Talk:Zarqawi PSYOP program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Problems 2 Part of the War on Terror 3 Merge? 3.1 Context 4 WP:AGF 5 Remove 6 Arguments for deletion incorrect 6.1 Information Operations Roadmap 7 RFC 8 Bad Link 9 ==NPOV== 10 Survey 11 Before reverting 12 RfAr involving Zero 13 Suggestions 14 Tedious and annoying 15 Editorialism vs. News Reporting 16 Discussing edits 17 Dear Editors 18 Protected 19 Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position 20 Merger RfC 20.1 Yes to merge 20.2 No to merge 20.3 Comments 20.4 Let's get on with it

[edit] Problems

wow. this article is highly problematic. It is horrendously sourced. The serious citations do not support the conclusions and the only citations that do are from highly POV sources that themselves comprise editorializing by seriously biased sources (eg counterpunch).

The objective facts of, a)the US inflated Zarqawi's importance and b) the US conducted proaganda campaigns against Zarqawi, do NOT equal c) the US inflated zarqawis influence as a PSYOP campaign.

What keeps coming from the serious articles though is that the thrust of the psops was to emphasize Zaqawi's foreignness.

Particullarly strained is this: "Another goal was to ensure continued support for the War on Terror by keeping "terrorist actions" in the news.[1]" this assertion is not in fact int he citation given. It is in thepartisan POV sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.75.63.86 (talk • contribs) 20:15, July 9, 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Part of the War on Terror

Iraq is designated to be part of the larger War on Terror. This program is aimed at fighting the war in Iraq and at US audiences to secure their support for this war by inflating the concept of terrorism. This clearly is a broader campaign in the WOT. Second, if Iraq is part of WOT is is difficult to understand how a major campaign in Iraq is not part of WOT. Or as one article states:

Without Zarqawi and bin Laden, the "war on terrorism" would loose its raison d'être. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats from an editorial. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the article itself states the program was directed at influencing the Iraqi Insurgents, not the greater WOT. Do you propose we add all 100+ operations that have taken place inside Iraq as well as all 20+ insurgent groups and their leaders? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The aricle itself states that it was also aimed at the US, with the intend to gather support for WOT. You have not answered the quote, that without this program there would be no WOT. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the full explanation via quoting the next line of the text directly. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You generally misrepresented the articles. I reverted since your massive redaction is too difficult to untangle. Please explain why you say WaPo does not mention the US as a target in this campaign? Have you read the articles? Second, AFP clearly refers to a program you redacted out. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Your actions are completely uncalled for. They were done in numerous edits you could have addressed them individually. I will place them back tomorrow since you did not place an arguement against any of them. Furthermore if you read the article fully the program is mentioned earlier the quote actually is in the header. Seeing as you only have one arguement against the edits its further shameful that you reverted all of them. Next time address them individually. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is shamefull you redact out everything you disagree with. More civil would be to voice your objections so others may address them Instead you edit war and create a very hostile situation which is hardly constructive. Please restore what you censored and AGF while asking me to explain htese edits. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the edits if you have an issue with one, then bring it up, removing 10+ edits with a sweeping revert without even stating an objection to any of them is frowned upon. Furthermore I am not sure why you would have removed the backstory on Zarqawi, you remove information from a major publication to support information from an editorial in a lesser known and verifiable source ... --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

So.. Why is this article an article instead of a sentence or two in this section of the Zarqawi article? Aside from copy and paste quotes from articles and an unrelated summary of Zarqawi's rise to power there really isn't much content in this article.. --Bobblehead 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a merge would be appropriate, and would help keep this from becoming a debate about the merits of the war or the US prosecution of it. Morton Devonshire^Yo

I support this, after I copy edited the article the same redundant information was readded just by quoting dif articles. There is not enough content here for it to stand on its own. Furthermore there seems to be attempts to link it to other events without providing sources. Seems like noble attempts to fatten its contents. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This editor has a clever and subtle way of saying he is unwilling to AGF as he thinks I am a POV pusher. If this user did not deny my summaries there would be no need to insert that many quotes. Example: he denies the US was also a target in this program so he altered the summary in which this was said. To avoid his need to edit war I inserted the quote that literally said the US was on of the targets. Almost every quote can be attributed to his refusal to accept a summary. Second, although not against a merge, maybe it is better to try and improve this article which has enough body of its own: 1 the program, 2 how it amplified Zarqawi's influence, 3 general remark on Psyop, 4 quotes. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but not everything is against you. I never said the program didnt target the US. IF you look you can see that the intro mentions still the US was mentioned as a Home Audience, however it mentions the next line which was not included that slide, created by Casey's subordinates, does not specifically state that U.S. citizens were being targeted by the effort, but other sections of the briefings indicate that there were direct military efforts to use the U.S. media to affect views of the war.

The section program attempts to connect the Roadmap to this program, I have asked you three times now to provide a source stating these two articles are linked, instead you have just blindly reverted the article. The quotes section should not really exist and most of what you have are just quotes taking up space in the article. While I know you created the article and may be a little defensive, if it does get merged you should be happy knowing the article is contributing to a larger article. And again, please explain edits you do not agree with, blindly reverting is frowned upon. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 09:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think taht those commenting on a merge should be aware this user has severely redacted what was a reasonable article. Please do not comment on his version but the one he butchered. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Again do you contest any of the edits? If not you are arguing that we should keep redundant comments and OR in favor of keeping an article plump enough to avoid merging. I am still asking for proof that Zarqawi PSYOP program is part of te Operations Roadmap, else the whole section contained within "Program" was OR and possibly false, except for the quote from the Washington Post which just restates the paragraph before it and the intro. How many times and in how many ways does the same thing need to be said. There was a quote from Counterpunch that states something almost word for word from the intro. What is the point of that? It was a one sentence quote identical to the sentence into the intro. Again I ask you to contest the edits, and not the editor. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Context

There is 761 words in the article, not including "picture descriptions", "see also" links and "section titles", of those 761 words 254 of them are quotes. Of those 254 words of quotes, 103 of them are from an editorial on a website from Michel Chossudovsky, an economist, so not an expert in this field. If you counted the words introducing the quotes, you end up with 488 words out of 761 more then half the article is either quotes or introductions to quotes, and 1/4, or 25% of those are from a non expert in the field. This seriously shows why this is a candidate for a merge, its lacks content. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AGF

One editor keeps censoring this article with some odious arguments.

• Information Operations Roadmap is redacted out as being not relevant. This article is about PSYOP in general and its effect on the US public, since the Zarqawi program was a PSYOP and was also aimed at US audience I fail to understand why a remark about a broader propaganda campaign is not allowed.
• Several comments are redacted out as being redundant. The style of writing is that any article starts with an introduction and continues to state the same in a more elaborate way. To claim everything that has already been said needs to be removed means that all articles should be cleansed of anything more than an introduction.
• If this editor were to read the sources and also would accept a summary, many quotes would not be necessary. So, maybe this user is willing to compromise and replace the quotes with summaries without contesting their accuracy.

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So you think every PSYOP and every document relating to PSYOPS should be covered in this article? Doesnt seem to make much sense to do that, however you insist on the Information Operations Roadmap, just supply a source stating this program is part of that Roadmap, I dont see the complication with that. Without it you are drawing a conclusion and thats WP:OR.

The article is made up of only quotes, or at least 50%, having a quote from Washington Post, then another from Michael whatever from another site, stating the same exact thing, is pointless.

I did not contest tha accuracy of anything, I actually added another quote to counter the POV being pushed in the intro. I am not sure why you would want to state it was targetting the home audience but not show the rest of the quote.

Please again stop blindly reverting as all my summaries are filled out completly. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 09:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is you that is stalking me to delete all my edits. There is no reason to do what you do to this article. All your objections are merely out of being obstructive and I find your behaviour bordering on resembling a disruptive troll. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you contest any of my edits? or is just my presence, again you have not even contested one of the edits on the grounds it was made. Please do so as I will ignore further insults, just make a note of them. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Since WOT is the general military campaign and is discussed everywhere I fail to understand why discussing the broader PSYOP campaign that encompasses all operations is not allowed.

However, I will no longer discuss any article since: 1 you are incapable of addressing problems in a logical manner, all you do is adopt circular logic while reperatedly not answering direct questions, 2 your need to edit war instead of trying to resolve the perceived problems through consensus makes communicating with you tiresome. Because of this I will stop interacting with you and await mediation on you disruptive behaviour. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Odious? Odious is an odious word. Who would use such a word? But then, I guess I just did. Shannon^{duck talk} 11:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove

I'm inclined to delete Chossudovsky's piece as not consistent with WP:RS. (1) It's self-published, or close to it; (2) The Centre for Research on Globalization appears strongly NPOV on this issue, and if it applied any kind of fact-checking or editing to that piece, I don't see it; (3) it's an editorial, not a news piece; and (4) it appears to rely entirely on a combination of quotations from mainstream news articles already in this article and Chossudovsky's personal opinions; and (5) Chossufovsky's expertise is economics, not whatever it is that piece is about.

What does everyone think? If people disagree I'm open to most dispute resolution procedures. Thanks, TheronJ 14:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of your basis, particularly 2, 3 and 4. I do not know if its self-published however, or the procedure for articles to be put on that site to make a comment on your first point however. I think at the very least we should try not to quote him directly as this isnt his field of expertise. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomen, like I said, I'm open to most dispute resolution procedures on whether the Chossudovsky piece meets the criteria of WP:RS. Would you be interested in working together to write up an RFC? TheronJ 02:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem with that. I will make an attempt below. Later when we agree on the wording we can file the RFC. But, could you also explain why the quotes I provided are not applicable? In other words, policy allows opinion and biased sources, so I really do not understand what exactly your objections are. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Nomen. It will probably take me a day or two to write something up. In general, my thoughts are (1) as I understand WP:RS, it's a balancing test on the close calls - for example, the guideline doesn't say that all NPOV sources get in or get thrown out, but that the fact that a source is NPOV is one thing on the scale; (2) in this case, I think that my 5 items above combine to make the source not RS. TheronJ 09:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments for deletion incorrect

Several people have made comments regarding the sources. Apparently htey are insufficiently informed therefpre I would like to quote the actyal policy: Regarding wikipedia policy on the use of sources:

• WP:NPOV: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

• Feel free to read about Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.

• The use of biased sources is allowed, Reliable sources: Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party.

• Partisan sites are not excluded from use, Partisan websites: Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source.

• The use of legal experts seems to be encouraged, Beware false authority: Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions.

• Neutral language When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be attributed and cited.

• Balance An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it.

Those reading this, especially about biased sources, will see that none of the sources violates what the above says. Please explain which of these quotes justifies removing the sources when thinking about: "However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it."

Also some of us feel that making a general remark regarding PSYOP is disallowed. Surely an unusual argyment since discussion D-Day but prohibiting the mentioning WW II seems absurd.

I restored the redacted out comments and try to improve the article. Please answer these questions before deleting again. Thank you for cooperating and motivating your view.

Self-published sources are not reliable according to Wikipedia standards. "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sourcesMorton Devonshire^Yo

Which source do you have in mind that fits that description? As I see it they all are from notable sites, somewhat biased, but certainly not violating RS considering the quotes above. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Kurtnimmo.com, Daily Kos, Global Research and CounterPunch. Morton Devonshire^Yo

Global Research and CounterPunch both adhere to the quotes above, therefore they can be used. What part of"that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it," does not apply? DailyKos is notable and blogs are widely used, but I can accept your objection, as of course Kurtnimmo.com, although his claim this is the millionth time he died is accurate as you know. I will remove those. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing about strong opinions. Nor did I say anything about notability. None of the 4 I mentioned are independently fact-checked or independently edited -- that's the objection. Morton Devonshire^Yo

I think we misunderstand eachother. Many reputable newspapers do not check facts, does Judy Miller ring a bell, and you assert these sources do not check fatcs but I fail to see how you reach that conclusion. Second, aside from the particular media, you might look at the name behind the story. Many article you objected to in the past for the same reason were written by notable commentators. However, by ignoring that you disallow articles by i.e. John Dean and Elizabeth Holtzman, both of which have had articles on the Counterpunch site. Third, you still do not understand that policy allows opinion, that is those comments discussing facts and their possible meaning, as long as it is identified as such. Again, see the quotes. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion regarding the merit of one author over another is irrelevant. And yes, Judith Miller is a perfect example -- because the NY Times *IS* a publication that has independent oversight, Miller's work has been largely discredited by the NY Times itself -- that's the very definition of objective, reliable, Wikipedic sources. The sources is reliable because we can trust that someone besides the author is exercising editorial oversight. Perfect, no. Oversight, yes. It's Wikipedia's policy, not mine. Yes, I understand that opinion is permitted, so long as it's identified as opinion, and doesn't masquerade as support for fact. For example, you could say: "In an opinion piece published at counterpunch.com, Mr. X said that . . .." Morton Devonshire^Yo

Miller is a perfect example that the NYT did not check the facts. She was allowed to make unsubstantiated claims for years and the fact the NYT apparently allowed her to continue without even a shred of possible evidence for her claims resulted in the half-hearted mea culpa. Second, the fact it took years to get her stories out of the paper is evidence enough the NYT screwed up. As to your other point, it only supports my argument that these sources should not be deleted. If you think it is not clear that comments are opinion feel free to add such a caveat. Again, making sure people know what is fact and what is opinion is clearly not equal to deleting opinions. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what do you think of the current version? Any specific comments or objections? AFAIK all opinions are identified as such. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 01:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The following needs to be proven before being introduced, it needs to be proven through a reliable verifiable source:

• Informations Operations Roadmap - A source needs to be provided stating this program is included in that roadmap. Its a violation of WP:OR for us to draw that conclusion
• Zarqawi backstory - The backstory needs to stop being reverted, you are constantly removing information that is factually correct and sourced, in hopes of stating Zarqawi was a nobody. Your source is an editorial and you have not contended the information I added as wrong. Your source also goes against the other articles on Zarqawi.
• Michel Chossudovsky - This person should not be quoted, especially 4 times in an article as he has no expertise in the field at all, not even experience. He is an economist.
• Smith-Mundt Act - Please provide proof that shows this program violates this law or stop adding it back. You have not shown a single source linking even the mention of Smith-Mundt to the PSYOP program, not even proof it violates it.

Please address these issues before reverting. Also do not quote partisan sites, Wikipedia reccomends you do not use Partisan sites as sole sources for information. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 09:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all I restored your reversion. Please consider your own advise and address the problems here instead of the needless edit war. So, be civil, AGF and debate your edits, since it is you who wants to change it is you that needs to explain what part of my arguments is wrong.

• You claim WaPo does not say the program is aimed at the US public. Where in the article did you find that?

The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign. and ... there were direct military efforts to use the U.S. media to affect views of the war.

• Since, clearly this program is also aimed at the US, and this is a PSYOP program, it is more than reasonable to mention the general principle prohibiting propaganda aimed at the US public.
• To describe the broader policy involving PSYOP campaigns is more than reasonable since this program is part of that broader program. Or, is your foot not part of your body?
• Factually correct or not, this is not a biography but about a program inflating his importance. It is sufficient to describe those effects, but to include his days as a toddler seems somewhat over the top.
• The introduction is just that. We do not have to explain all the details there, that is what the article is for. Therefore I removed the redundant details from the intro.
• Sources are not required to be experts. If that was the case most sources can be removed since journalists are generally not experts. AFAIK going to journalist school does not make you a physician, lawyer, biologist, general, politician, teacher, taxidriver, et cetera. To implement your logicv would mean that journalists cannot be used as source. Having said that, I agree having a real expert is preferrable, however, that is not equal to mandatory. Please review the quotes on sources.

It would be a great kindness if you first try and resolve these issues (finding compromise) before implementing your massive changes to the article. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research prohibits you from drawing your own conclusions. Hence why you cannot mention Smith-Mundt Act, provide a source of someone saying it was violated if you want to include it, what is so hard about that? Do you really think if this act was broken that you would be the only one to know and write about it? Perhaps there is a reason its not mentioned, one you are unaware of. As for your comment "but to include his days as a toddler seems somewhat over the top", I am not sure what you are reffering to, perhaps you should drop the sarcasm and maybe you will make a coherent point. The back history I added covers activities that disprove your editorial source, that seems to be your underlying issue. Did you consider that perhaps the biography is more factually correct then the editorial? Its also only covering the 10 years before the War, most of it covering the 4 years before the war. Your point that sources are not required to be experts is flawed. Journalists are fact checked when under reputable publications. This publication is not reputable, its fact checking system if any is not apparent. This person is also not a journalist, this source is not a newspaper, he is an economist and is quoted 4 times in the article. Are you really arguing that a main source of information for an article can be someone that is not a journalist, doesnt come from a newspaper or other notable publication with oversight and doesnt even have to be a person related to the field? Your arguement that its part of something that is part of somethnig else is flawed. Do you believe we should add articles of ever piece of equipment being used in the war? I mean the M16 is part of the weapons, that are part of the war, that are part of the WOT, right? Better yet would you then argue that every operation undertaken in the Iraq War should go no the WOT template? If you do not then you are only proving you do not actually believe that events that are part of something, that is then part of somethnig else, are directly connected. I also never said it was not aimed at the public, I added the quote that specifically states:

"That slide, created by Casey's subordinates, does not specifically state that U.S. citizens were being targeted by the effort"

I dont see what problem you have with adding that, to not do it is POV, you are selectively quoting the article at that point. Stating "Home Audience" without giving the clarification that even the Washington Post felt was necessary. Again I ask you to do the following, provide credible reputable, reliable sources for the following:

• Informations Operations Roadmap - A source needs to be provided stating this program is included in that roadmap. Its a violation of WP:OR for us to draw that conclusion
• Zarqawi backstory - The backstory needs to stop being reverted, you are constantly removing information that is factually correct and sourced, in hopes of stating Zarqawi was a nobody. Your source is an editorial and you have not contended the information I added as wrong. Your source also goes against the other articles on Zarqawi.
• Smith-Mundt Act - Please provide proof that shows this program violates this law or stop adding it back. You have not shown a single source linking even the mention of Smith-Mundt to the PSYOP program, not even proof it violates it.

And prove Michel Chossudovsky has some relevant experience to be quoted 4 times, he is not a journalist, not an expert in the field. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You still impress me with your lack of knowledge.

1. WaPo explicitly mentions that US citizens are targetted, your recent quote conveniently does not include the ensuing sentence that again states the same.The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign. and ... there were direct military efforts to use the U.S. media to affect views of the war. Of course, we already established you have difficulty with the English language.
2. Journalists are not experts.
3. Fact-checked? I have two words for you: Judy Miller.
4. There is a campaign aimed at the US, evidently that is what WaPo says, therefore elaborating on the legality of such actions is more than acceptable.

This is the last response to you chaotic reasoning. Unless you make a case why these arguments are incorrect, instead of simply asserting they are incorrect, I will no longer respond. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem isnt my lack of knowledge, its your inability to read.

• I didnt delete Home Audience. I added the quote following its mentioning, that is all. Fromt he source by the way, so I dont see what the issue is. You keep stating I removed the mentioning, but I did not, I simply added the quote.
• Noone said journalists are experts, again your lack of reading is causing the issue here. Experts and journalists are seperate groups, journalists are held to appropriate fact checking when they are working for a reliable and verifiable source. However experts in self published items need to be experts in the field, your Michael XYZ quote fails both of those, he isnt a journalist nor an expert.
• I dont even get this comment, are you telling me you feel Wikipedia should accept all sources because of Judy Miller incident, regardless of those sources are newspapers reliable, verifiable etc? You have a problem with Policy, you take it to that page, dont attempt to add aources that violate those policies to prove a point.
• WP:OR, read it please and know it well, you cannot argue that its a violation of a law, you cannot draw conclusions, furthermore Washington Post doesnt say it breaks any laws, so its further OR for you to assume it does.

Your personal opinion and understandings are not relevant here, stop attempting to connect dots on your own, cite a source that is verifiable and reliable or stop adding it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information Operations Roadmap

You are now admitting in the article you keep trying to revert to that the two items are not linked, stop putting it in then. I know you are trying to find content for this article, but a lack of content is just that, adding unrelated items does not help it avoid the merger discussion. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Several editors have voiced concern over the use of sources. The problem is that some of them are believed to violate WP:RS. The two prime arguments are that the sources are not fact-checked, in other words opninin, and from biased sources. Regarding wikipedia policy on the use of sources:

• WP:NPOV: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

• Feel free to read about Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.

• The use of biased sources is allowed, Reliable sources: Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party.

• Partisan sites are not excluded from use, Partisan websites: Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source.

• The use of legal experts seems to be encouraged, Beware false authority: Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions.

• Neutral language When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be attributed and cited.

• Balance An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it.

In light of this the question is, are there sources in the article that violate policy, as quoted above, and is the article sufficiently clear about the use of opinion when it uses editorials?

[edit] Bad Link

Note that the Truthout.org link to the WaPo article is bad. Morton Devonshire^Yo

[edit] ==NPOV==

" U.S. military policy is not to aim psychological operations at Americans, said Army Col. James A. Treadwell, who commanded the U.S. military psyops unit in Iraq in 2003. "It is ingrained in U.S.: You don't psyop Americans. We just don't do it," said Treadwell." This jumped out from the first citation. To state that the operation was aimed at the "home market" seems a leap too far.

Rich Farmbrough 20:30 19 July 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Survey

I think the relevant arguments have been made. Let's determine the consensus for deletion of the following sources as violative of WP:RS: (1) Kurtnimmo.com, (2) Daily Kos, (3) Global Research, (4) CounterPunch, and (5) Truthout.org.have removed the sources that are not used in the article, since voters seem to have missed they are absent from the article. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all material sources to these 5 sources. Morton Devonshire^Yo
  • Comment, 1 and 2 are not in the article, unless Zero restored them. Aside from the fact we are working on a RFC, and I still have not seen policy disallowing these sources this survey seems a bit premature. Ad 5: this is the WaPo story, what exactly is your problem with that? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Morton, bias sources, sometimes used as only source which is frowned upon. Non experts being used in Global Research source and its self published. Truthout is simply a reprinting, should at least be replaced, however the link is dead now. Kurtnimmo? What is this? Counterpunch, self published newsletter, admittedly bias, see the "about us" page. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 00:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Sigh: Bias is not against policy so that is an invalid argument, and frowned upon? What policy is that, and do explain how you know this. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 00:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias sources are allowed, they are just not suppose to be the only source for an item. I never said it was against policy, if you will not read my comments, then do not reply to them. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 06:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, where exactly did you find the policy that those sources should not be the only ones, and where did you find policy prohibiting you from adding other sources? Or, to cite actual policy:

Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it.

What part of this says sources need to be deleted? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If John D Smith says dogs are attempting to take over the world in attempt by the Bush administration to rid the world of terrorists, where would you like me to find a counter point for such a silly accusation? Bias sources should be supported by verifiable sources. Center for Research on Globalization? do you even realize that editorial was self published by a person not in the field he was discussing? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Perfect example of a red herring. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Morton abakharev 05:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please, look again, and note that the sources used in this article are not what was stated above. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, apparently my fellow editors feel that notable sites, that reprint article by NYT, WaPo, Boston Globe, should not be used. Luckily wikipedia is not a democracy, otherwise this insane stance would result in deleting perfectly valid sources such as WaPo from the project. Also, to clarify that this survey misrepresents the current article I removed sources from the question above that are not used. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• It is odd, you did not wait for the RFC I was preparing with TheronJ. Which of course, would be better than haphazzardly voting on sources without any argumentation. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Before reverting

The following needs to be proven before being introduced, it needs to be proven through a reliable verifiable source:

• Informations Operations Roadmap - A source needs to be provided stating this program is included in that roadmap. Its a violation of WP:OR for us to draw that conclusion
• Zarqawi backstory - The backstory needs to stop being reverted, you are constantly removing information that is factually correct and sourced, in hopes of stating Zarqawi was a nobody. Your source is an editorial and you have not contended the information I added as wrong. Your source also goes against the other articles on Zarqawi.
• Michel Chossudovsky - This person should not be quoted, especially 4 times in an article as he has no expertise in the field at all, not even experience. He is an economist.
• Smith-Mundt Act - Please provide proof that shows this program violates this law or stop adding it back. You have not shown a single source linking even the mention of Smith-Mundt to the PSYOP program, not even proof it violates it.

Please address these issues before reverting. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting tedious, read my arguments above. Second, the article does not say it violates anything, it merely describes the general principle regarfding PSYOP and the US public. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So you plan to lookup and include a paragraph on every PSYOP related document and law? If so let me know I will help you gather the sources, if not the inclusion of just one law, one you have no linked to any source, and one document that you have not linked to any source is OR. Again find sources linking these objects or stop adding them, your refusal to prove they are linked in a manner other then OR will be noted in the RFAr when you get around to posting it, also your lack of edit summaries where the WAPO link change got lost.--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr involving Zero

Apparently mediation does not result in improvement of the harrasment I endure, nor does it induce Zero to respond to my arguments, other than repeating his assertions. Since I am at my wits end I have filed a case at ArbCom. This is to notify others should they wish to comment there. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

• While there has been marked improvement on the proportion of quotes to subject matter, how about removing the quotes completely and leaving it up to the reader to go into the article and read exactly what the person said. It might clean up the article some.
• Why is the Rise to Power section included? This article is about the program, not Zarqawi and as such his rise to power is not important for the article. Just provide a link to Zarqawi's article and call it good.

--Bobblehead 22:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Some quotes might remain, I am trying to remove as much as possible, but when people claim my summary of the info is incorrect I insert a quote so they cannot deny the accuracy. As to his rise to power, I think some mention of the effect the program had on that is warranted. Let me know what your thoughts are. Sincerely Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, excellent points. Perhaps instead of adding a line break for the quotes just put them in "quotes"? Block quotes should really only be used for quotes that are a paragraph in length. As for the rise in power, perhaps moving it after the description of the program and maybe even merge it with the existing effects section? Have a section for Effects of program and then a couple of sub-sections for Effects in Iraq and Effects in US. --Bobblehead 23:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, nice suggestion, Will think on that but I will start with the move. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Global Research sources as they are self published, non notable author, not an expert in the field and fails WP:RS for those reasons. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You're all insane. Shannon^{duck talk} 01:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tedious and annoying

Again Zero reverts while not answering the rebuttal of his mantra,[1][2] that is the verdict on what is allowed according to him.

• Sources biased sources are allowed, experts are not mandatory but preferrable (otherwise we should delete all sources which are journalists), please go above and see the quotes, and provide ther exact policy where your edits are supported, i.e. where can I find policy requiring sources to be experts in the pertinent field.
• This is a PSYOP program, it is allegedly targeted at the US public. Why is discussing the general principle of PSYOP aimed at US citizens not relevant or even prohibited?

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Who says it targets US public? The article states specifically that it doesnt. That is why its not relevant. Your biased source is self published, and a non expert, and non notable. That is why its not allowed, please read summaries, you seem to ignore them.

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.

He fails all of this, he is not an expert in this field, the one thing that would make it close to acceptable and not a journalist and not notable. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Have your read the article?

1. The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.
2. included leaflets, radio and television broadcasts, Internet postings and at least one leak to an American journalist.
3. One briefing slide about U.S. "strategic communications" in Iraq, prepared for Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describes the "home audience" as one of six major targets of the American side of the war. That slide, created by Casey's subordinates, does not specifically state that U.S. citizens were being targeted by the effort, but other sections of the briefings indicate that there were direct military efforts to use the U.S. media to affect views of the war.
4. But this officer said that the Zarqawi campaign "probably raised his profile in the American press's view."
5. Kimmitt said, "There was clearly an information campaign to raise the public awareness of who Zarqawi was, primarily for the Iraqi audience but also with the international audience."

Please point out how you arrived at the conclusion the US audience was NOT targeted. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Note media, not civilians. Also releasing factual information is not a PSYOP, that distinction is amde in the article. Furthermore the article states:

That slide, created by Casey's subordinates, does not specifically state that U.S. citizens were being targeted by the effort, but other sections of the briefings indicate that there were direct military efforts to use the U.S. media to affect views of the war.

Also the article goes on to explain that leaking information to the press is quite common. Furthermore my edits dont remove the mention of it targetting the US media, they are quotes right from your own source clarifying whats taking place. Note I did not remove US Home Audience, I only added the quote following its mention. Do you have a problem with your own source?

• Still, reading English appears to be your weakest point

1. One briefing slide about U.S. "strategic communications" in Iraq, prepared for Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describes the "home audience" as one of six major targets of the American side of the war. That slide, created by Casey's subordinates, does not specifically state that U.S. citizens were being targeted by the effort, but other sections of the briefings indicate that there were direct military efforts to use the U.S. media to affect views of the war.

Also, you insert quotes for no reason at all. My version said exactly thew same but then with fewer quotes. Therefore, I will reinstate my version, which is more complete, uses less quotes, and is more NPOV. Your adherence with policy to await consensus in stead of edit warring the article into your version is appreciated. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I love how you post that I edit war, then go and do what you accuse me of. Feel free to do it, it only discredits your own RFAr which I will mention just this in. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore that isnt the quotes you used in your version found here. You seem to have forgotten the second half of it whenever you make a version, the part that says That slide, created by Casey's subordinates, does not specifically state that U.S. citizens were being targeted by the effort. Again pretty selective quoting as you chopped out the middle in a convenient fashion. Once again though, I just clarified the situation. Do you have a problem with your own sources quotes? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As for your other source failing WP:RS, any comments? -- zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• See above, a Ilisted several policies disproving your ruling. You can comment there. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I take that a no then, since none of them address the self published issue, or that he is not an expert. Thank you and I wish you a happy weekend. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand your position. You claim these sources cannot be used, therefore you have to show policy prohibiting the use of non-expert commentators. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Its above, your ability to ignore it doesnt change its existence, but lets review it again:

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.

Better? Did you consider maybe you are misunderstanding my position, and not that I am misunderstanding my own position ... if thats even possible ... The issue as you keep avoiding is not that he is not an expert, its that he is self published and not an expert, and not a journalist and the article is not even peer reviewed. Again your avoidance of half the arguement, doesnt make half it it not exist. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

largely not acceptable as sources is equal to prohibited? Second, the author has several publications on the subject. On both accounts you are wrong 1 it is not prohibited 2 he has previously published. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read all of it Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material He doesnt meet any of the exception criteria, had he, he would have fallen into the largely not acceptable as sources area. But as even the article on his doesnt claim to be an expert in the field, and you do not even claim he is an expert in the field. Also it doesnt state the person has to have been published before it states "well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material" which he is not a journalist. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Its nice that instead of attempting to prove he passes WP:RS, you just resorted to reverting with a bit dramatic of a summary "estored info deleted by "the decider" which he had not noticed was taken from Newsweek, and again restarting attempt to improve while Zero only contributes by reverting", unfortunatly, you are actually the only one reverting, I have been editing your edits after you revert. Seems you fail to even attempt to justify the Global Research items anymore. Will be noted on your RFAr. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorialism vs. News Reporting

Nescio, I'm not sure where you are from, but in the United States, there is a distinction, which is well-understood by readers, of the difference between editorials and news reporting. Please re-draft the article to make this clear -- you have done some of this, but you are still mixing editorial works with news reporting. For example, Blumenthal's piece is not a straight article -- it's an opinion piece. Please also remove all blogs from the piece -- it's very annoying to see them again when me and other editors have repeatedly asked you to remove them -- their use violates Wikipedia policy. Morton devonshire 19:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinion is allowed (see quotes above) so I think we will leave that in. If however you feel the article it is insuufficiently clear what is opinion and what is reporting please point out where that is not evident. I agree the article should show that distinction. Regarding blogs, which blog? I honestly am not aware of any blog. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

CounterPunch and GlobalResearch are both blogs. Morton devonshire 01:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide sources that substantiates that assertion? Second, I have several articles by notable commentators (i.e. John Dean), are you saying we cannot use those simply because the articles were on the Counterpunch site? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In light of keeping things amicable I removed Global Research. Still think it is not prohibited, but to fight over a minor part of the article is indeed silly. Hope you agree with what I have done si far. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Global Research is ran by the person you keep attempting to quote, therefore its self published his work. This has been exlained to you already numerous times by myself and even TheronJ above. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

When talking about rendering facts you are right, but this is an editorial. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Its almost humerous you do not mind 70% of the article being opinions and quotes. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you use circular logic, you insert numerous superfluous quotes and then complain about the quotes. Disruptive IMHO. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Again complete avoidance of the issue, good bye nescio. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going to start a RfC on the marge proposal unless this article gets some actual content, something more then quotes and links drawn by WP:OR violations. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you start contributing instead of deleting, we might be able to actually improve this arrticle. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job not addressing issues, next time try not using snide comments. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussing edits

Aside from the RS debate, which I am still willing to continue, there are several edits by Zero I do mot understand.

The WaPo article says

1. The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.
2. included leaflets, radio and television broadcasts, Internet postings and at least one leak to an American journalist.
3. One briefing slide about U.S. "strategic communications" in Iraq, prepared for Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describes the "home audience" as one of six major targets of the American side of the war. That slide, created by Casey's subordinates, does not specifically state that U.S. citizens were being targeted by the effort, but other sections of the briefings indicate that there were direct military efforts to use the U.S. media to affect views of the war.
4. But this officer said that the Zarqawi campaign "probably raised his profile in the American press's view."
5. Kimmitt said, "There was clearly an information campaign to raise the public awareness of who Zarqawi was, primarily for the Iraqi audience but also with the international audience."
6. A goal of the campaign was to drive a wedge into the insurgency by emphasizing Zarqawi's terrorist acts and foreign origin, said officers familiar with the program.

My rendition of the article says[3]

1. The program was allegedly primarily aimed at, but not limited to, the "Iraqi and Arab media" along with the "U.S. Home Audience," which was part of a "broader propaganda campaign."
2. One of the presented goals was to alienate local citizens from him by portraying him as a foreigner and key actor in the insurgency.
3. Discusses "Effect of US PSYOP on domestic audiences"

You object, since the article says that the US public is not targeted and therefore this is irrelevant.[4] The WaPo does not say US citizens are not subject to the campaign. Despite the fact WaPo speaks of "a goal," you change it into the goal.[5] When I was young the words a and the stood for seperate things.

Salon says

1. Months before Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike, American military commanders and intelligence officers in Iraq battled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the White House to "degrade" the terrorist's dramatically inflated image, while Rumsfeld and the White House resisted, ultimately for "domestic political reasons," as a military source involved in this internal controversy told me. In the end, the military lost.

My version[6]

1. However, Sidney Blumenthal reported that, according to a "military source," this campaign ultimately revolved around "domestic political reasons."
2. According to Sidney Blumenthal, in an article for Salon, a military source told him that, for ultimately "domestic political reasons," Donald Rumsfeld and the White House resisted degrading the dramatically inflated image of Zarqawi.

You remove my rendition claiming it is incorrect.[7][8]

Newsweek says

1. Ironically the most competent "Al Qaeda" leader in recent years, at least since the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2003, was Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, who came close to subverting the American project and creating a sectarian war in Iraq. But he did that largely on his own, facilitated by the fortuitous conjoining of Iraq with the war on terror. Before the Iraq war Zarqawi was a nobody, hiding out in northern Iraq, largely unconnected to Saddam's regime even though Colin Powell, in his infamous Feb. 5, 2003, United Nations Security Council speech, claimed that Saddam had given Zarqawi "harbor." And he was not part of bin Laden's group. Would he have attacked U.S. interests at some point, somewhere? Almost certainly. But the Iraq invasion gave Zarqawi a chance to blossom on his own as a jihadi.

My rendition[9]

1. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was already involved in terrorism yet largely unconnected to Saddam Hussein, and not part of bin Laden's group,

which I later changed into

1. According to articles in Counterpunch and Newsweek several incidents turned Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from an unknown and unimportant terrorist into the well-known voice of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Newsweek continues by commenting that initially he was largely unconnected to Saddam Hussein, and not part of bin Laden's group.

You delete this.[10]

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Take this to the RfC where it belong and the RFAr, and while your at it, why dont you read the article on Zarqawi. How can he be a nobody and also being someone who was jailed for attempting to overthrow the government, also someone who started terrorist training camps with funds from al-Qaeda. He was linked to the killing of Berg, Eugene Armstrong and Jack Hensley and Ken Bigley. He helped the attempt at blowing p the SAS Raddison. He was wanted by the Jordanian government and asked to be extradicted from Iraq. Taking all that information and shrinking it to "he was involved with terrorism", because your editorials call him a nobody, is highly POV, its a complete violation of Undue Weight. There is a difference between editorials and new pieces and blogs and news sources.

Instead of your editorials, try reading news pieces - MSNBC Timeline Associated Press Madrid bombing link, aq link

Why is it you only use editorials as sources? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice red herring. Apparently you ignore the numerous articles that are not editorials. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Prior to the speech by Colin Powell he was absolutely unimportant. Even your own sources do not claim he was terrorist number one prior to that. Thjat is exactly what this article currently says. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Never made an edit saying he was number one, if you fail to see there is a mid point between master of all terrorists and a nobody, then continuing this discussion is pointless. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Have inserted two terrorism experts that concur that befor the invasion his activities were limited to Jordan, and he was certainly not known on the global scale of today. In other wods, like most local nuisances he was a nobody in the eyes of the world. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Editors

Please avoid petty bickering, and stick to editing this article by following Wikipedia rules. We are a community of consensus, and that consensus must be built on following Wikipedia rules. Please permanently remove the above section. Needless personal attacks do not contribute to that enterprise. Morton devonshire 21:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? All I try to do is explain my edits and show they are deleted. How is that a personal attack? I want to discuss with Zero why he makes the edits he does, by showing the original text, my rendition and his response to that. Is that not allowed? Are my comments too harsh?

You pick fights often, and you don't follow Wikipedia rules in making your edits. Morton devonshire 21:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Picking a fight is not entirely how I see it. As you know the last time I had an identical conflict, in which you found my conduct inappropriate, that user admitted he was intentionally being disruptive and did what he could to antagonize me. As to the current situation, I did not follow Zero to this article. It takes two to tango. But I will listen to your advise and change that. As to the PA, is the paragraph better, neutral? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)edit conflict while amending

Please just remove the material, it violates WP:NPA and WP:POINT. Morton devonshire 22:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am more than willing to remove bad language. But I do not understand how discussing edits is a personal attack. It is now a neutrral paragraph outlining my arguments for what I did. Is that against policy? Your request makes me feel bad about my behaviour, while I honestly do not see any personal attack. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 22:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Please settle the differences on the talk page instead of edit warring.

It might help to start an WP:RFC or apply for a mediation. Please let me know when the article is ready to be unprotected abakharev 23:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Believe me when I say that an Rfc will be fruitless. Instead, it would be helpful if you will monitor this article and insist that Wikipedia editing policies are followed. We could use the help of a disinterested Admin here. Morton devonshire 23:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position

The following is taken directly from WP:NOR[11] -- this is one of the policies that is frequently violated in this article.

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

An example from a Wikipedia article (note that the article is about Jones, not about plagiarism in general):

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism in Jones's Flower-Arranging: The Real Story by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, saying he is guilty only of good scholarly practice because he gave citations for the references he had learned about in the other book.

So far, so good. Now comes the new synthesis of published material:

If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style as well as Harvard's student writing manual, both of which require citation of the source actually consulted. Neither manual calls violations of this rule on citing original sources "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it is the editor's own synthesis of published material serving to advance his definition and opinion of plagiarism and whether Jones committed it. The editor is citing good sources about best practice (Chicago Manual of Style and Harvard's student writing manual). In an article about plagiarism, some of the points he makes might be acceptable, so long as he provided links or citations to the sources.

But in an article about Jones, the paragraph is putting forward the editor's opinion that, given a certain definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Regardless of the fact that his opinion appears to be supported, other things being equal, by the Chicago Manual of Style, it remains the editor's opinion.

For this paragraph to be acceptable in the article about Jones, the editor would have to find a reliable source who had commented on the Smith and Jones dispute and who had himself made the point that: "If Jones's claim that he always consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style..." and so on. That is, that precise argument, or combination of material, must have been published by a reliable source in the context of the topic the article is about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morton devonshire (talk • contribs) 17:59, July 22, 2006 (UTC).

And this refers to? Everything is sourced. Remains the backstory to PSYOP in general. Nowhere is implied the Zarqawi program is illegal. Only the general principle of campaigns aimed at US citizens is discussed. Since it is reported they may be targeted, and it is a PSYOP program, it is perfectly reasonable to advance some background information on PSYOP in general in relation to US citizens. In other words, I fail to understand your point.

Regarding OR. Take this analogy. An article states 1 a dog has four legs, 2 a dog is an animal, 3 animals with four legs are quadrupeds. Your position is that we are not allowed to mention that dogs are quadrupeds since the article does not say that. You are correct that the article does not say that, but your objection is silly and disingenuous. OR refers to interpreting something while other possibilities are present, i.e. introducing bias. However, no interpretation is possible as there can be no other conclusion and therefore it is not OR in this example, since no bias is possible. You must have noticed the difference between, Bush did so and so, therefore he is behind 9-11 (where that conclusion is based on interpretation and as such OR), and this example. To object to calling a dog a quadruped is ridiculuous.

Other example:

• Group A = All citizens of the world.
• Group B = All citizens of Paris.

You object to saying group B is part of group A, since that is OR. My position is that there is no way on earth that group B is NOT part of group A. That is not interpretation, or OR as you call it, those are the laws of nature. Unless you can prove that there is some way group B is not part of group A (showing my conclusion is open to debate, i.e. OR) I think my conclusion is not OR but merely implementing the laws of mathematics (which support my position). Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole point you are missing is you are not allowed to draw conclusions. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger RfC

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

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

1. Currently the article contains over 50% quotes and introductions to quotes.
2. The article contains an entire section based on original research "Effect of US PSYOP on domestic audiences"
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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:

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

No where is it illegality even discussed.

1. 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:

1. The Zarqawi PSYOPS program is covered under this document.

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

1. 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)

[edit] Yes to merge

1. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC) - As per above stated reasons.
2. This is a very strange article. There is no reputable sources acknowledging even existence of such a PSYOP. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, merge the sourced facts and delete the unsourced speculations abakharev 13:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: Saw your comment. Have you read the article? Have you missed that it is based upon an article in WaPo?! In other words how can you say that there is no evidence for such a program when the Washington Post, Newsweek, et cetera (apparently not reliable sources if I understand you correctly) say so? Further, the RFC is misrepresenting the article (a common problem with this editor) which is not contradictory (I urge Zero to again read carefully and study English grammar), is not 50% quotes (again, just look at the article), and nowhere speculates (editorials) without explicitly saying so (which is allowed). Could not help commenting, will be of-wiki from now on exactly because of these kind of statements that are not compatible with the facts. Sincerely. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Since I originally proposed a merger, but didn't make an RFC, I'm obviously in support of the merger.--Bobblehead 20:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Merge - This is a small sidelight - if even true - to Zarqawi. It does not deserve it's own WP article as it is just a small part on the overall effort to catch/kill Zarqawi. It should be merged and reduced to it's actual significance which is about half a sentence.--Tbeatty 23:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Merge -- almost entirely original research, violating WP:NOR. Very little left once the cruft is deleted. Better yet, delete the whole article. Morton devonshire 02:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No to merge

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

[edit] Comments

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

[edit] Let's get on with it

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

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)

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