RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi | Result: keep[edit]

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)



  1. Delete - must nip Nobsjunk in the butt. Hipocrite (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


  1. Certainly on-mission. Meets the "explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism" criteria. Furthermore, if we delete this, then we should also delete our Osama bin Laden article. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  2. But somebody else who knows anything about the topic needs to make it not be a wikipedia article. --Miekal 18:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment: It's my goal to make this one of the most authoritative entries available on the internet on the subject. Since Zarqawi's been memorialized and enshrined in ISIL's recruiting tool, Dabiq (see inscription at top of the Contents, page 2, and elsewhere p. 37, etc.), several researchers are pursuing the same subject (and I don't mean just Rachel Maddow of MSNBC). Even Wikipedia's entry, as good as it is, is sorely lacking and in need of revision. This dope dealing mass murderer street thug and gangbanger has been elevated to martyr and prophet by DAESH. So what if User:Hipocrite can't defend a single anti-neocon anecedote or conspiracy theory; it was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. The consensus now is the Zarqawi letter was authentic and critics (like Editor and Publisher magazine) used it spew their anti-American imperialism rants. But that has nothing to do with Zarqawi's bio now. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 22:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I figured that that's what you were doing once I read the article. To be honest, I think that exposing al-Zarqawi for the thug he was is a damn honorable thing to do. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The article (from what I can see) has removed any unintentionally anti-Sunni statements, so I think it should be kept. Parogar (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. I can't see how this is off-mission. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


1. Whether on-mission or not... it's boring. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Too much side-taking[edit]

The only real problem I have with the article (and I know it's so wrong to laugh at this, but it's funny for some reason) is how much it is trying to convince people that Shia are the good guys and Sunni are the bad guys, as though it's as simple as that. Taking sides in that kind of conflict is really not something I'd recommend for ANY Wiki, let alone one this one. I recommend toning down the anti-Sunni sentiment, at least if it's in favor of picking one religious aspect over another. Personally, I'm not a fan of any religion.

So it is not clear this article is the biography of a violent Sunni Salafi-jihadist who murdered more Shi'a than al-Qaeda did in the 9/11 attacks?  !!!!
No, you cleared it up. It was just those few lines but you already changed them. So I'll rescind my objection. Parogar (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
In other words, it's not you being anti-jihadist, but you said something that was deeply anti Sunni. You said something like, "This is to be expected of the sunnis." Replace "sunnis" with "blacks", "Jews," "Women," "Gays," etc. Do you see my point? Parogar (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is a difficult point; Salafism (a Sunni phenomena) is considered mainstream thought among average people, scholars and the like today in the Middle East, whereas Salafi-jihadism are violent killers. It is a difficult balancing act not to offend anyone. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 03:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I definitely get your point there :) I just think that, contrary to how the media chooses to portray things, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are nonviolent people who are unfairly put in a light that they shouldn't be. And I think that when Shia and Sunni do it to EACH OTHER, it has a very self-destructive effect on all Muslims, and it perpetuates the stereotype that a person is necessarily evil for happening to be Muslim. That's why I think it's important to frame your arguments in such a way that it does not unintentionally portray a huge portion of the Muslim world as being inherently deceptive or sly or out for blood. Parogar (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)