Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi/Archive 2

message: User:Comandante changed "terrorist" to "Islamist militant" in the first paragraph, User:Jgofborg called that "vandalism" and changed it back. "Islamist militant" is far more precise and less loaded then either of the terms discussed above, "terrorist" or "freedom fighter", so I'm about to revert again to Commandante's edit. It's not like Commandante completely purged the word "terrorist" from the article to make an ideological statement, but I think (s)he's suggested a better word choice for the intro. Please respond here with your reasoning if you object. --Brian Z 03:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I can accept that - however, if you check out many of his other contributions which serve to trivialize or even remove the word terrorist from generally-accepted terrorists and incidents, you can see why I missed this as a possibly-valid change.  This user's ideology and contributions perhaps made me overly suspicious, I'll admit that, and that this is a good call. JG of Borg 04:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: BTW, the intro needs cleanup - some more of which I'll do later... it really jumps around and repeats a lot (words like violence, etc)... JG of Borg 04:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I suppose it's OK to use some other word than "terrorist", but I would deeply object to using "Islamist militant" instead. It lends the cachet of Islam to this man's activities, and associates Islam with his actions. Shyland 19:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Islamist militant" is far more precise and less loaded then either of the terms discussed above, "terrorist" or "freedom fighter"".  This is a completely false statement.  It is used by people and media sympathetic to the causes of terrorists.  And as far as Islam being associated with the actions of Al Zarqawi, this is correct because Islam promotes violence in order to spread the religion.  Read the Koran if you do not believe me.
The whole article needs cleanup.  This is the worst page I've ever seen on Wikipedia.--216.110.81.34 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks user who doesnt have an account, I believe this article is actually pretty decent but there could be some clean up. As for Islamic Militant I would argue he is more of a terrorist then many Islamic militants as he has killed Civilians who are muslim by the THOUSANDS. He is a terrorist pure and simple.Jeffrey 04:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "zar-QAR-wi" - anderson CrackityKzz 03:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: congress people are the best cuz they aren't in the pronunciation "bizness" strictly. I think it's like "I don't even care enough about him to get all the syllables in his name right. "za-KARR-y" is the classic for "that guy, what ever. I said the 'z'". CrackityKzz 03:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Islamist Militant"

message: I think the bombing took place on June 7th -- it just took them a day to report it. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on what? — ceejayoz talk 08:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PC stated he the bombing took place last night, though other sources state overnight. I'm assuming last night refers to the 7th. I may be wrong though. Let me go dig for sources. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CNN stated it was on Wed which makes it the 7th --Petahhhh 08:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Early Wed. morning according to the NBC news cut-in here just now... - Adolphus79 09:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 8th? 

message: something weird is happening with the code at the very beginning of the article... between the arabic name and the dates... I don't know enough wiki markup yet to figure out how to fix it... - Adolphus79 08:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't figure it out either--and it's really frustrating to fix since it keeps switching from LtoR to RtoL everytime you try to edit it. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woo, much better. Props to Adolphus. However, it would be nice if we could get that in parentheses and before the date. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah... dernd backwards writing ppl... I got the parentheses around the arabic, but no idea how to get it before the date... if someone knows how to properly write arabic, feel free to fix it... we would like the arabic name between the english name and the dates... - Adolphus79 08:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May be best to put it back the way you had it. Right now it just looks bizarre, and I agree about the backwards writing--drives me absolutely insane. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: silly wiki markup... numbers are universal, so it didn't recognize the switch back to english until after the dates... fixed, but we're gonna need to keep the 'b.' there... - Adolphus79 09:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  date fix at the top... 

message: Someone just put in an sprotect request for this article on WP:AIV. Is there a consensus on this? -Loren 08:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only seen one vandal yet. Likely to be more given the breaking news, but I'm working on the article right now and will protect if the vandalism gets out of hand. Anons may have some useful info to contribute. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good, I'll remove the request on AIV for now. -Loren 08:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Can't be pre-emptive. And btw, AIAV isn't the place for protection requests. The requests for page protection page is. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm readding the sprotect. There has been repeated vandalism of this page by unregistered users. Alan 00:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sprotect? 

message: Trying to find a source, just heard a report that Reuters has stated a senior aide has been captured and a computer containing data on multiple members. Probably too speculative for now, but it may be worth mentioning in the article eventually. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senior Aide Captured? 

message: Is there a public domain image (perhaps one made by the federal government) of Zarqawi anywhere? I would like to get an image of Zarqawi up on the main page, but we can't use fair use images there. I found a couple on commons, but neither had adequate source info. AmiDaniel (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you could probably check the FBI's most wanted website... I'm sure those are PD... - Adolphus79 10:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this one? It's tagged as missing source info, but I think the source is well-stated: FBI. Do you think it really is PD? (Note that the image is on commons). AmiDaniel (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: that's the same image all right... and I am pretty sure FBI would be PD... they allow people to print out wanted posters freely... - Adolphus79 10:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, should I change the source info? AmiDaniel (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno... I'm the noob here... LOL - Adolphus79 10:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops, just changed it and then noticed the AP watermark at the bottom. Reverting... AmiDaniel (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Scratch that. Anyway, there must be some image that's PD--what about the images from his videos? Who owns the copyright to those? AmiDaniel (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody who's likely to file a copyright lawsuit ;) --csloat 11:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok... looking at the Yahoo photos, they have one from a video of his... if it's a screenshot from a video that he released to the public would that count?  I mean, he's dead, is he really going to complain about us using his video footage? I could upload this photo if you want... - Adolphus79 11:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could, that would be great. I'm talking to someone else about the video images--he owns the copyright technically, but you know the copyright paranoia on WP--Oh noooeee, he'll rise from the grave and sue us! AmiDaniel (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you get me a source URL on it? Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: here is the exact page I pulled it from... - Adolphus79 11:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD Image? 

message: stated on NBC television news, I'm sure I heard it... not sure if it's listed in any of the sources cited... feel free to remove if not cited in one of the resources... - Adolphus79 10:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, I've heard repeated references (on radio news broadcasts this morning) that the aerial attack was made with two 500 pound bombs.  At first, I had thought that a Predator UAV couldn't carry 500 pound bombs, but a Wikipedia page indicates otherwise.  Anyway, we'll get a citation as the news unfolds.Mlibby 11:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's why I removed the RQ-1 reference from the article text, I heard Predator & Hellfire missles at first, and then just now heard 2 500 pound bombs, myself... still searching for someone to mention {in print} the equipment used... - Adolphus79 12:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (disregard, wrong Predator).  This article states that the strike was conducted with 2 500 pounders off a pair of F-16s.  Stratfor article http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=267334  Sorry if this editing sucks, I'm new at this.128.143.218.69 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predator UAV 

message: Dutch news media (and probably others, too) said that al-Z's exact age was unknown, and that he was thought to be "in his thirties". So where does the exact date of birth in the article come from? Has it been verified?
GdB 10:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google suggests that October 1966 is pretty widely accepted, though some people such as the FBI and Interpol go for Oct 30 rather than Oct 20. Weregerbil 12:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: should we change that to (c. October 1966), just for accuracy's sake? - Adolphus79 13:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be changed, yes.  Joey 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth 

message: Can someone upload the picture of his face?  What do people think of posting it?  --TJive 13:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if you can find one we're allowed to use... LOL - Adolphus79 13:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure it would be public domain, but I don't know if people would find it appropriate.  The Hussein brothers articles do not have their pictures.  --TJive 13:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like most sane people, regardless of party affiliation, I'm thrilled that Zarqawi is dead. But I'm not sure if a death-photo of him is appropriate. By that standard every deceased person on wikipedia who has a death-photo should have it put up. I think it would be a bit tacky. Perhaps instead we should have an external link at the bottom of the page to the comparison (between live Zarqawi and dead Zarqawi). --BlueTruth 13:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a picture, but I think this one would belong to CNN.  --TJive 13:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another link.  I think the picture is Reuters's, then.  --TJive 14:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, it's actually a slightly different angle.  --TJive 14:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.ogrish.com/archives/2006/june/ogrish-dot-com-zarqawidead.jpg --86.4.56.196 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but there is more significance to having this guy's death pic than the average dead guy. The nature of his death is a part of the story. By the way, he looks pretty good in his death pic for a guy who had a couple of 500 pound bombs dropped on him, wonder what's with that? Jake b 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True, but notice you didn't see anything below the neck. I'm assuming his body was either horribly mutilated or indeed removed completely. God, I feel sorry for the grunts who had to clean up his face and make it look presentable for photos. --65.96.200.120 17:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ooops. That's me. Forgot to sign-in. --BlueTruth 17:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is to provide proof of their (Uday/Qusay/Zarqawi) death
Yes I know this particular Arab, Zarqawi, was a twisted fascist (i.e. anti-Shia) mass-murderer (and Saddam's sons were nasty pieces of work) and showing hostages being decapitated would be horrific and appalling. But I'm sure I remember seing a dead (possibly murdered) Iraqi prisoner wrapped in plastic on the news, and I'm sure his family would find that appalling and horrific. 
And a lot of prisoners held by the occupation forces and "Iraqi Interior Minister" (i.e. Shia militias/death squads) are civilians innocent of political violence or common criminal activity--as innocent as Western civilians taken hostage by Zarqawi's thugs. And some of the thosands who are held without charge, trial or POW status have been beaten or tortured to death by their captors (which probably hurts more than being decapitated by Zarqawi's men). Kingal86 21:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloated corpse

message: Would be a nice addition to an otherwise comprehensive wiki.
Anybody?
:It's pronounced al-zack-are-wee --86.4.56.196 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure about that?  The 'r' comes before the 'q'. --Smack (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have always heard it pronounced "al-zar-car-wee" on the news, but reporters' pronunciation of foreign names is often poor at best. — ceejayoz talk 15:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically because of assimilation the "L" isn't pronounced: "Az-zark'woo-iie". -Fsotrain09 15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of al-Zarqawi 

message: javascript:cnnVideo('play','/video/world/2006/06/08/vo.zarqawi.bomb.dod','2006/06/15');
That is a link to a video on http://cnn.com of the bombing of the place where al-Zarqawi was. Can someone please find a better link to it so we may put it in the external links section? dposse 16:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget about the bomb. Please just find a better link to the video. thanks. dposse 21:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  video of bombing 

message: I'm confused. 129.10.245.1 16:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's a terrorist. But in might be good to explore the difference here in the talk section... Jake b 16:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say he adequately fits the description of both Antimatter 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact a section "Terrorist or Militant" would greatly improve this article. Mieciu K 16:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL, you are effectively claiming that NPOV is liberal. Remember the saying "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? To me and you it's a fact that Zarqawi is a terrorist. But others reject that entirely. Therefore terrorist is not a neutral description, so you should not be asking for it. Militant is a good word to use. Tale 08:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Militant is not a neutral term.  Besides, there's no way Zarqawi could be identified as a "freedom fighter" given the ideology behind his actions.
66.194.72.10 07:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is he a terrorist or a millitant? 

message: Mission Accomplished. 69.109.170.225 18:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... Don't you think he would have been a little more valuable alive for interrogation? Men like him usually talk a mean line but end up squealing like stuck pigs under pressure. Anyway, why are you commenting here? Why not write a letter to your favorite neo-con blog? Jake b 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is ABSOLUTELY NOT Mission Accomplished, although it is a small step in the right direction.  The insurgent problem is much bigger than just al-Zarqawi.  We have already seen that as several Al-Qaeda No. 2's (funny how there has been about 10 of them) were killed in the past years, someone has always been right behind them to take their place.  You can kill their leaders, but it will not diminish their hatred.  It is pretty much guaranteed that someone will take his place.--Asulca593 21:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of you need to get off your soap boxes. Pipe down. Haizum 04:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finally Dead 

message: Regardless of what one thinks of Zarqawi's death, why is NO mention made of the child that died along in the attack.  The article should definitely mention that!
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/iraq.al.zarqawi/index.html
claims that a woman and child have died as well.  How old was he?
This puts a stain on this 'victory', I was happy to hear he himself was no longer a threat, but now I have doubts.  One might argue whether one nameless kid wasn't worth saving so many other lifes, but you won't see me cheer anymore at all.
No it does not.  An eight year old child would kill your infidel behind just as Zarqawi would.  He was allied with this network and is an unfortuate but necessary casualty in the killing of Abu Musab, who has killed hundreds by his own hand, an inspired thousands more.  It is a victory and the two other deaths are collateral damage necessary to win a conflict.
One note : aren't there other places on Wikipedia where one can debate the justification of this?  All this debate is blocking a serious discussion about factual accuracy??
Evilbu 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the death of the child (18 months) and woman (16 years) to the bio section because they were his son and second wife.
Mrdthree 22:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The questions of whether Zarqawi was or wasn't a bad guy and whether or not the airstrike was justifiable are entirely separate from the question of including the ages of the collatoral damage victims.  If you don't understand this, then frankly you don't understand what Wikipedia is trying to be. --Saforrest 03:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No reference to child that became victim?! 

message: Dont know if anyone is aware of this yet, bet the Yahoo! news article regarding his death includes a link to our article on the man. TomStar81 18:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Limelight

message: I've added the wikify template to the references section twice, and twice it was removed. There's a reason why I put it there: the section is a complete mess. References should concisely state which source was used and by whom, and when the reference was retrieved by the author rather than just dumping a whole bunch of external links into it. Use Template:Cite web in order to fix it. —Michiel Sikma 「Gebruiker/Overleg」 19:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikifying references 

message: They claim they dropped 2 bombs, but they also claim he did not die immediately, what happened in between, shall we say the time was 7pm?
Photo of the dead body, is this good to include here, healthy or not right, even though he was a murderer?
:Agreed, there is an over emphasis on the corpse. Since he is a marty to al-quada, and otherwise a complete asshole, I propose the removal of at least some of the photos relating to his death if not all. Not to mention Dead.jpg is really a poor name and image does not even contain a license. --Cat out 19:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct time of death

message: For anyone who's interested, articles linked to from the main page, according to received wisdom, should not be protected.   Anyone able to unprotect it might therefore wish to consider doing so. HenryFlower 19:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Unprotected. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: The section 'Alleged treason of Al-Qaeda' or whatever the name is contains numerous spelling errors. Perhaps someone with permission to edit could quickly fix the typos? 71.36.116.229 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should now be able to edit it yourself if you'd like. It had to be protected earlier due to vandalism and was left protected *way* longer than it should have been. Pages linked from the main page are typically not protected more than a few minutes--this one was protected for hours. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  typos in one section towards end 

message: The article has a section on terrorist actions, and yet al-Z was an islamic millitant. Can someone explain this to me?
:As a leader of a terrorist cell of a terrorist organisation, It can surely be said that he's taken part and coordinated terrorist actions, therefore the section header (IMO) is comepletely valid. Ood talk 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it is quite clear that he was both. — ceejayoz talk 00:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apperant contradiction 

message: I added this pic which used to be in the propaganda article. I think it really adds a lot and its public domain because its the work of the U.S. government. It didn't really fit into any section other than the conspiracy-theory-esque "Credibility questions" which discusses the possibility that Zarkawi is a modern day Emmanuel Goldstein. I do not subscribe to this view, and did not mean to add the image in the context of it being evidence of this minority POV, but I do think it is illustrative of the fact that there is a lot of Zarkawi propaganda whether he was real or not. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure this is PD? It was uploaded by User:Psywar and the source is Psywar.com. I can't find the image anywhere on the site, but I'm a little doubtful that this actually is government work. It would be nice if someone could find a better source for the image. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took Psywar at his word. However, I will try to find another source as well. It's certainly clear taht psywar.com doesn't claim to be the author of the image, so it's unlikely they would sue us. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psyop leaflet 

message: I do not think that a person should be tagged with the , because a person can't be an EVENT.  I have removed the tag. -Tcwd | Talk 21:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything can be tagged  if it mentions a current event. The entire article does not have to be about the event. TheProject 23:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Zarqawi is no longer current anyways. 129.10.244.112 02:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, btw, the event being documented is his death, not the person (which, as you said, can't be an event). Check the history--you'll see that the article is being updated every second as new information comes in; it really is documenting a current event. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded, Zarqawi's death is a current event and thus he is in the news a lot. New revelations about the circumstances of his death, etc. may become available and already available information may come to the fore (not just on Wikipedia). Exactly what the current events tag is intended for. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Event 

message: According to the article, Abu Abdulrahman al-Iraqi was also killed in the attacks, and that his death was verified, however, it then says in the same section: "Abu Abdulrahman al-Iraqi, the deputy of al-Zarqawi, released a statement to Islamist websites indicating that al-Qaeda in Iraq also confirmed Zarqawi's death: "We herald the martyrdom of our mujahed Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq … and we stress that this is an honor to our nation."[40]" If he is dead then how can he release a statement!!! --Inahet 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the present track record of the US' claims, I'd go with "alive", but this is just opinion. See my above comment on confirmation of death - if the Iraqi were dead, we'd hear about it from his brothers-in-arms soon. Dysmorodrepanis 13:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction concerning Abu Abdul-Rahman al-Iraqi 

message: It seems he died at 6:30, he was both a terrorist and a militant, the birthday could be wrong, some say it's october 1965.
I suggest we put his birthday in question mark? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.42 (talk • contribs) 
:Honestly who cares. The doochebag is dead and the world is better for it. I think that's all we need to really worry about. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 00:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to split hairs, but I believe it's "douchebag"  (lol) --FairNBalanced 03:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We, the people trying to build up this encyclopedia care. The accuracy of the details and whether they should be included or not are important to this article. -Fsotrain09 01:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Exact time, terrorist

message: The comment : "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi owned. What now son? Couldn't handle a pair of these 500 lbs. bombs? Peace through strength." under the picture of the plane on the top of the page really doesn't like what one should find in an encyclopedia, it would even look misplaced in a serious newspaper.
Do we need to keep that kind of easy and not neutral comments here ? 60.50.155.146 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just had very good timing when you loaded the page, to this vandalized version. The vandalism was removed 1 minute later (and using my tool too, I might add =D). AmiDaniel (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there is anything to worry about, such edits are considered vandalism, and will be reverted by serious editors. --Inahet 03:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Factually incorrect vandalism too, since the plane does not carry any bombs... Dysmorodrepanis 19:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Army Plane Picture 

message: I have cleaned out the external links section as most of the links are redundant with existing references or are not otherwise linked to the creation of the article. According to Wikipedia:External links we should prefer internal links over external links, and adding links without content is considered spamming. Allowing non-reference links to remain can be considered an open invitation for more spam. If there are any objections, please feel free to discuss. Thanks. -Loren 04:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think it's a bit redundant for that now isn't it? Though it could be added as a footnote to a blurb mentioning his most wanted status. -Loren 05:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I think that I found exactly where he died on google earth.  33°48'03.09"N 44°30'48.03"E --Descendall 04:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at a graphic on nyt.com, that is definately the place in which he died. --Descendall 04:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same exact house, down to the curves in the road and the palcement of the trees, that the New York Times has published.  I'm thinking about putting it in the article.  --Descendall 22:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's definitely the right place. Mr. 24 above was probably thrown off because the gun camera footage we've all seen is looking north-to-south while Google Earth's default view is oriented due north. Go to these coords then spin the picture 180° and you'll recognize it instantly... Actually these coords land you about 15 feet into the house's "frontyard". 33°48'02.86"N 44°30'48.53"E puts you smack on the on the roof. Fly in from about 2 miles away, pretend you weigh 500 lbs. and there you have it. JDG 03:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Place of Death

message: What kind of Tattoo? 
I may be ignorant, but I thought muslims were not supposed to have tattoos? could someone clarify about tattoo taboo? ---> theblacksuperman
:Maybe a tattoo hailing back from his gangland days? Dysmorodrepanis 12:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a tattoo of Mohammed? 129.10.246.36 22:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Followers of islam may not desecrate their body; that stems from the old testament, also a belief held by orthodox jews and christians.  Zarqawi was an orthodox muslim, so this is highly odd. 211.30.80.121 04:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He has not been an orthodox Muslim for all his life, just as GW Bush was not an evangelical Christian for most of his life. Zarqawi seems to have cared little about religion until he did time in the bin in his late teens or so. I guess it is not unusual for a Jordanian gangbanger to sport some tattoo, and removing it would certainly desecrate his body. Besides, some of the more radical Wahhabis claim that living a jihadist's life to the fullest does away with some of the moral tenets. Kinda like a general absolution; cf. some 9-11 hijackers partaking to alcohol and loosely-clad girls. AFAIK, Muhammed Atta held that particular view. Zarqawi, IONO, but at least it is possible; he certainly had the odd discussion with such people back in his Afghanistan days. at any rate, it is not impossible and given the man#s background, it may be quite likely even. Dysmorodrepanis 12:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A thing on CNN said that when he was a young thug in Jordan he got a tattoo and drank alcohol, and only later became ultra-conservative.  They interviewed a guy who was in jail with him, and he said that Zarqawi's story was that he woke up hung over one day and decided that he felt so sick because he had strayed from the path of God, and from that day forward became a religious zealot.  It sounded kind of apocryphal to me, but it's certainly believable that he was a renegade as a young man. --Descendall 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tattoo 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5060468.stm
"Major General William Caldwell said Wednesday night was the first time US forces had "definite unquestionable information" they could strike Zarqawi without causing collateral damage to civilians .... US ground forces identified six persons that had been killed in that strike at that time. The dead included a woman and a child."
You see they contradict one of their words with the other. There was no collateral damage, cause woman and kids are combattants or what? If they really care about civilians, they would send a helicopter green beret commando instead of aerial bombardment, so they could select whom they kill. This kind of behaviour will only earn USA more hatred and resistance, just like napalm did in Vietnam.
Really?  Women can’t be terrorist?
What about the young boys (10-14) in several Africa conflicts I suppose they didn’t kill anyone with a gun as part of a “military action”.  They are after all children and we have no details on age or sex of this child.  They could be 16 for all we know, but I suppose you would hate the US anyway.  I guess this gives you an excuse to hate anyway.
:Hi! This page is for discussing the maintenance of an encyclopedia article. You seem to have mistaken this for a chat forum. It isn't. You could try using a search engine such as google to find web forums where people want to chat with you. Thanks! Weregerbil 14:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That attitude is unnecessary, especially considering that you're talking to a newbie.--RadioElectric 20:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americans are lying again 

message: Greetings to my fellow editors, I've removed the above category and would kindly request that others do not re-add :Category:Assassinated people to this article as his death does not fit the definition of the word.
From Dictionary.com:
	as·sas·si·nate   Audio pronunciation of "assassinate" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-ss-nt)
tr.v. as·sas·si·nat·ed, as·sas·si·nat·ing, as·sas·si·nates
   1. To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.
   2. To destroy or injure treacherously: assassinate a rival's character.	
.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was not murdered but was killed in a legal act of war. Netscott 09:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on whether you consider the ongoing US involvement in Iraq - heck, the invasion in the first place - as "legal". AFAIK, there has never been a formally declared state of war regarding US activity in Iraq. The US describes the bombing as "targetted killing", which is just another way to say "assassination". Dysmorodrepanis 12:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree as I'm still wondering where those WMDs are but until an international tribunal is declared to hear a case against the United States, prima facie this was an act of war. Netscott 13:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, he was not assasinated, as it also was not a surprise attack.  It also does not conform to the "civilian" or "normal" thought of an assasination (dagger in the dark, or the like).  I'd more have thought about it as "blowing the hell out of his building" but thats just my 2 cents...195.26.43.146 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It decidedly was a surprise attack - I daresay he wasn't expecting it - and I don't think just because this is the middle of a war, the word "assassination" is inappropriate. When the leader of a group is specifically targeted and killed, I'd call that an assassination. Graft 17:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "When the leader..." - I wonder what exactly is the difference to this case, except if rumours are true, al-Z. was not really the "leader" of anything anymore. Basically it depends on whether one thinks "assassination" is a peacetime concept; it is at any rate obvious that the US tried to get their intel right, that the whole operation was designed to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible, and that the target of the whole act was the killing of this one person. "Targetted killing" sounds a bit like newspeak to me; I favor the old-fashioned "assassination". And why not? Guess that apart from the man's family and immediate associates there won't be a sad soul on the planed. Even Mullah Omar's response was rather muted. Thanks every1 BTW for enlightening me on the state of war thing! Dysmorodrepanis 19:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see how this is relevant. Graft 17:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And at any rate he didn't. He only declared the "end of major hostilities". Wrongo, Dubya, but still he did not lean as far out of the window as to topple. Dysmorodrepanis 19:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously misunderstood.  The mission accomplished referred to Saddam's government being toppled.  Last I checked, that happened.  GreatGatsby 03:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, I didn't refer to the "Mission Accomplished" banner at all, but to the phraseology "end of major hostilities". In that, he was clearly mistaken, albeit this is easy to say with the benefit of hindsight. Analysis of the "post-war" planning (or lack thereof) at that time certainly indicated that major trouble was still going to come, but it might have been averted. That things are down there as they are is basically a consequence of mistakes made during the summer of '03. Dysmorodrepanis 12:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: By that reasoning, the deaths of Galba and Vitellius do not qualify as assassinations, although anyone would certainly consider them such (they were "taken out" during a state of war by people working for their opponents). Dysmorodrepanis 19:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's still more fuzzy than that.  When Nelson was killed by a French sniper at Trafalgar, I wouldn't exactly call that an assassination -- even though it was probably quite clear to the sniper that the person he was aiming at was an admiral or at least a high-ranking officer. Epstein's Mother 02:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Because Nelson happened to prance through the sniper's sights. The sniper was not specifically assigned to kill Horatio, but the F-16 pilots were specifically assigned to kill Zarqawi (though they almost certainly were not told until long after they dropped the bombs). Another famous historical example: Che Guevara. Straightforward assassination following a military operation specifically designed to kill him. Dysmorodrepanis 16:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh the Gulf War wasn't a declared war.  Why do you continue saying that?  The US has fought five declared wars (War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Great War, World War II).  GreatGatsby 03:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I stand corrected. Congress authorized the first gulf war, but its was never officially declared. Hmm... interesting.Easter rising
----
From Dictionary.com:
	v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders 
   v. tr.
   To kill (another human) unlawfully. 
   To kill brutally or inhumanly. 
   To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 
   To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. 
   Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.	
.
I believe that assasination is the correct term. 211.30.80.121 05:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, assassination is accurate. But it's not neutral. Tale 08:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Assassinated people

message: It seems that to some of us the dictionary is like the bible!
Here we are criticising someone who does "immoral acts" by following what seems to be words of righteousness, and we ourselves try to judge Zarqawi's acts with a dictionary definition?
OK, OK , no offense to the dictionary and those who posted the definitions
But maybe we should post several definitions from Merriam-Webster, Oxford and Collins dicionaries
That way we can get a fair grasp of what is trying to be defined.
What do you guys say,
It just like graphing a polynomial I guess. The more points you plot, the more accurately the you can determine the exact local maxima and minima with the sketched curve. Ottokarf 07:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictionary Attack 

message: Occasionally the article refers to the man as Zarqawi, at other times al-Zarqawi. Is either form more preferable? Is a mix fine or would it be better to stick to one? Our article on Al- is a bit of a stub (wink, wink, nudge, nudge to anyone who knows about it). Weregerbil 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "al-" is simply a pronoun: "the...". It could even be that the form "as-" or "az-" is correct (compare as-Samarrah, ar-Rahmadi, but al-Basrah). But the name is just a nom de guerre; it means "Musab's father, the man from Zarqa" if I'm not mistaken. Why "Musab" IONO. It's a very old Arabic name; perhaps something like an Arabic "John Q. Public". Dysmorodrepanis 19:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As explained above, its not strictly a surname, rather a place-of-origin identifier. Some of the Iraqis who were interviewed in the network news pieces did refer to him as "Abu Musab", but the military, the rest of the U.S. govt, the Iraqi officials, and independent security experts all refer to him as "al-Zarqawi".  Weregerbil, I'll take a look at the Al- article. -Fsotrain09 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that.  So therefore, the article should not call him al-Zarqawi or Zarqawi, any more than the Saddam Hussein article calls him Hussein or al-Tikriti.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how bout we call him Al-SmellyDeadGuyWstershed 02:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Fsotrain09: Thanks for the work on Al-, way cool! Recommended bit of brain food for everyone. Weregerbil 17:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zarqawi or al-Zarqawi?

message: the picture of his corpse should be taken down. it's sick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.92.31 (talk • contribs) 
:Wikipedia is not censored... - Adolphus79 18:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But methinks it should be renamed, its current name is "Cnn zarqawi martyr.jpg", which sounds NNPOV. Aragorn2 18:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about naming conventions for photos, but I don't see any problem with giving the image a nice genaric name... - Adolphus79 18:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But there are many dead people (though not many corpses are on WP). "Martyr" is not NPOV definitely. Replace with "corpse" and it is. I would, however, put the name in front and the source in back ("Zarqawi corpse CNN.jpg") Dysmorodrepanis 19:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This guy is anything but a marytr if you look at it objectively. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 21:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The CNN picture name probably came from an article with martyr in the headline, not as a POV statement. Get over it. Tale 08:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: ha hsaWstershed 02:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not censored, but it is not a shocksite either. I do not see the insight the photo brings. I also do not see this over emphasis on his death. It takes a page and a half... --Cat out 14:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture of corpse 

message: What exatly has the water quality of al-Zarqawi got to do with Him, the article says Intelligence officials who examined the house might confirm that the water in use at the site would be refused by most barnyard animals. Gas chromatographic analysis of what remains of the house likely will show that no soap or perfume was inside at the time of the bombing. Analysis of Zarqawi's clothes could confirm that he bathed quite infrequently.   Ken 20:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water Quality 

message: Again, please add content, not bare links. If you feel a site contains information worth including, please add the information to the article in your own words and cite the link as a reference, instead of just tacking on more and more external links, which should be used sparingly, if at all. Wikipedia is NOT a linkfarm! -Loren 23:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links (Redux) 

message: Since there has been two or three entries to the talk page concerning the decision to display Zarqawi's post-mortem face, I just thought that maybe I would offer a suggestion to aid the dilemma.
I myself have come across corpse images on wikipedia before, and once an article did depict a graphic corpse, so much ot that caused me to stay away from the random article option, for fear that an uncensored wikipedia would bring up another visual representation of the deceased being addressed by the article. 
However, I did get over that. But that experience was just a mild symptom of necrophobia, I guess most people have experiences with the latter on the internet nowadays. Perhaps when seeking an image of google, one clicks on an image icon that as a thumbnail appears to be a tanned and skinny man taking a nap, but when enlarged, turns out to be a full sized image of a decomposed, mutilated cadaver. (www.rotten.com, etc.)
Google hasn't really addressed that issue, but we could try setting a rule that states that a warning banner has to be placed ...maybe.. what, 1 whole page length prior to an image of a corpse? Or if the article is less than a page long, have a warning banner informing the reader of graphic material, appear in lieu of the page, and the "back" and "proceed to article" icons?
IT could serve a similar purpose as the spoiler warningsfor articles written on movies that narrate climaxes and conflicts that could potentially ruin the experience of someone who hasn't watched the movie yet.
It could also serve as a warning for pornographic material further down the page. More conservative readers would come back to wikipedia after stumbling across articles regarding the human phallus for example, or the human anus.
This is my suggestion. Please, if you have a view on this suggestion, please make yourself heard.
--Ottokarf   02:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional example: in the 2005 Bali bombings the bombers' heads were all cleanly severed at the neck by their backpack bombs. The heads were photographed for public display, to help with identifying the bombers. Those photos were widely shown in the media and form part of the Wikipedia entry for the bombings.  Tale 08:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should start with that article, by placing a warning banner before visual depictions of corpses, especially graphic depictions in the 2005 Bali bombing. -- Ottokarf 19:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a big deate regarding the abuse images on Abu Grahib torture and abuse. For a long time there was a cesnored and non-censored version. I believe that lead to this debate. It is generally understood that banners are discouraged and have been repeatedly removed from articles after a lot of debate. Articles on varous human anatomy do not include banners.  So, while it may be disturbing, it should be left alone. Falphin 20:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing Depiction of the Deceased:

message: Does anyone know who, if anyone, will be carrying out the autopsy and whether the findings will be release to the public? Nil Einne 04:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The US military. --Descendall 22:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autopsy 

message: 57 links is just excesive. It should be refined. --Cat out 14:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, feel free to take the axe to some of them. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  references section 

message: Do we have any confirmation that the image at the top of this article is in fact from a Jordanian mugshot?  Please put this info on :Image:Zarqawi.jpg, as it's important for the fair use rationale.--Pharos 03:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of main image 

message: The information that is building that Zarqawi may have been betrayed by al Qaeda rather than found by US investigations is pretty interesting. (Sobesurfski 23:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Betrayal

message: From the article: "The safehouse itself was watched for over six weeks before Zarqawi was observed entering the building." Is there a source for that? 203.212.139.40 01:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: House under surveillance for six weeks?

message: Keep your eyes open who gets the reward, I have a feeling somebody sang, probably because they were sick of all the killings within their own sects. It's possible one of the arrested insurgents told the 'coalition' he will talk providing he gets paid, so now nobody wants to admit and they will probably give money in secret and relocate the guy to iran or america... But somebody said something, that's for sure. IT'S TIME TO COME CLEAN AND KEEP PROMISES!
:I added the Rep Mark Kirk quote about reward payments. (Sobesurfski 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reward