Talk:Zarqawi PSYOP program/Archive 1

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)

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)

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

--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)

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)

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.

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)

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
   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)

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.

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

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)

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)

The following is taken directly from

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)

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)

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
   Morton devonshire
   02:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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?

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)