Talk:Zarqawi PSYOP program

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Makes sense, so tomorrow it is. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but how does the unprotect get released?  Who does the merger?  Morton devonshire 01:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps asking the admin that protected it would be a good place to start. --Bobblehead 04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: It's done.  Morton devonshire 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger RfC

message: #--zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes to merge

message: #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 NescioGnothi seauton 18:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No to merge

message: 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 NescioGnothi seauton 18:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Makes sense, so tomorrow it is. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but how does the unprotect get released?  Who does the merger?  Morton devonshire 01:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps asking the admin that protected it would be a good place to start. --Bobblehead 04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's done.  Morton devonshire 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's get on with it

message: 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 NescioGnothi seauton 17:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been merged per consensus.  I don't see any reason to change that.  --Tbeatty 17:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 NescioGnothi seauton 18:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Retry?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 NescioGnothi seauton 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 NescioGnothi seauton 16:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contents of this article should remain a merge