Talk:Ayman al-Zawahiri

Against deletion: A highly significant figure

Ayman al-Zawahiri was a highly significant figure. If there are problems with the old article about him, the problematic passages should be rewritten. The article also needs to be updated. I (1) added that he took over al Qaeda after Osama bin Laden's death; (2) that he too was KIA.

Yes, it needs further expanding. So do a lot of articles.

The deletion log entry said 'delete – starts with "believed to be" and is potentially contentious material based on "claims"' As above I question whether that is sufficient to justify deletion, rather than some copy-editing. George Swan (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2024 (CST)

Oh, he was "highly significant", was he? At least, he was "believed to be" so. I think we are meant to write articles that are factual and, at need, verifiable. It would be extremely difficult, I think, to convert speculation into fact by merely doing some copyediting.

My friend who was at Bagram has been looking through CZ content and is amazed that we don't have an article on Quentin Tarantino. He's right. Of course we should have an article on the greatest cinematic genius since Sergio Leone. What!? We don't have an article on Sergio? Another of my contacts tells me we must start an article about Patrick Mahomes. And I have a mate in Liverpool who has been on to me for weeks about Kenny Dalglish. Those four guys, of course, really are highly significant and so are thousands more. I'm glad Liverpool is blue.

But we do have articles about all sorts of obscure, shadowy figures from the netherworld of terrorism and alleged torture, don't we? Even if most of what we "know" about such people is what is "believed to be" true. Even if world opinion on such people is that no one has ever heard of them (except for Bin Liner, of course) and they are best forgotten as soon as they become yesterday's news.

Why don't you make yourself useful and make starts on Quentin and Pulp Fiction instead of banging on about terrorists all the time? Don't worry, when you spell Quentin's name wrong, I'll correct it for you. John (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2024 (CST)

1. If you think the article needs a major rewrite, or an entire rewrite, then say so. Be specific.

   If a topic is important, "notable" in wikipedia terms, then I think you err in deleting them. I think you erred here.

   These documents have been around for over a decade. So, deleting them can't be regarded as urgent. Why aren't you making more of an effort to state what you think is wrong with them.

2. Your friend, who was once stationed at Bagram, is amazed we don't have an article about Quentin Tarantino? Other friends complain we don't have articles about Sergio Leone, Patrick Mahomes, or Kenny Daglish?

   There was a rogue administrator on the wikipedia, ten or fifteen years ago, someone who had been blocked for abuse for years, who went to the commons and expected concessions... I'll spare you the details, but I ended up doing something I never do. Someone wrote that he had been criticizing the wikipedia on a neo-nazi gun-nut site. So I used google's site: prefix to search only that site, for all references to the wikipedia. I didn't find he had been there, but one people had said the wikipedia was shit because it didn't have an article on Andrea Amati, the inventor of the violin. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, so I confirmed Amati was widely credited with inventing the instrument we know as a violin, and I wrote that article.

   But people like your friends? Can't we expect them to merely come up with more names if you or I were to start articles on Quentin Tarantino, Sergio Leone, Patrick Mahomes, or Kenny Daglish. Did you ask them if they were prepared to write those articles? Did you tell them how they could donate to the Citizendium?

   I'll tell you what. You get your friends to each donate $10, and, for each donation, I will write a fine article on Quentin Tarantino, Sergio Leone or those other two guys.

   Why are your friends are so significant, anyhow? As I have pointed out to you, people do read articles about the topics you don't like, like the Wikipedia article on Ahmed Shah Massoud has been viewed something like 3.5 million times in the last 9 years.

3. You've started a lot of short stubs recently. Short stubs aren't necessarily a bad thing.

   But, since your stubs are unreferenced, do you think that undermines your credibility over a lack of references in the articles you have deleted.

   History lesson time. People used fewer references in 2009 than they use today. Maybe even more so, on the Citizendium, with the Editor policy, where they were allowed OR.

   With regard to writing articles based on what is "believed to be true" - did you ever read Isaac Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science? I had the second edition, with 1000 names, from prehistory to around 1960.

   The biographies were in chronological order. The pages didn't have regular page numbers, they bore the number of the first biography on the page. And they were linked by their numbers, like a primitive paper-based wiki.

   The reason I bring it up is that one of the biographies was one for a individual known as "False Geber". He wrote back in the days when every new copy of a book took a scribe a year or so to rewrite it page by page, word by word. If you were a nobody, your work would never be copied. But, if you attributed your work to someone who was already famous, then your work might be copied due to the famous name. He wasn't the only person to do this. But he made it onto Isaac Asimov's list of the 1000 most significant figures in Science - because he book was the first to describe how to make Sulfuric Acid.

   Asimov pointed out we knew nothing about this individual. We didn't know where they lived, their nationality, occupation, religion. Nothing.

   We can write about people who we have to admit we don't know a lot, or for whom we can repeat some authoritative speculation, so long as there is something really significant we do know.

   I suggest that being put on the UN Sanctions list is pretty significant. Of course, in al Zawahiri's case, there is lot we do know.

4. Your offer to correct my spelling if I misspell Quentin Tarantino's name? I think you meant that to be taken as an insult. You have to stop doing that. George Swan (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2024 (CST)

OK, you guys both cracked me up with the above rants. I have removed speedydelete from this article for now. I will admit even I recognized this guy's name and knew that the U.S gov't claimed he took over from bin Laden. The government then hunted him and killed him via drone, which raises many unanswerable questions, and I knew that too. No doubt but the guy was a bad actor, but the use of drones to kill people without oversight is a such a huge conundrum. If kept long-term, this article needs to have a stronger lede that states both that he was alleged to have led Al-Qaeda and was drone-obliterated by the U. S. military. Article also has some present tense that needs cleanup. Pat Palmer (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2024 (CST)

Another issue is that this /Rationale page now differs from the article Talk page. This page MUST be merged back with the original Talk page. Pat Palmer (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2024 (CST)