U.S. had allowed T&J funds to flow freely through American banks. ( source) Could this be incorporated as well? – Quadell ( talk) ( help)[[]] 20:34, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
Zarqawi in Fallujah?: Taken from a DOD briefing
[9]
Q Do you think the terrorist leaders will stay? Not saying whether you think Zarqawi is there or not, but do you think there is a cell structure there that is prepared to fight U.S. forces?
GEN. MYERS: I think the most I'm fair to say is that -- well, time will tell. Some will probably stay, some probably will leave or have left.
Don't know exactly where to put this, but someone should add mention of Content discribed here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108880
In response to the paragraphs from "zarqawi myth" piece, I think it should be removed. A lot has happened since Oct 16, like Zarqawi's allegence to al-Qaeda and bin Laden's audiotaped endorsement of al-Zarqawi.
I'm removing the story of Mabus and Nostradamus. The person who wrote it said "it is OK to report relevant views of people according to Wikipedia rules" but this is not a relevant view. The whole theory comes from a Nostradamus site which also lists Howard Dean and Dick Cheney as potential candidates for "Mabus." I just don't think this belongs here. -- csloat 21:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is true that there are many theories about MABUS, and one of them is that it is Bush. However, in his case that would not be so interesting or important to report, as it not so interesting fact that someone would have this theory. The theory about MABUS in the case of Abu Masub is however intriguing and interesting - some people do consider it (not just on that site) to be a case, and it is worth reporting it. If there is a prophecy about someone than this should be reported in the site, even if you think that the prophecy is nonsense (as it is in my case, but I find it a relevant fact that there IS such a prophecy, in interpretations of many people). The wikipedia should REPORT about believes of people, even if you disagree what they believe in. Some people (bilion or so) believe that Jesus Christ resurected, and it is OK to report that here. Some people (probably many milions) believe there is something in Nostradamus prophecies, and many more find them intriguing. There is a well known prophecy about MABUS, the third antichrist, and this should be reported in wikipedia - it has much more place than some arbitrary speculations about what happens in year 2634 (that is in Wikipedia too). So I am adding this back, together with the theory about MABUS.
I see what you're saying, but this is a biography piece. Things can be interesting, lots of people can believe them, and yet not be relevant to the particular page under discussion. Perhaps this would work more in the "MABUS" page - with a link to this one to show the biography of the person the theory is about. Maybe, and I express no opinion about it, with a link on this page to that. -- GeorgeOrr 02:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But prophecies about people, or something that is viewed as such, IS relevant to their biography - it can often affect their lives and biographies significantly.
It would be relevant to their bio if in fact it affected their lives significantly. It hasn't. A lot of people believe in Tarot readings, and find them interesting and believe them to be relevant. But if someone went to a local fortune teller and asked them to interpret the cards concerning Abu Musab al-Zarqawi I wouldn't expect to see the results posted here ... unless it was he who went or in some way had been affected by it. -- GeorgeOrr 02:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have been watching this page for a while, and the Mabus conspiracy/mythology gets inserted so frequently that I believe it should be included, either as a section of this page, or at mabus. Something brief! Anyone who wishes to expound on the Mabus-Zarqawi link should put it in the Mabus section. Yeago 05:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Looking through Wikipedia I see a lot of pages have a string of one or two people constantly trying to add irrelevant sections. The rest of the community takes turns deleting it, patiently explaining why it's irrelevant, and then removing it again. One person, or even a few, repeatedly adding something irrelevant doesn't make it relevant. As you suggest, add it to a different page (like the Mabus page for instance) but not on a page where it has no relevance. I would completely change that view if someone could post on this discussion evidence that shows this prophecy has had a significant affect on the subject of the bio. -- GeorgeOrr 01:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've read through this discussion and I can't believe anyone is willing to defend this stuff. It makes Wikipedia look silly. It's fine to include your theories about Mabus on the Nostradamus page or the Mabus page, but not here. There's nothing wrong with a one-way link on the mabus page listing Zarqawi as one of the possible candidates for Mabus, but no mention of Mabus on this page. The same way you could have a page on Robert Fisk that mentions he wrote an article about Zarqawi, without putting Fisk on the Zarqawi page. No real encyclopedia would include such superstitions in a biography entry. I know wikipedia is different but it aspires to similar scholarly standards. -- csloat 06:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article is the victim of so much corruptive editing, I wouldn't be suprised to know that it is the victim of some censorship program somewhere. I'll say no more....
I remember checking up on this article a few months ago and discovering all info about his death had been removed. Ayeum...
-- csloat 04:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
First 88.wtvr.wtvr.wtvr says "unverified," now heshe says copyright. WTf? Yeago 23:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The U.S. military has since admitted that claims of Zarqawi's missing leg were part of a disinformation campaign.
Source? A disinformation campaign on whose part, the US military or Zarqawi's organization? Descendall
Zarquawi walking on the new video released by Pentagon also does not look like somebody with prosthetic leg!
An anon editor erased the sentence about Zarqawi growing up poor, getting arrested for sexual assault, and drinking heavily. This stuff has been part of the page for a long time and nobody saw fit to remove it before. Who originally put it in? Is it accurate? If so, I think it's reasonable to include this information, "prurient" or no. -- csloat 22:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Sometime in 2001, Zarqawi was arrested again in Jordan but was soon released. Later, he was convicted in absentia and sentenced to death for plotting the attack on the Radisson SAS Hotel.[9]"
Then
"Zarqawi was again sentenced in absentia in Jordan; this time, his sentence was death"
Which one is correct?
DaFLM.
This article is biased against the United States and perpetuates "conspiracy theories" rather than allege that they exist. Juan Cole is an incredibly polemic source, why not provide some balance on this issue? Stating a lie over and over again eventually makes everyone reference it as fact.
Is he a Jordanian or a Palestinian? There are conflicting reports on this? PatGallacher 15:16, 2005 July 22 (UTC)
It seems that people are only "Palestinian" when it suits their cause. The media refuses to label this terrorist, Zarqawi, as a "Palestinian" because of his obvious atrocities, however, they and Wikipedia continue to label Al-Arian and Arafat, born in Kuwait and Egypt respectively, as "Palestinians". Let's face it, they are Arab Muslim terrorists, lets just call them that.
Of all the Iraq-related articles I've seen on Wikipedia, this is one of the most biased. Zarqawi is not just wanted as a terrorist, he IS an ADMITTED terrorist. According to every Definition of Terrorism on Wikipedia, he IS a terrorist. Therefore, he should be called one. Since this is an encyclopedia, it doesn't have to read like a wanted poster (I'd like that personally,) but it does have to be accurate. I hope the following links are proof enough:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/ansar-al-sunna.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm
I know the prevailing view on Wikipedia that 'terrorist' implies a negative connotation. This is because a terroristic act is negative. If this was an article about Charles Manson, it would call him a murderer. That's what he was. BQAggie2004 20:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I made some modifications to the original, any questions/comments/bitches/gripes/complaints are welcome.
I removed the following paragraph, because I could not find any legitimate news sources to back the claims up. Some of these claims come from Scott Ritter who is a controversial character. Also, the link from the Daily Telegraph is obviously biased. I haven't looked at the Russian link, but any webpage named 'war_nerd' does not appear credible. It's like getting your information from a web correspondant named 'BabyFaceHotMama094718.' I simply question the credibility of the sources:
"In one report, the conservative newspaper Daily Telegraph described as myth the claim that Zarqawi was the head of the "terrorist network" in Iraq. According to a U.S. military intelligence source, the Zarqawi myth resulted from faulty intelligence obtained by the payment of substantial sums of money to unreliable and dishonest sources. The faulty intelligence was accepted, however, because it suited US government political goals, according to an unnamed intelligence officer. [10] The Zarqawi myth has also been purported to be the product of U.S. war propaganda designed to promote the image of a demonic enemy figure to help justify continued U.S. military operations in Iraq [11], perhaps with the tacit support of terrorist elements who wish to use him as a propaganda tool or as a distraction. [12]"
I also could not find any credible information reguarding a disinformation campaign. If this was really true, American and British press would have jumped at the chance to publish it. I cannot find it anywhere, except for questionable cites:
"The U.S. military has since admitted that claims of Zarqawi's missing leg were part of a disinformation campaign." BQAggie2004 20:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Why does this story not appear in any mainstream publication? CNN, Fox News, BBC, none of them carry this story. Even the liberal papers like the New York Times and Boston Globe don't have anything like this. They all would have jumped at this kind of story. I am not familiar with the Telegraph, but that article was anything but unbiased. To me, parts of it read more like an editorial.
The quote from the article: "Yet it now seems that the intelligence on which such claims are based is haphazard, scanty and contradictory."
If this is true, why hasn't it been reported in the mainstream press? We can't assume that there's a huge, right-wing conspiracy over the US and Britian to keep it out of the news. That doesn't make sense.
The reason I question the 'war nerd' article is because I know that if I personally was using news articles to write anything academic, articles with a name like that probably wouldn't be acceptable sources. Even if the information is correct, it's very hard to take a source seriously when it comes from an 'alternative news' source. What is an 'alternative' newspaper? Does it give 'extreme' points of view? Is it read by people who like 'alternative' music? As I read down the page, porn links are popping up. '200 Beautiful Russian Brides a Week?' 'E-mail thousands of beautiful Russian ladies?' The only thing that I can say is that I should have opened the link earlier, I didn't realize that 'war nerd' is the name of the column.
Here are a few quotes from the front page. These are unedited and unexaggerated, and I include them to prove a point:
"How many Iraqis are trained up and ready to take over from the Americans? That number depends on how gullible - or high - you are. The eXile subjects a beer-drinking real estate agent to the whacky ups and downs of the Iraqi forces..."
""He liked to fuck whores in the ass, and not wear a condom, and then brag about it..." The incredibly sordid truth behind the bludgeoning death of Russia's spam villain..."
"The zany story of how the Washington Post's new correspondent, Peter Finn, helped sell a Pentagon-planted story about an Iraqi "victim" just in time to help shore up support for the war..."
www.exile.ru is clearly NOT a 'fair and balanced' news source.
I stand by my previous comments on calling Zarqawi and his 'insurgent' organization for what they are--terrorists. I feel this article should reflect the truth, reguardless of the validity of those news sources. BQAggie2004 23:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure where British right-wing stands compared to American politics, I have heard that in general, the British are shifted either to the left or the right of what Americans call moderate, I'm not sure, I'm probably wrong.
Perhaps something should be written that could cast doubt on the 'myth' claims, if something should be found. My point is that if this was credible, it would be as well known as Bush's 'yellow-cake' reference in the State of the Union. That kind of news would be HUGE in the US. But as you said above, these were 'views.'
If you look at the web page, the name of the column is the 'War Nerd.' It might be his e-mail too.
Technically, I guess you are right about the 'terrorism' reference. After all, Ted Kyzenski (the Unibomber) was a terrorist, but I don't think he was a militant. It should be noted that Zarqawi is a 'gurrella leader' and a 'militant' and a 'terrorist.' I'd find facts to back my claims up, but they are already in the article. He's not just wanted for terrorism, he is a self-proclaimed terrorist. BQAggie2004 00:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the phrase "Western-owned" from "three Western-owned hotels". While CNN would have you believe that all the hotels were U.S.-owned, the Radisson SAS in question is a Scandanavian-based chain and is owned and operated by Palestinian-Jordainians. - Cybjorg 11:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I just read news that he has been dismissed as the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. If someone knows this for certain please update.
In the very first line Zarqawi is referred to as a terrorist. Where do you draw the line between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Is it not better to preserve objectivism by saying something like ‘freedom fighter/terrorist’ or ‘viewed by some as a terrorist while others consider him to be a freedom fighter’?
History is written by the ‘victorers’ and it can be hard to distinguish who the good/bad guys are. Were the founding fathers of The United States of America freedom fighters or terrorist? Hezbollah? Chechnyens? The list goes on…
Per
>beheading American Nicholas Berg, a civilian
Except that Berg was an israeli citizen, which the USA and Israel tried to keep secret, but the Haaretz newspaper leaked the info. Berg had known and hard proven links to one of the 9/11 hijackers (shared dorm room and laptop with him). There is every reason to believe that Berg was involved with Mossad, which Zarkavi did indeed claim so.
So Berg was neither an American, nor a civilian. As a spy, he had no expectation to live and I have no problem with spies being killed, since espionage is an extra-judicary activity. Spies do expect to be executed since Ms. Mata Hari, almost 90 years ago.
I may be a bit of a biased source, but I do know Berg's family in the US. They were questioned following 9/11 and again following his execution, and no claims of his involvement with Mossad were ever made by the US government. Likely, you have no more information on this issue than the US government has (despite the US government's unreliability regarding intelligence), and if I were you, I would think twice before rushing to say that you have no problem with the execution of someone you don't know. Mysticfeline 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Mysticfeline
This article is no longer protected. Should we remove the {{vprotected}}tag?
I can't help but feel that a dark, poorly-exposed and brooding photo is fairly POV in itself, when describing your "enemy" - I'm not going to replace it myself though, without first soliciting for a couple other opinions and suggestions for replacements (I have no problem using the photo in the article, but it should not be the main photograph) Sherurcij 06:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Pretty minor, but the way I'm reading it the translation looks like it should be "Zarqawi" instead of "al-Zarqawi"? Is is Is
"Al-Zarqawi" and "bin Laden" are analogous in that they are both last names. Omitting "al" is the same mistake as removing "bin", I never heard "Laden" by itself before. -- Eagle a m n 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Even though the Arabic caption reads (?) just "Zarqawi"? Is is Is
And they still reject any attempt to automatically protect FAOTD articles, although all the pictures that are shown on the main page are protected. -- Orang gila 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Concerning the bit about Zarqawi's death, I removed the following.
"An Iraqi man, who claims to have arrived on the scene a few moments after the attack, said he saw U.S. troops beating up the badly-wounded but still alive Zarqawi.[118][119] In contradiction, Caldwell asserted that when U.S. troops found Zarqawi barely alive they tried to provide him with medical help, rejecting the allegations that he was beaten based on an autopsy performed. The account of the Iraqi witness has not been verified.[120] All others in the house died immediately in the blasts."
Because the claims have not been verified, I see no reason that it should be placed within the article, and to be quite frank, reeks of bias. If someone has proof of verification, feel free to change it back to the original, provided that a link or some form of proof or source of information is provided within. The "all others" part I removed as well because it didn't lead into the next section very well. Any writers with more skill and interest in the article than myself are welcome to make changes, as that is the beauty of wikipedia. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.234.66.219 ( talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 December, 2006.
Just to answer the perennial question before it gets asked, Today's Featured Article is normally not protected. If vandalism gets severe, it may be semi-protected and full move protection may also be implemented, but normally, today's FA is not protected. If you want to help protect the page from vandalism, please watchlist it and help to revert the vandalism as it happens. Thanks, everybody.-- Chaser T 00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations on making this an FA, despite the controversy. -- Ab e g92 contribs Boomer Sooners! 04:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Is Zarqawi really deserving of being categorized as a "mass murderer?" This seems somewhat biased to me, unless you want to put Bush up as a mass murderer for his part in the Iraq War. Slinga 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
to me it seems that his death was all made up to counter his threat. Yousaf465
:i only meant that if any evidence can found i will also try you people should also do the same. Yousaf465
I just received an e-mail from a friend who said an administrator who claims to be New York attorney violated a three revert rule to singularly control content of this article, attacked a user:talk page to remove the users comments, then blocked the user to prevent them from contributing to the content of this article contrary to the political agenda of the administrator Postdlf. This seems to be neither a transparent nor a collaborative approach to describing controversial international events. Lance48 23:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Has this been deleted or is it my computer messing up?! Trampik e y ( talk to me)( contribs) 17:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I've changed this image to a link to the image page because the URL of the source..
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Transcripts/Slides/060608-zarqawi.pdf
..is currently not available as of December 17, 2006 and I can't find it on www.archive.org.
I feel the image may violate WP:IUP as it is now unsourced. The IUP seems unclear on sources that lead to dead URLs.
I feel that the image should only be reinstated if it has been approved by a consensus of editors. If I've misinterpreted WP:IUP, comments are welcome. -- Pixelface 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
More often than not Wiki regresses to be the mouthpiece of US foreign policy; furthermore the articles that make it into "todays features article" are one-sided, biased, and poorly written opinion pieces that are construed by a bunch of macabre morons. I am disgusted with the continuance of violence in the Middle East and the constant fanning of the flames through these ignorant pieces of propaganda. If you look at the recent spell of articles on Wikipedia you will realize that the majority of them have tons of spin: Operation Wrath of Good, Iran, and now Abu - that's just a sampling. Never mind the fact that Milton Friedmann died - no news about that. I guess we live in a country where things are so good that the only way we can bring some sense of reality into our lives is by regressing towards hate and violence. That is very sad. Congratulations to those who continue to fight for truth and fairness. --Horn 66.174.79.241 21:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
pl check my last pos tin the topic fake death and pl answer it. User talk:Yousaf465 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yousaf465 ( talk • contribs) 07:42, December 30, 2006 (UTC)}
In the headline 'Arguments downplaying Zarqawi's importance', I added a quotation by Respect MP George Galloway made on the BBC's 'Question Time', which was directley relevant to the evident. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I don't see a problem with what I did.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TpUR5zfWZw —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.108.192.46 ( talk) 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
The unquoted reactions on Zarqawis death can refer to this url: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5058478.stm. 0v3r533r 12:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the lead of the article, Al Zarqawi was "a Jordanian born Palestinian." But according to the Biography section, he was the "son of a native Jordanian family." How are the two compatible? A ecis Brievenbus 07:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The first picture of Zarqawi shows him un bearded and lacking the usual characteristics of a mujahid. This may confuse readers, I propose it be changed. Guleed M. A. 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Place of birth Zarqa not Amman
Prior to his death, Zarqawi was often seen in photos wearing a suicide vest, and he claimed that he slept in one. Yet there were no reports that he had one on when he died. Can anyone confirm this one way or another?
BTW: Claims of sleeping with a suicide vest had also been made about his aide, Mohammed Khalaf Shakar, who surrendered without a fight when he was caught.
--
Randy2063 15:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
How can this possibly be a FA when it lacks a picture of the person in question? I know the image-fascists are completely out of control, deleting practically everything at their private whim, but even so there has to be some way of illustrating the subject of this article? Vilĉjo ( talk) 01:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it's less to do with rights of 'fair use' of a picture, and more because there's so much dispute about even the basics of this guy's life and career. Look above and you'll see that his death picture is disputed by some, for instance.-- Lopakhin ( talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
To me there's something wrong with using the words "years of service" in this article.He was a terrorist and not a soldier.Nor did he technically "serve".
How many terrorists get a "years of service" mention, and if it's correct he should have that by his name then surely osama bin laden should have the same treatment and so should any other terrorist on wikipedia for that matter.
I know one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and all that but this still seems odd.
Just thought i'd put the opinion out there and see if anyone agreed ?
82.21.204.72 ( talk) 21:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
i know that this to totally irrevealt to what you might be reading but hey oh well deal with it my name is Ph.D and that's all the information that you need. there are many issues that we as a country and as a world but most of all as a cilivization must understand and what there is to understand is this word called diversity. people fear what they don't understand so we as a race tries to belittle the other guy who we might feel is getting there foot one notch higher up in the game. i've been in many situations where i've been sterotyped and judge but how, how can you be judgemental and steroypical when in the long run only god knows what that person has been through. what is the meaning of war and why are we at war. to me it feels as if the world is trying to gain full supremacy of all others but for what. thats why we are all divided by contients because we all have something differnt. that goes back to that word diveristy. who gives us the right to run out of a resource and then feels to get more we have to takeover another country to get what we want.
Somebody either find a picture of him alive or remove the one of his corpse, this is making me sick. Vomiting should not be a normal reaction to any article on wikipedia. Haridan ( talk) 23:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the picture of al-Zarqawi's corpse contributes anything to the article. How many other articles on deceased persons have pictures of the person's corpse?
I see on the page it says the U.S. government distributed the image in a press pack. If the image was meant to demoralize the insurgency, I think the image would be better placed on the article on propaganda or psyops.
It's my understanding that most articles on deceased persons do not contain an image of the person's corpse.
Also, the supposed source of the image:
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Transcripts/Slides/060608-zarqawi.pdf
..is no longer present as of December 15, 2006.
I realize "Wikipedia is not censored" but I think if people need to see his corpse (or purported corpse), a picture is present in the Washington Post link. -- Pixelface 03:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a poll regarding this issue located in Archive three. I encourage you to go to it and cast a vote so that we can get a better feeling of where consensus lies. This issue seems to be constantly brought up, and then later ignored. Agaib 04:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
To Raul, yes all of those people have corpse images in their articles where they rightfully belong. They are all located in a section explaining the circumstances of their death as it provides good photo support. The infobox should not be a place to show his death. It is very disrespectful that the perception of the reader is focused on his death rather than his life. This article should not be have his corpse as the main picture to know what he looks like regardless of your political opinions of his actions. Free pictures of Zarqawi are readily available through a google image search. -WhiteFeet 13 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.103.200 ( talk) 01:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Somehow through multiple edits and reverts, all the sources have disappeared! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.59.210 ( talk) 13:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know much about the consensus here, but is the image of his corpse (granted it is not unnecessarily graphic) really the one we should be using to actually represent his likeness. Are there any images that feature him alive? How many articles about people have images of their dead bodies as the de facto image of representation (in other words, their main picture)? I could see the point if it was in the Death section but it strikes me as absurd that a featured article on a person would use the image of their dead body as the main image in the article. Saddam Hussein's doesn't do so, and neither does almost all of the other articles about deceased people. The great kawa ( talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You should read this talk page a little more fully, as there is already a current topic about it. :) There was already a poll conducted at the top of the third archive of this talk page, and it was voted to keep this picture. FFLaguna ( talk) 12:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Using this information from West Point there is a lot of mistakes that need to be correct on the top page.
Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) (based at West Point[
[14]])
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf
--
OxAO (
talk) 20:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
According to the US Treasury these five men were accomplices of Al Zarqawi: [15] Geo Swan ( talk) 19:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if this has been discussed before. Should we fix the mistake in the block quote by Colin Powell: "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants". I see that the source has this exact text, which is I guess why we have it. I didn't watch the video, but I assume this is a transcript error and he actually said "an associate and collaborator". Thoughts? Staecker ( talk) 15:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer ( talk) 16:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
why isn't it listed that for awhile he personally lead his group in some battles on the front and personally lead attacks on rival militias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 ( talk) 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
If you can cite it then go ahead and add it, but remember all content must be verifiable. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 05:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted TucsonDavid's possibly NPOV-violating edits based on an IRC discussion in hope that this can be discussed rather than having an editor hit 3RR. Logan Talk Contributions 05:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Powell UN Iraq presentation, alleged Terrorist Network.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC) |
This is a really good article but I have issue with the neutrality of a source in the biography section, fifth paragraph. The source is number 16, and it links to Bill O'Reilly's website, to an article from September 2004. The sentence that uses source 16 for reference talks about Zarqawi's involvement in Afghanistan and his involvement in Iraq before the US invasion. I do not believe that he was involved in Iraq before the invasion, based on a number of sources, including the 9/11 Commission Report and O'Reilly himself. O'Reilly has since said it was a mistake to invade Iraq, but it was an understandable mistake due to the evidence at hand. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm This is worth a look. Otherwise a good article.
65.30.92.14 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the Iraqi involvement piece has gotten back in, and Source 16 is still being used. The site in question, PWHCE.org, is not a good source as you can see by the bio of the lead contributor: http://www.pwhce.org/trevor.html. I am deleting. Jazzcowboy ( talk) 15:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Under the subheading "terrorist" the article states that he was arrested in Jordan in 1996 and spent 5 years in jail, until his release in 1999. There's obviously an error here somewhere - either in the time of his arrest, release, time spent in jail, or that figure could be a combined time spent in jail, rather than time for this particular crime? There are two relevant references here (7 and 9), however checking revealed both are broken. I can find a working link to reference 7, (which I'm now fixing) however it doesn't state the years spent in jail, but does state that he spent 6 years in jail (not 5). I'm editing this section of the article to reflect that reference, while leaving the paragraph with the broken reference 9 in, but adding a dead link to the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owheelj ( talk • contribs) 05:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
This is flatly untrue. Al-Tahwid was set up in competition to al-Qaeda (Zarqawi had religious differences with bin Laden) and on one occasion refused to share money that had been raised for both groups by sympathisers in Germany. (source: Senate Intelligence Committee). The events in 2004 were orchestrated by US Strategic Communications (source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040900890.html) and had more to do with creating a story for the invasion of Iraq than it had to do with the truth of Zarqawi's political agenda.
This article requires major revisions in the light of facts that have come to light since the invasion. [[User:|SleepyHead]] ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this is appropriate to point out here. The Wikipedia page says that United States Air Force F-16C aircraft were used in the killing. "Seal Target Geronimo" by Chuck Pfarrer says that a Predator drone was used. Any contradictions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.97.17.18 ( talk) 08:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 17 external links on
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 11 external links on
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Fox said the Iraqi PM stated
Abu Abdul Rahman al-Iraqi was killed along with al-Zarqawi:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/06/08/abu-musab-al-zarqawi-killed-in-bombing-raid.html
Reuters said Abu Abdulrahman al-Iraqi wrote a letter heralding the death of al-Zarqawi:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060630020239/http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L08233828.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Death-of-a-Terrorist-Leader-HOW-AIDE-S-BETRAYAL-2517598.php stated al-Iraqi led U.S. forces to al-Zarqawi and was killed along with him.
CNN stated they were both killed same day.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/iraq.al.zarqawi.1929/
The current version of this wikipedia article has the Reuters' version. Level C ( talk) 23:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
This edit excises about 2k of text. IMO it should be explained or reverted... Geo Swan ( talk) 00:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Chalk, Peter 2012":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The article claims that Jund al-Sham was founded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi between 1989-1992. First, as can be seen from his article and various sources, he wasn't following jihadist ideology until he goes to Afghanistan (1989) and comes back to his homeland (1992). Secons, his biographies that are written by Jean-Charles Brisard and Fouad Hussain don't mention such an organization. The only source for that information is this The Washington Post article. On the other hand, another article claims that "...Jund al-Sham is believed to have first emerged in Afghanistan in 1999, established by Syrians, Palestinians and Jordanians with links to the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi...". So I remove this content from the article since there's no reliable source or claim for that part.-- Nanahuatl ( talk) 09:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
can anyone find it? https://web.archive.org/web/20220208182949/https://www.dvidshub.net/video/16302/us-air-strike-al-zarqawi Victor Grigas ( talk) 18:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)