Talk:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi killed in airstrike

There's already Abu Musab al-Zarqawi killed in airstrike which you might like to contribute to...


 * This one is the most complete article. Information in it has been merged with this one. Ealturner 10:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't when it was marked a duplicate - it was only a one liner... but oh well - everythings ok now :) R2b2 20:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to have a picture with the article. I don't understand the Copyright on the Zarqwai photos on the wikipedia page. I'll look into that. Ealturner 10:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Got a photo now. None of the photos on Wikipedia would work since their from AP and CNN, two of our competitors, we can't use them. Just like we can't use their text. Fair use doesn't apply to photos from other news organazations. - TUFKAAP

killed vs. assassinated
It seems to me that "assassinated" is more descriptive and appropriate and "killed" in this situation. "Killed" would be appropriate if the death was not the primary goal of the overall operation, i.e. if there was an attempt to arrest him and a firefight broke out in the course of which he died. --vonbergm 20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. He was an important political figure as a terrorist (Jordan bombings, al-qaeda) and leader of Iraqi insurgency. I know the spiritual leader of Hamas was reported assassinated after Israel landed a missile on him. I'm in agreement. Of course, what other news outlets report should not guide us - just for illustration, I do think you make a logical point. Ealturner 21:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * However he is not a and was never a government official. Jason Safoutin 21:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The significance of this being...? --vonbergm 21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * be member of a government is not requisit. Academics, football players, spys can be assassinated. Key to definition is political/ideological motivation. There is that here in addition to the fact Zarqawi was a war enemy, I think. Ealturner 21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

POINT OF DETAIL: Zarqawi was a terrorist and an insurgent
I think it should be noted al-Zarqawi was a terrorist as well as an insurgent. The bomb attack in Jordan qualifies for terrorism, an attack he admitted he planned. His campaign in Iraqi qualifies for insurgency. Ealturner 21:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Insurgent" certainly fits, but the word "terrorist" is laden with POV -- I personally feel he was a terrorist, but not everyone does.. It's a moot point, however, as the article doesn't use the word (right now). This is a very nice article. Well done, all. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * when factual and according to definition it is not POV. Zarqawi admitted the Jordan bombings. The Jordan bombings are by definition terrorist acts. There is nothing wrong with the word "terrorism" if it is used correctly. Referring to his activities in Iraq as terrorism as some might do would be incorrect and one must make that clear. Ealturner 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW thank you for the compliment on the article! Real team effort and we all cooperated too. This could have been a trickier one than it turned out to be. Well done everyone!Ealturner 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Death and rolling off a stetcher
This would be great in new article? Worth comment so is mentioned in passing in this one together with other incidental details about al-Zaqawi's killing. Maybe more can be said but it needs to read well in the article and that wasn't achieved initially Ealturner 17:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dead body image
That is a grusome and horrible image and its not really needed. I propose we add a link to it in a External links section or at least the sources section. Remember, users of all ages read WN and we do not need to spread pictures of blood and guts and dead bodies around. Jason Safoutin 00:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think we should include the postmortem photo. Postmortem photos are tasteless, offensive and disrespectful. He was a terrorist, but we should show the dead some respect. --Cspurrier 00:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See, removing an image from a story because you think the story is better without it is actionable. Karen 01:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So yeah, we don't display it but yet I see a BBC News article in sources and the Globe Mail both having the postmortem photo displayed. --TUFKAAP 20:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * TUFKAAP, the BBC and, most probably, the Globe Mail, don't have to adhere to NPOV. What other news medias do is no guide to what wikinews should do - otherwise why does wikinews exist, right? There should be no blanket rule on dead people - case by case I think. In this case the dead Zarqawi photo isn't needed to illustrate the story further. You might say, there is the question do we believe the US/Iraqi statement until we see the photo? The article also says al Qaeda in Iraq says he's dead. So there's no new news in the dead Zarqawi photo. They've said he's dead. We don't need to see him dead too. To show it would be POV, the photo was released to media to help Iraqi government beat insurgency, and tasteless. Readers can google or look in the links for their dead Zarqawi photos. Ealturner 02:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a settlement: you can link to the image on the BBC. That way, it gets the kind of mentioning TUFKAAP wants and the lack-of-actually-showing-the-image others want. — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 02:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)