From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 16, 2006.
Article Milestones Date Process Result June 14, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is part of the WikiProject Iraq, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Iraq on the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

[edit] Boy oh boy is this page gonna get vandalised

And they still reject any attempt to automatically protect FAOTD articles, although all the pictures that are shown on the main page are protected. --Orang gila 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection unlikely

Just to answer the perennial question before it gets asked, Today's Featured Article is normally not protected. If vandalism gets severe, it may be semi-protected and full move protection may also be implemented, but normally, today's FA is not protected. If you want to help protect the page from vandalism, please watchlist it and help to revert the vandalism as it happens. Thanks, everybody.--Kchase T 00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I just don't understand the wikipedia heirarchy sometimes. Why don't you guys fully protect/lock every featured article for the duration of its presence on the main page? It's an easy, harmless way to prevent people from clicking on the featured article to see what Wikipedia is all about and see pictures of penises and beastality all over the place. Considering the fact that the page is vandalized as I speak, people who click on it right now are going to look at and see Wikipedia has no credibility whatsoever. Just a suggestion. Uncreative 00:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe part of it is to encourage visitors to add information to these articles that they otherwise might not have been aware of. It seems a matter of deciding which was more important: encouraging people to "get their hands dirty" and edit the article; or locking the article to keep the current information in place. I'm of two minds on the matter, but I think the current system is fine so long as editors are vigilant. -- Kesh 01:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a perfect example of a policy emphasizing editors over readers.--DaveOinSF 02:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of the policy is to encourage readers to become editors!--137.82.36.209 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. God forbid someone come to Wikipedia wanting to learn some accurate information...--DaveOinSF 05:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's an absurd policy for a number of reasons, the primary one being that you can't very well demonstrate what is "featurable" about the encyclopedia when the article is constantly being trashed. You can weigh in on Wikipedia talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles. –Outriggr § 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As tagged above, this page is not for policy discussions. Please take it to the link mentioned above. -- Kesh 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death Edit

Concerning the bit about Zarqawi's death, I removed the following.

"An Iraqi man, who claims to have arrived on the scene a few moments after the attack, said he saw U.S. troops beating up the badly-wounded but still alive Zarqawi.[118][119] In contradiction, Caldwell asserted that when U.S. troops found Zarqawi barely alive they tried to provide him with medical help, rejecting the allegations that he was beaten based on an autopsy performed. The account of the Iraqi witness has not been verified.[120] All others in the house died immediately in the blasts."

Because the claims have not been verified, I see no reason that it should be placed within the article, and to be quite frank, reeks of bias. If someone has proof of verification, feel free to change it back to the original, provided that a link or some form of proof or source of information is provided within. The "all others" part I removed as well because it didn't lead into the next section very well. Any writers with more skill and interest in the article than myself are welcome to make changes, as that is the beauty of wikipedia. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.234.66.219 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 16 December, 2006.

That edit was reverted earlier, as it was a verified report. Even if the incident did not occur as portrated, the text in the article maintained NPOV by also citing the military version of the event. I would say the text should stand as-is. We can't verify either the man's claim or the military's, but we can verify the existance of both reports. -- Kesh 02:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted that edit because I thought it might have been accidental blanking. Sorry about that. If you use edit summaries on high-profile things like this, people won't mistakenly revert you like I did. I have no opinion on the section in question.--Kchase T 02:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corpse image

I don't think the picture of al-Zarqawi's corpse contributes anything to the article. How many other articles on deceased persons have pictures of the person's corpse?

I see on the page it says the U.S. government distributed the image in a press pack. If the image was meant to demoralize the insurgency, I think the image would be better placed on the article on propaganda or psyops.

It's my understanding that most articles on deceased persons do not contain an image of the person's corpse.

Also, the supposed source of the image:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Transcripts/Slides/060608-zarqawi.pdf

..is no longer present as of December 15, 2006.

I realize "Wikipedia is not censored" but I think if people need to see his corpse (or purported corpse), a picture is present in the Washington Post link. --Pixelface 03:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"How many other articles on deceased persons have pictures of the person's corpse?" - several. Uday Hussein and Qusay Hussein both do, as does Che Gueverra Raul654 03:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer this then, Mr. Big Raul, the uber-agent of Wikimedia Foundation who singularly determines which propaganda piece will be a featured article. How many articles about deceased people who were not considered enemies by the government of the united States of America include articles of the decedent's corpse?

And if enemies of the United States are exclusively selected for depiction of their corpses on the Internet by Wikimedia Foundation, will such images include links to articles on Geneva Conventions which prohibit violating the dignity of the dead? Mahkmed 22:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a poll regarding this issue located in Archive three. I encourage you to go to it and cast a vote so that we can get a better feeling of where consensus lies. This issue seems to be constantly brought up, and then later ignored. Agaib 04:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As it says at the top of the Archive 3 page, archives are not supposed to be edited. Once a discussion is archived, it is, for all intents and purposes, closed. If people want to continue vote on the matter again, it needs to be done on this page, not in the archive. Stebbins 07:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fake death

to me it seems that his death was all made up to counter his threat.Yousaf465

This is not a page for speculation. If you can provide evidence (or at least verifiable publications of this idea), it might be worth citing in the "Reports of... death" section. This comment really doesn't belong on the Talk page, though. -- Kesh 04:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Yousaf465. Never mind the replies such as Kesh's, who attempt to tell you you are out of place to respond on a discussion page with your perspective about facts in the article. Those who make it their business to go around Wikipedia telling other volunteers their comments are innappropriate or out of place are usually just queing up to run for administrator and are trying to show they know how to push others around. Despite Kesh's demeaning personal attack, which implied you innappropriately responded to Wikimedia Foundation's invitation to edit, your comments inspire me to seek the reports about evidence that supports your perception and include such information in the article.

With regard to Kesh's personal attack against you, this is no different than if Kesh attacked you for including in the discussion page about US space flights a comment that "it seems to me several of the flights ended in a crash." Such a comment would be an offering of your recollection and perceptions that can be used to find information relevant to the content of an informational database such as Wikipedia. If there were no articles about the crashes (there are, but for example), your comment could inspire creation of such articles. If there were articles to that effect, an editor truly interested in collaboration (which Kech does not appear to be interested in) would direct you to that article then inquire if you had recollections of information that could be researched and added to those articles. The appropriate response would be "thank you for your contribution" not "You are out of place, go away." The difference here is that Kesh is systematically intimidating those who doubt the veracity of this article by telling them they have no place in the discussion. The Wikimedia Foundation urges contributors to be bold in contributing content, and not to worry about incomplete or even innaccurate content -- someone will eventually shore up contributions with more facts, the Foundation and it's secret administrative agents imply. When you respond to the Foundation's solicitation to boldly contribute what you know, then Kesh or others of such ilk imply you have acted innappropriately, you can assure yourself you have been abused by someone who is gaming Wikipedia to advance their own political agenda. Mahkmed 22:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:i only meant that if any evidence can found i will also try you people should also do the same.Yousaf465

My suspision was arosed when i saw the corpse image in detail if you compare the

Rubble and debris litter the site of the last safe house of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Hibhib, Iraq. The top insurgent target in Iraq, along with several of his associates, was killed during an air strike on the house June 7, 2006.

to the corpse image as it here [1] the extent of injuries to his boddy doesn't match with the assumed injuries in attack like this.Yousaf465

[edit] Amazing.

Congratulations on making this an FA, despite the controversy. --Abeg92contribsBoomer Sooners! 04:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Mercenary2k 07:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Mass Murderer" Category

Is Zarqawi really deserving of being categorized as a "mass murderer?" This seems somewhat biased to me, unless you want to put Bush up as a mass murderer for his part in the Iraq War. Slinga 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's only "biased" according to you, if you're a god-hating, anti-american liberal terrorist!

JK! LOL

And yeah, he's a mass murderer. So's bush. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.21.69.140 (talk • contribs).

Please keep the political bashing out of this. That aside, it's a valid question as to whether or not Zarqawi should be categorized as a mass murderer. -- Kesh 21:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macabre Morons

More often than not Wiki regresses to be the mouthpiece of US foreign policy; furthermore the articles that make it into "todays features article" are one-sided, biased, and poorly written opinion pieces that are construed by a bunch of macabre morons. I am disgusted with the continuance of violence in the Middle East and the constant fanning of the flames through these ignorant pieces of propaganda. If you look at the recent spell of articles on Wikipedia you will realize that the majority of them have tons of spin: Operation Wrath of Good, Iran, and now Abu - that's just a sampling. Never mind the fact that Milton Friedmann died - no news about that. I guess we live in a country where things are so good that the only way we can bring some sense of reality into our lives is by regressing towards hate and violence. That is very sad. Congratulations to those who continue to fight for truth and fairness. --Horn66.174.79.241 21:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a place for political debate. You may want to register and create your own userpage to voice this opinion, or take it to a policy discussion page. -- Kesh 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Kesh's demeaning response aside, thank you for your response, "horn". Kesh abuses you by claiming your concerns about bias in Wikipedia comprise "political debate." Kesh's response is no more than an attempt to silence one side of a debate about Wikipedia content so that Kesh's prefered political faction can control that content.

I added a citation tag to the lead sentence. None of the sources cited in the article accurately say AMZ was the leader of Al-Queda -- they all either say US military intelligence alleges he was the leader of Al-Queda in Iraq, or they don't source their information and are hence unreliable sources for inclusion as encyclopedic content.

I removed the disparaging "Islamist" label. AMZ was a Muslim. "Islamism" is a disparaging reference not embraced by those described as Islamists. It's one thing for Wikipedia to have an article about what some right-wing Christians call some Muslims. It's entirely another to start declaring as fact, based on second-hand allegations from news sources, that a person "is" an Islamist. Would we write that anyone is a "racist" if that person does not profess to be a racist, or would we write that the person has been alleged to be a racist, and name the source of the allegation? Mahkmed 22:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

My response was not demeaning. This is a page for discussing the article itself, not political debate. Please refrain from continuing this.

As an aside, I have reverted your edit, Mahkmed. Islamist is a recognized term, even in Muslim communities, and the edit problem was exacerbated by your simply renaming the link "Muslim" while it still pointed at the same article. Also, your citation template was unwarranted, as there's an entire section devoted to citing the facts and disputes of his death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kesh (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Then if there is an entire section dedicated to debate over controvening accounts, why is only one account of his role declared factual in the lead? If you say his role is open for debate, according to the sources provide, I will revise the lead to reflect such ambiguity. If you intend to systematically revert my edits because I dared to expose your policital activities in Wikipedia, that's okay, becuase you will create a more explicit record of how wikipedia is used as a propaganda tool. Mahkmed 22:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, please se the talk page guidelines. This is not a place for debating politics. My own politics are solely concerned with keeping the article factual and free of bias. As an aside, please refrain from multiple malicious edits, as it can be considered vandalism. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kesh (talk • contribs).

Your shrill allegations of malice are but an escalation of your ongoing personal attack, against me and against other editors of this article. Your explanation of other's motives as political, while you characterize your own repetition of political views as "factual" is also a personal attack, in which you deny the intergrity of other editors while you unduly exagerate your own credibility. "Can be considered vandalism" -- that's cute. Daddy "can be considered Santa Clause" but that doesn't make him Santa Clause -- it makes those involved culbable in advancing a myth. Leave your myths at home. This is an effort to compile an accurate factual article. None of the sources cited in the article say he was the leader -- they say other sources said he was the leader. Stick to the facts, or go away. 172.191.209.29 23:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. Mahkmed 23:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made my points above. If you wish to continue personal attacks, and off-topic discussion that is your perogative. It will be up to the admins to decide matters. I was simply attempting to give everyone involved a polite warning as to the violations of policy.

I will continue to monitor the article and correct malicious & mistaken edits, but this Talk topic has become inflammatory. -- Kesh 23:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

None can deny that he killed people. And none can deny that all of his actions are dispicable. He has planned the deaths of many innocents intentionally. You may call Bush a mass murderer if you wish, but none can deny what Zarqawi did. Besides, this article is about Zarqawi not Bush. Something to discuss about Bush? Then go to the Bush article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.230.65 (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Admin abused admin tools to control content of article

I just received an e-mail from a friend who said an administrator who claims to be New York attorney violated a three revert rule to singularly control content of this article, attacked a user:talk page to remove the users comments, then blocked the user to prevent them from contributing to the content of this article contrary to the political agenda of the administrator Postdlf. This seems to be neither a transparent nor a collaborative approach to describing controversial international events. Lance48 23:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted?

Has this been deleted or is it my computer messing up?! Trampikey ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 17:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right it's been deleted. The deletion log lists User:Jdforrester as having deleted it citing the "removing a revision". This needs to be put on the admin noticeboard and maybe another admin or bureaucrat needs to reverse this. Thethinredline 17:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zarqawi dead us govt photo.jpg

I've changed this image to a link to the image page because the URL of the source..

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Transcripts/Slides/060608-zarqawi.pdf

..is currently not available as of December 17, 2006 and I can't find it on www.archive.org.

I feel the image may violate WP:IUP as it is now unsourced. The IUP seems unclear on sources that lead to dead URLs.

I feel that the image should only be reinstated if it has been approved by a consensus of editors. If I've misinterpreted WP:IUP, comments are welcome. --Pixelface 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fake death now answer

pl check my last pos tin the topic fake death and pl answer it.User talk:Yousaf465 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yousaf465 (talk • contribs) 07:42, December 30, 2006 (UTC)}

• He's dead.--Looper5920 12:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Claiming he's not dead because a picture of his face is actually recognizable doesn't work. You have to explain why his injuries should be more severe than indicated, which will be difficult if the picture only shows his face. For all you know, the entire lower half of his body could be missing! If you want to continue this conspiracy theory, you'll need more substantial evidence. -- Kesh 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Galloway?

In the headline 'Arguments downplaying Zarqawi's importance', I added a quotation by Respect MP George Galloway made on the BBC's 'Question Time', which was directley relevant to the evident. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I don't see a problem with what I did.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TpUR5zfWZw —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.108.192.46 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC).