Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki

This article was nominated for deletion on June 4, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

11k hits per day?

11/10/2009 seems to say there are 10.9k hits today, up from nothing 4 days ago. Quite a popular guy now.

http://stats.grok.se/en/200911/Anwar_al-Awlaki

This can be archived.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Style of the Article

I personally have heard some of his lectures, and I have read the transcripts of the Interview where Anwar Al-Awlaki talks about his connection with Nidal, and have found nothing to assume the idea of him being a terrorist or having ever encouraged terrorism, as you should know, terrorism is strictly forbidden in Islam. I found this article quite astonishingly biased, which is very disheartening, as I, up to this moment, had always looked up to Wikipedia to be accurate and unbiased and balanced. I urge Wikipedia to rewrite this in a more fair manner, using only facts. If you want to show one side of the story, you should also be fair enough to show the other side, which in this case, is the more correct side.

He has never been a terrorist, and will never be. He is only a terrorist to criminals, the same way a policeman is a terrorist to a rapist [i.e. the policeman causes 'terror' in the heart of a rapist], the same way any Muslim, Christian, etc. should be and would be, if they followed the true teachings of their religions.

Therefore, I once again urge Wikipedia to remove and rework this article, which is very misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.124.42 (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there do appear to be a number of internet postings of individuals on various jihadist message boards, including the facebook "Americans against Awlaki" group expressing exactly your POV. However WP doesn't care what an editor thinks, only what is verifiable from a reliable source. NPOV doesn't mean erasing one point of view (Awlaki is a terrorist) in favor of your view (his is not a terrorist), but rather NPOV means balancing all points of contention. Now if you could find a reliable source, or even a notable op-ed, even from a muslim or Jihad-sympathetic news source like al jazeera or jihadist press that either states this claim that he is not a terrorist, or notes a number of people who make that claim, that could be done to "balance" out the POV. The article already notes that Awlaki himself as well as his father and his tribe maintain that Awlaki is not a terrorist (Just as mosque friends and family of Nidal Hasan have maintained he is a loyal American who never had radical views, was only interested in marrying a devout woman, and never practiced shooting, and that his religion played absolutely no part of his motivation which cannot be determined at this time, and we'll revert any attempt to tag Fort Hood as an Islamic terrorist incident) That would be just like quoting op eds that attack or support controversial newscasters such as Glenn Beck. Nearly all of the people who claim that Awlaki is not a terrorist also express typical taqiya statements that Fort Hood was not an act of terrorism, that Hasan was not motivated by Islam or Jihad, and that Al Queda was not involved in 9/11 but was a US/Israeli plot. Such 9/11 "truth" theories are fairly well documented on WP, and similar Awlaki "truth" theories could similarly be added without needing to delete any mention that the US government and most of the mainstream western press has finally reached the conclusion that AW is worth killing, even if it still hasn't come to the conclusion that he was a co-conspirator who chose to tell Hasan the Islamic thing was to go ahead with the Fort Hood massacre (as is sourced in the article) rather than telling him, as you believe, that Islam forbids such killings (which so far nobody has found any supporting sourced statements from Awlaki other than his followers like yourself). If you can come up with any evidence that Awlaki's spiritual guidance was anything other than his website view celebrating Hasan as a hero, please document the source and feel free to add it to the article. Bachcell (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring/deletions of relevant material

Editor Causa has engaged in a series of edits today that I believe were largely inappropriate. They have included deletions of clearly (IMHO) relevant material from the lead, which I have restored. Similar deletions were made elsewhere. He also deleted pictures that I believe are clearly relevant--of 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi, for whom AA was reportedly spiritual advisor in both San Diego and Falls Church; investigators believe AA knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, and Khalid al-Mihdhar, for whom AA was reportedly spiritual advisor in San Diego. I expanded the captions to more clearly reflect their relevance. He continued to delete them. I believe the pictures are relevant, that the captions clearly reflect their relevance, and that these deletions -- taken as a whole -- are disturbing ones to see coming from a sysop, as viewed as a whole they chip away at AGF. I've asked him not to edit war, but rather to start discussion here. He has failed to do so. So I'm doing so. Another editor has indicated that he believes that Causa is violating the 3RR, and I would tend to agree. One can't hide behind the apron strings of "protecting a BLP" when facially the edits lack indicia of good faith, and one's claim that "this picture is irrelevant" has been responded to properly. I would ask that Causa desist w/the edit warring, and not continue to delete relevant text and images. Others' views are welcome.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the series of edits that came after your contributions. I am distressed by the nature of some of those edits as well as by their edit summaries which tend to downplay the magnitude of what *really* happened with the edit. This example, for instance, suggests the editor had a problem with some pictures “(the pictures are still inappropriately suggestive)”. Right off the bat, the pictures were of two terrorists mentioned in that paragraph. Accordingly, they are “suggestive” of nothing more than providing pictures of the subject being discussed at that point in the article, which all good encyclopedias do. If the pictures are attached to text that amounts to just so much conjecture by law enforcement authorities, then the pictures would be adding undo weight to an issue; but it’s not an issue of being inappropriately “suggestive.” We can’t have a rational discourse and discuss anything if editors are providing the wrong reasons to justify what they are doing. I’m also seeing wholesale deletion of material that is seems quite relevant.

Anwar al-Awlaki is notable because he is a living person of such profound infamy, the National Security Council approved the targeted assassination of him even though he is a U.S. citizen. There is no requirement that equal balance and fair play be added with regard to how Anwar might have once adopted a stray puppy from a shelter or how he exhales carbon dioxide, which is good for plants. All facts that are germane and topical to this subject properly belong here so long as they can be given an encyclopedic treatment and are properly cited.

I suggest that all editors in this fray stop furiously editing on multiple issues without discussion. This is a collaborative writing environment and conflict is inherent—particularly if editors jump in with a particular slant they’d like to impart to the article. Discuss issues here and arrive at a consensus. If the material is germane, topical, factual, and properly cited, it should generally stay. If it can be improved upon, then improve it. Before hitting the [delete] key (which is much easier to do than it is for someone to create encyclopedic content in the first place), concerns should be discussed here first.

The reason discussion is important is the rest of the Wikipedian community can’t sufficiently get into an editor’s mind by reading just an edit summary; particularly ones that seem to misdirect from the true nature of the edit. If an editor has a logical argument that is based on facts and are supported by current Wikipedia guidelines and policies, then let them spell out their rationale here so the issue can be sanitized by the sunshine of public inspection. Greg L (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think you make some valid points about the collaborative editing environment. However, the spirit of the WP:BLP policy is to remove potentially defamatory content from the article with haste and discuss afterward whether, and in what form, it should be reinstated. That explains the urgency of my removal, and my tendency to use reverting without discussion here. Out of respect for the subject of the article, we must discuss what content should be in the article before we put it in, not after. That's why I encourage you all to join me in discussing my objections to this content before we reinstate it. With the potentially defamatory content out of the article we can discuss civilly what, and whether, it should be put back in. Thanks. causa sui (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, it is possible that one might be tempted to wonder whether that is not just a mite disingenuous, isn't it? I mean, hours have gone by since you made your series of baseless deletions, and you've made no rational reasonable credible statements to support them here -- ever after your gosh-I-have-to-rush-with-great-haste-to-make-them-immediately reverts. Not one. Even your above comment is wholly content-less. I began assuming good faith. But your edits -- which began with wholesale deletions today of both footnoted paragraphs of highly relevant text and of images -- forces me to no longer labor under that assumption. In addition, you have ignored the communications of four other editors. Your apparent willing disregard of consensus, and edit warring without discussion, is conduct not befitting one who holds the mop.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, come… on, Causa sui, who are you trying to kid with that post of yours? First, please desist with your “that’s final”, somewhat dismissive tone where you conclude your post with a terse “Thanks” (as in “thanks for your understanding as I lay down the law”). You have now been warned by Xeno, a Bureaucrat, here on talk:Edit warring that “BLP is only a trump card if there is a legitimate concern”, which you simply don’t have.

  At its core, BLP simply calls for common-sense stuff that applies, really, to all articles: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), and No original research (NOR). Wikipedia must have special rules for biographies because of some high-profile horror stories involving living celebrities and politicians. Senator Byrd was rightly upset to read that he was now dead, according to Wikipedia. You, an Admin, of all people, should understand the principle behind WP:COMMONSENSE and its wise counsel that “Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective.” So, since I perceive a galactic-grade degree of lack of common sense in your approach here (either that, or simply citing nonsense in an attempt to prevail at all cost), allow me to guide you along…

  WP:BLP calls for (among many other things) that “Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.” Now, do tell… are you thinking that some of the most infamous people on the planet, such as Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, both of whom have presidential and National Security Council approval for Navy SEALs to put a bullet in their head and for the Air Force to drop a 500-pound JDAM on them, have, according to Causa sui, some sort of “right to privacy”?? Do tell; must we have a huge RfC over on WP:BLP to explicitly spell out for your benefit what is blindingly obvious to everyone else? Notable individuals of world-class infamy are an altogether different class than are people like politicians such as Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd, or a celebrity like David Letterman who was recently embroiled in an unfortunate blackmail/extortion attempt. That’s the sort of stuff WP:BLP is trying to address with added details such as Avoid victimization. Now…

  You will not hide your conduct behind the apron strings of WP:BLP. Your argument where you write we must discuss what content should be in the article before we put it in, not after is utterly absurd. The easy giveaway on that one was where the words preceding that whopper were Out of respect for the subject of the article… Greg L (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm an admin - not a bureaucrat, and I wouldn't really call what I wrote a warning as such. It was a general comment and I hadn't reviewed this situation entirely. (Still haven't - going to bed - maybe in the morning). If an edit war continues, it should be reported at WP:AN3 and/or WP:RFPP for uninvolved administrators to review the situation and take action if necessary. –xeno^talk 06:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Odd, I figured you to be a ‘Crat. Thanks nevertheless for weighing in; it makes a big difference. Greg L (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. BLP policy applies to all people, not only including accused terrorists, but especially accused terrorists. This is a paradigm case of why BLP policy exists: the content of this article might not only damage the mere reputation of the subject, but might actually contribute to his being killed. There has hardly been a case where our obligation to get the article right has been higher. causa sui (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have heartedly embraced the notion of “A strong defense requires a strong offense,” even if you have to resort to shear nonsense. You will 1) carry out your editing conduct just like any other editor around here, 2) won’t be using your Admin-hood as if you have some sort of “I Am Really *Really* Special”-license where you can conclude your posts with stuff that reads like “so sad – too bad and thanks for your understanding”, and 3) won’t be hiding behind the apron strings of WP:BLP to get what amounts to “I get it all my way by default until I’m happy with what I elect to discuss on the discussion page.” You will abide by the consensus view, just like anyone else. If you’re smart, you’ll slow down the pace, discuss things more, and aim to achieve a consensus instead of that slash & burn flurry-editing and reverting of yours. Greg L (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. BLP does not sanction removal of reliably sourced information already widely reflected in the press or notable editorials. NPOV requires airing of ALL points of view, not removal of POV contrary to yours. Since it is widely sourced that Awlaki had contacts with 9/11 hijackers, as well as one of the Cole Bombing planners, it belongs in the article whether or not it might affect a jury trial. In general WP guidelines are no more or less strict than RS news articles. The New York Time for example does permit printing of facts that may support that a person may or may not be a terrorist or 9/11 participant. If you can find notable or reliable sources, or even a wild conspiracy theory on a notable jihadist blog like Revolution Muslim that casts doubt on whether Awlaki had anything to do with 9/11, you could ADD that, but please do not simply REMOVE a POV that you disagree with, especially if it is against consensus. Bachcell (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't remove reliably sourced information from the article. I assure you that I have no intent of doing so. If we could begin to discuss the actual content of the article, we could make some progress. causa sui (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Causa, if writing something on Wikipedia’s Osama bin Laden article really could get the guy bombed into virtual vegetable soup any sooner, I’d write the CIA and give them a tip. I think they’d pass though. (*sigh*) I’m done for the evening. Goodnight. Greg L (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for being honest about your point of view. Personally, I have no particular love for either person. However, the BLP policy as well as common-sense standards of editorial judgment demand that we not suspend our editorial integrity when dealing with BLP's of people we don't like. In fact, if we don't like the subject, that is all the more reason to apply harsher scrutiny to the article. With that in mind, I've been combing the article for various errors, and the process isn't complete: but so far, I've identified several claims in the article that are not supported by the citations, as well as a general POV that claims made by the State Department about the subject's actual involvement in terrorism are true and the subject's denial of those claims is false. That he incites politically and religiously motivated violence against the US is nothing to debate about: we have all the sources we need for that, most of them straight from the horses mouth. But on the issue of the alleged links between the subject and the actual plotting of terrorism, this article steps well beyond what the citations actually support. We need to be honest with ourselves about what information we actually do have, and reign it in. causa sui (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well; that’s fine. Good job. Just slow down the pace of flurry-editing and reverting. Discuss things (that’s a two-way street) if you get reverted. Like I wrote above, discussing matters out in the open sanitizes the dispute with the sunshine of public scrutiny and results in less editwarring because both sides must think about the issue and explain their reasoning (which tends to make editors exercise logical thinking and double-check their facts). Greg L (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I was out of town this weekend, but I'm back and ready to get to work on this. I'm glad we're on the same page when it comes to verifying our sources. I want to make clear why I am reverting without discussion, though, as this is a tactic I also generally find distasteful and in 99% of situations I would be saying exactly what you're saying. However, in the case of BLPs, we've set a lot of precedent that getting the content out is a first priority: 3RR does not apply to potentially defamatory material and those restoring the content are expected to have found consensus first before putting it back in. I'm not trying to be a lawyer here or prove myself right or whatever, but I want to at least explain myself so I don't seem unwilling to discuss this. However, BLP policy applies to this article just like any other, and that means removing problematic material immediately and sorting out what should go back in, not the other way around. With all that said, I don't at all mind breaking precedent on the issue of who should go first, so I'll start drafting some explanations of content I want to remove, and I'll make a better effort to document what I'm doing and why as I make future edits. causa sui (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just be exceedingly clear about what it is you want. And be sure to cite, with links straight to the relevant text, the governing policy you think applies. Because I seriously doubt that when WP:BLP had its last major re-write, the issue of known terrorists with a bounty on their heads was on anyone’s radar screen. Yeah, yeah; you’ve written here that you think Wikipedia’s articles especially need to be sanitized to keep known terrorists from being killed any sooner. It is just utterly preposterous to think that the CIA or Navy SEALs could find the guy any easier and kill him because of what’s on Wikipedia. Or that officials from America’s Executive Branch are going to harden their resolve because of what they read here; school teachers across the land routinely caution their students to not rely upon Wikipedia when doing their homework. Yet here you are, doing your part, demanding that wide swaths of text be expunged to ensure that galactic-grade terrorists aren’t given a bum rap. That sort of reasoning is just utterly inane and I’ll have none of it.

  Notable public figures of infamy of such an extreme nature that official U.S. bounties are on their heads (and they are too damned dangerous to try in any civilian court) are in an altogether different class than what was being discussed when Wikipedia falsely reported that Senator Byrd died. If you can’t figure that much out on your own, and keep on trying to remove material because it makes terrorists read like… terrorists, then this issue just might balloon into an RfC somewhere so we can finally have formal, written guideline covering people like Osama bin Laden and this creep. It would be better if you just exercised more WP:COMMONSENSE, stopped pointing to guidelines that were not intended to fully and properly govern these sort of topics, and got real rather than have to involve the rest of the community.

  I keep on hearing from you and others that Epeefleche is POV-pushing. I can certainly see that his edits to these sort of articles make him sometimes seem intent on ensuring “bad guys actually look bad.” But from what I’ve seen, he logically and politely responds to reason, and it is quite easy to edit his stuff to ensure it is germane, topical, balanced, reads encyclopedically, and is authoritatively cited. I’m not seeing the same out of you just yet; particularly not when you make hay here with garbage like your below allegation, that including pictures of two terrorists with whom al-Awlaki had many closed-door meetings “further [incites] suspicion [and] unfairly biases the reader”. That is just a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium. Greg L (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, so further discussion is probably a waste of both our time. I will use sysop tools to enforce WP:BLP on this article if necessary, though I don't want it to come to that. Future debate about the applicability of our core content policies to all articles (not just those of people we like) will have to be carried out in front of arbcom, as I won't discuss it further. --causa sui (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP cleanup

In this section, I'll document changes I'm making on the grounds that they are against the letter or spirit of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. If there is something I've missed, please create a new section. --causa sui (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Close contacts"

I removed this section of text:

There were close contacts between al-Awlaki and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspect in the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 al-Qaeda terrorist attack on Christmas Day 2009.[1] According to the suspect, al-Awlaki was his recruiter, and one of his trainers.[2]

• The CBS News article opens by stating that Abdulmutallab "may have been in contact" with al-Awlaki. 'Sources' told CBS that they 'believe' they 'communicated'. Very vague and hedges their bets, hardly supporting the strong claim that contacts concretely did exist or that if there were contacts, that they were "close". Apparently, investigators (who are they?) are "looking into" the extent of the relationship. Ultimately the article incites suspicion, but does not establish, nor claim to establish, an actual link: but we reported the suspicion as concrete fact. Nor did we report the one concrete fact reported in the article: al-Awlaki's vehement denial of the allegations.
• Now, the NY Post article. This is a little bit better because it says the two "absolutely did" meet, though it attributes the "absolutely did" claim to an unnamed Yemeni authority, not the suspect, as our article claimed. The reason the Yemeni authority is certain that they did meet is that they were both in the area at the same time.

On the same grounds, I removed this statement from the lead:

According to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspect in the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 al-Qaeda terrorist attack on Christmas Day 2009, al-Awlaki was his recruiter, and one of his trainers.[3][4][5]

The aforementioned CBS news and NYPost articles are again attributed to this claim, but it adds a Washington Post article that also does not claim Abdulmutallab named al-Alawki. causa sui (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Avoiding needless discussion of your analysis, I'll simply suggest you could have added this ref, orthis ref, or this ref, or all of them and kept the material. That would have been more helpful than deleting accurate text.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll look at these. The LA Times article is definitely better than the citations I originally found, and in some slightly adjusted form (again striking colloquial talk of "close ties"), that citation might well be enough to stand alone. The Times Online article is not quite as good. It refers to this claim in passing, saying "There are already informed reports that Mr Abdulmutallab met Mr al-Awlaki during his final weeks of training and indoctrination for his supposed suicide mission". The article in general reads more like an editorial and I suspect this part is probably based on the same report that the first citation was, though I'm not sure. I wonder if it would really add much. The third also says they were in contact, so that's good. I think we have something here in the first citation that could be the basis for a compromise revision, though we'll have to talk about our citation practices as well, and making sure that citations that do not support our claims are not cited as if they did. causa sui (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Again avoiding needless discussion of your analysis, I'll simply suggest you could have added this ref, or this ref, or this ref, or all of them and kept the material. That would have been more helpful than deleting accurate text.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hm, these look like the same links, so I guess we should stick to the discussion above. causa sui (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• As long as the text remains, I care little whether it has one ref or more. The only time I care about that as a general matter is when an editor seeks to remove a primary source, as in the removal of an actual indictment as a ref where the text discusses what is in the indictment.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) All right, let's stick with the LA Times article then, as that's clearly the strongest one. I think this is the relevant passage:

Some of the information about Awlaki comes from Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old Nigerian charged with attempting to detonate a hidden packet of PETN explosive aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day, the officials said...Under questioning by the FBI, Abdulmutallab has said that he met with Awlaki and senior Al Qaeda members during an extended trip to Yemen this year, and that the cleric was involved in some elements of planning or preparing the attack and in providing religious justification for it, officials said.

This is good, since it concretely claims that Abdulmutallab named al-Awlaki. How about this:

According unnamed U.S. officials, "Christmas-Day" bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab implicated al-Awlaki in some elements of planning or preparing for his failed attack.[6]

Good? --causa sui (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I did it. causa sui (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry -- have been away from this page for a bit. Rather than revert, let me propose here my ce changes to what you propose.

"Christmas-Day" bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab told the FBI that al-Awlaki was involved in elements of planning or preparing his failed attack, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.[7]

--Epeefleche (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. Your version didn't mention that the sources are unnamed and dropped "some" elements, which I think is an important qualifier in the original source. We need to be careful to limit our claims to what the cited articles actually say, and it looks like you're just rewording the original language. I'm also busy with other things, so conversation won't move as quickly as some would like. Regardless, do not introduce these kinds of changes unilaterally as it appears that you are reintroducing contentious and poorly sourced material. --causa sui (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you deleted from that para the somewhat relevant quote regarding AA "working actively to kill Americans". With the edit summary "trim". That's disruptive editing, once again. Please stop.

Second, I've restored:

"Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab said that al-Awlaki was involved in planning or preparing his failed attack, according to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials.

Among the reasons it is superior: a) yours was not English (perhaps you were missing a word)? b) You put Christmas Day in quotes. And through in a hyphen. Neither make sense. I you will say have the relevant phrase in quotes. c) The RS didn't say "the source was unnamed". I have what the RS said, and refer to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials. That is better than synth. d) Involved in planning or preparing his attack what cover some element, no? It doesn't suggest he was involved in all elements by any stretch of the imagination. Shorter is therefore better. e) What in the world are you talking about when you say that I introduced "contentious and poorly sourced material". There's nothing in what you write that suggest that in the slightest ... I have no idea what you are referring to.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• All right, I blocked you for 48 hours for violating the WP:BLP policy. You should consider yourself topic banned from this article for two weeks. If you want to appeal this decision, please go through the normal channels, as I am not interested in discussing this matter with you (or anyone else) on this page anymore. --causa sui (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

9/11 hijackers attended his sermons

The article stated:

Al-Awlaki's sermons were attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers.

I removed this claim since it was not attributed to any citation. Finding a reliable citation that supports the claim would fix it. causa sui (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• In the section on this subject in the article, as I expect you know since you appear to have read the article, this is in fact referenced. I'm confused why instead of moving those refs to the sentence if you feel they are necessary, you would instead choose to delete a sentence for which there is obvious RS support. That could be viewed as disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Sure. It's good to make sure we cite our claims everywhere, even if we repeat them, to avoid these kinds of situations. If you have specific suggestions I'd be happy to talk about them. causa sui (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I stand by my prior comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Targeting young US-based muslims

The article stated:

He is often noted for targeting young U.S.-based Muslims with his lectures. Terrorism consultant Evan Kohlmann calls al-Awlaki "one of the principal jihadi luminaries for would-be homegrown terrorists. His fluency with English, his unabashed advocacy of jihad and mujahideen organizations, and his Web-savvy approach are a powerful combination." He calls al-Awlaki's lecture "Constants on the Path of Jihad", which he says was based on a similar document written by al-Qaeda's founder, the "virtual bible for lone-wolf Muslim extremists."[8]

All sounds well and good, with very concrete direct language and appropriate use of direct quotations, which is very helpful. There are two problems with this passage:

1. As far as I could tell, the article does not support the "often noted" claim, as this would require a citation attributed to a secondary source that has done a review of the primary literature.
2. The content is blended with allegations of actual planning/plotting of terrorism, whereas the cited article (and the content in our article) only refers to incitement, which is not contended.

In retrospect, it may have been hasty to remove the quotation immediately, though I do think we should talk about where it ought to be placed to avoid the appearance of "padding" the allegations of direct involvement. causa sui (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is more than one way to address this, as we could either: a) add a ref supporting directly the first sentence, or b) change it to a more direct statement, by having it say "He often targets ...", and perhaps adding a ref or two. I'll suggest the second, and adding this, this, and this, though there are many more one could choose from. Deleting accurate text is not the way to go.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• The first option would of course be the best, if a citation that supported the claim could be found, as that would solve all problems. I worry about the second solution though since that seems to be simply reversing what used to be weasel terms into concrete statement of fact, again not supported by citations because we don't have a secondary source that has done a review of primary sources. Really, I think finding a source that directly supports the claims we're making is the only way to go, and if we don't have sources, we should take it out. This is a WP:V issue more than a WP:BLP issue, though there is always some overlap. --causa sui (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'll edit and add refs to the first sentence.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Alleged" conections

I renamed this section [9] from "Connections to terrorism" to "Alleged connections to terrorism". Since al-Alawki is a U.S. citizen who has not been convicted in court of any terrorism-related crime, I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad (holy struggle) against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim as such. In the future, I will be adding more such qualifiers to the article as well, where I find they are appropriate. causa sui (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Ethically" obligated? Why? He has been identified by the Chair of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Terrorism Assessment as "Terrorist" No. 1 in terms of risk to the U.S. As a result of his having been identified as such, he is on U.S. kill lists. We routinely identify people on FBI terrorism lists, for example, as terrorists. And people such as the 9/11 hijackers, who have not been convicted in a court of law, as terrorists. Your "standard" is a personal one, and doesn't reflect Wiki policies and approaches.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the reason journalists accept as part of editorial integrity the concept that they should refer to people accused of crimes as "suspects" who only "allegedly" did what the government said they did is that it is understood that what is written in news print can bias future jurors or even general political opinion about the case, unfairly swinging results one way or another before the accused has had his constitutionally protected "day in court". al-Awlaki, however reprehensible we may find his political opinions and actions, will likely never get his day in court -- which I think intensifies the necessity for this kind of editorial restraint. causa sui (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• What is it with you, Causa sui? Quoting you: …“we are ethically obligated to refer to allegations against him”… (my emphasis). You also state that you “will be adding more such qualifiers to the article”. This U.S. citizen (that’s quite unfortunate) stated as follows:

“ I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim.” ”

That quote was from Reuters. You can listen to al-Awlaki threaten this in his own voice here in this CNN segment.

I dunno; it seems that if the alleged voice of an alleged CNN report where U.S. security analysts allegedly said the voice is that of al-Awlaki (you can watch al-Awlaki speak in English here), and if these words, where one might allege could be interpreted by the ear as matching the alleged transcript where he threatens jihad against America, then it seems prima facia evidence that he is—you know—dabbling with this *terrorism stuff* (index and middle fingers of both hands doing that “quotey”-thing).

Now, you can throw all your “alleged” stuff to no end, but when the Chair of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Terrorism Assessment as "Terrorist" No. 1 in terms of risk to the U.S., it is perfectly well established has “Connections to terrorism.” That is sort of a Well, Duh fact. There will likely never be some “U.S. Court” that will convict him (seemingly the only thing in your book that “proves” anything) because there is presidential and U.S. Security Council approval to bomb him out of his damned sandals. If al-Awlaki is blown to smithereens, I supposed that will liberate you to jump up and down all over Wikipedia claiming that al-Awlaki’s “terrorism thingy” will forever be just unproven *allegations*.

Methinks the Chair of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Terrorism Assessment has his finger on the pulse of the facts here better than a volunteer contributor to Wikipedia known as Causa sui. I really do hope you don’t edit against consensus here on this article. I’m not too tempted at this point to really study this article and look at the grief Epeefleche has to endure to mollify one Causa sui. I hope I don’t have to wade too deep into this turd pit to keep you acting like WP:COMMONSENSE means anything. Greg L (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That allegations against anyone, particularly a living person, should be called just that, is fundamental Wikipedia policy. That the chair of a House committee, a US president, or even a court call or convict someone as a terrorist is not enough for us to say in Wikipedia's voice that someone is a terrorist. What is necessary is a (near) universal consensus of (reliable) sources, a lack of serious dispute as to factual accuracy. This condition is not satisfied here, as Glenn Greenwald says "it's far from clear that he has transgressed the advocacy line into violent action."[10]. Articles like this one are precisely what WP:BLP was designed to cover. By the way, the major reason journalists use "alleged" etc prior to convictions is simply that not using it exposes them and their publisher to lawsuits.John Z (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, it would be quite nice if you read again what the issue is about before weighing in on a thread. This isn’t about “calling Anwar al-Awlaki a ‘terrorist’ ”, (no proper encyclopedia would do such a thing); the dispute originated over the title of a section of the article originally titled “Later life, and connections to terrorism”. I find it the height of absurdity when the original title gets a qualifier of *alleged* connections (“Later life, and alleged connections to terrorism”). It’s absurd given that al-Awlaki has publicly stated that he has declared a personal jihad against America (hmmm… seems like an objective connection to me). “Instead of reviewing al-Awlaki’s connections to terrorism, let’s review his *alleged* connections to terrorism.” I don’t personally have much a problem over such a minor detail as an unnecessary “alleged” equivocation inserted into a section title. Such an edit, among many others, is however, highly instructive as to who might be the actual POV-pushers here (and have difficulty logically parsing English). I’m keeping an eye on what going on here. Greg L (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A number of his connections to terrorism are admitted. If we add alleged, wouldn't we then have to say "connections and alleged connections"? I'm just saying. This could be reductio ad absurdum. I think "connections" covers within it "those that are alleged, those that are admitted, and those that are not admitted but as to which there is a (near) universal consensus of (reliable) sources". Or, then again, we could put all that in the title. Might look pretty.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Spot on, Epeefleche. That sort of thought was in my mind but I couldn’t make the stars of the logic line up in order to type anything cogent. Exactly. Keep it simple. The “alleged” is insertium bullonium. Greg L (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, if they are not admissions of guilt, I think it unlikely they would be enough to support "connections to terrorism", which can suggest criminal conduct or foreknowledge. What do you have in mind? Saying I am carrying on a personal jihad against America or something like "911 was a good thing" or knowing terrorists etc is not enough. Many of the statements on the talk page seem to me to not be very consistent with wikipedia practice and policy, which is why I commented above, in support of "alleged connection." Right now the most serious other problem I see is the unopposed implication, supported by a badly written passage in an NYT article, that the US government has the legal authority to order the assassination of a US citizen, a position which is likely still a minority view; it certainly was a fringe minority view a few decades ago. This is a major part of his notability, and the controversy belongs in the lead.John Z (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We are getting way off target, but yes, you are correct, a few decades ago that was a minority view. In the time of stumbling-bumbling-I'm-ordering-no-assassinations-Gerald-Ford, to be exact. That changed post-9/11, though. No longer the case. BTW, WP is built on badly written RS passages -- you know the mantra, verifiability -- not truth.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty, but if you mean to be carrying on a referendum against core policies, this article is decidedly not the place to do it. I will use sysop tools to enforce WP:BLP on this article if necessary, though I would much rather come to a diplomatic solution, which I think is fully within reach if the parties could simply negotiate their differences peacefully. Future debate about whether our core content policies apply to all articles (not just those of people we like) will have to take place in front of arbcom, because I won't participate in it any more. I'm sorry, but we need to focus all our energy and attention on getting the article right. --causa sui (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I appreciate your candor, Causa sui, in pledging now to ignore consensus, misapply guidelines that obviously don’t apply to this case, and threaten to use Admin tools instead of behave like a regular editor, just to get your way. Smooth move. We’ll see what happens from hereon. I suggest you clearly explain your reasoning for what you do here before you let this blow up in your face.

  Your complaints, such as how this article contains images of two hijackers—with whom al-Awlaki had many closed-door meetings—and that somehow “unfairly biases the reader” is utterly absurd. That whole section of the article is not only germane, topical, and has been given a proper encyclopedic treatment here, it is central to understanding how al-Awlaki has had his fingers all over key pieces of the terrorism pie. That section helps illuminate why the U.S. president and the U.S. National Security Council approved that a U.S. citizen be targeted for direct military action and assassination in order to further protect innocent lives.

  Yet, whenever common-sense, factual, encyclopedic treatments of fact don’t come across all that charitably (by definition, that’s pretty much inevitable on these sort of topics, you know), we always somehow find you front and center demanding that it be removed—as if to make room for how al-Awlaki once adopted a stray puppy from a shelter. Or demanding that a section heading be titled “ *alleged* connections to terrorism.” I’ve got your number now. I find you to be am extreme POV-pusher who hides behind the apron strings of guidelines that don’t apply. Your POV-pushing bias seems to be increasingly apparent with each of your responses here.

  Let me be clear here: my contributions to this article have been minimal; stuff like lightening a way-dark picture of al-Awlaki. Terrorism-related articles aren’t my cup of tea. It nevertheless distresses me when I visit these venues and discover editors who edit with an agenda that has only a diaphanous veneer of being backed by guidelines. Greg L (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone else understands Causa's above comments and threats. ("Referendum"? "I will use sysop tools"? "Debate about whether our core content policies apply to all articles (not just those of people we like)"? "Arbcom"?) (Perhaps it was copied and pasted mistakenly from another article?)--Epeefleche (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand it. On this and many other similar BLP articles core WP policies have been ignored by you two. Not only ignored but the policies vociferously argued against as not applying, as wrong, or by relying on clear misreadings. Administrators are required to uphold those policies, and to enforce compliance by protection or blocks if necessary. Causa sui is offering you a chance to study the policies and to edit in accordance with their requirements. You might want to consider benefiting from his knowledge and experience. But if our policy on BLPs is repeatedly breached, then, yes, if it comes to that admin tools, or even an ArbCom case, may be required. --Slp1 (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. You have your opinion. Greg L (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling it "ties" -- as the RS that serves as ref there calls it.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Images of 9/11 hijackers

Currently, the article contains two very large images of 9/11 hijacker Nawaf al-Hazmi and 9/11 hijacker Khalid al-Mihdhar bracketing a discussion of al-Alawki's alleged connections to terrorism. This is a bit less concrete, but I believe that the inclusion of these large images with captions further inciting suspicion unfairly biases the reader against the subject by juxtaposing discussion of the subject with known terrorists as universally hated as the 9/11 hijackers themselves. If we are supposed to hate the subject, his own deeds should stand on their own, rather than resting on guilt by association. causa sui (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• The pictures conform with MOS:IMAGES. 9/11 is somewhat notable. AA's connection with the hijackers has been widely reported in RSs. The pictures' captions carefully explain the relevance of the pictures. The discussion of the hijackers and AA is supported by RS refs--and many more of the same ilk are available, if deemed necessary. Everything points to inclusion as-is. The only reason I can imagine for deletion is POV of the deleting editor overriding Wiki standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• The picture does conform with the style guideline, though that is not my objection; nor is the notability of 9/11, which is not under dispute; nor is any mind-reading about my intentions you may wish to engage in a topic of much interest to me, or anyone else interested in discussing how to improve the article. The problem, as I see it, is that images of the hijackers might be less relevant to the article subject than just about anything else related to his life, such as say, the place of his birth. The reason the pictures are included is to emphasize the connection and remind everyone what a bad guy the subject is. That's not the kind of business we should be engaged in. causa sui (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Saaay! I never thought of it that way, Causa sui. For instance, there is this scruffy-looking photo of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed right smack in the middle of our September 11 attacks article. Talk about POV-pushing! Clearly, the only possible point of using such a photograph in that article is to remind readers that terrorists are often 18–36 year-old men of middle-eastern descent (and look like hairy monsters when rousted out of bed at 3:00 am) and amounts to so much POV-pushing by—you know—showing reality. <dripping facetiousness>There is no other possible explanation, is there, Causa sui? I utterly reject the notion that it is a *simple* matter of using encyclopedic photos to illustrate the subject in question.</dripping facetiousness>. Here are some substitutes for you to choose from. ;·) Greg L (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  P.S. The preceding post was clearly satirical in nature and was not intended to make people with asinine suggestions feel poopy about themselves as a person. Greg L (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  P.P.S. As for two very large images, try adjusting your preferences setting; there is no pixel-width specification on those two pictures. (Sheesh) Greg L (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• @Causa -- After admitting that what you first described as "very large images", and then again as "large images", which suggested to me at least that you were objecting to their size, you now agree that they conform with the wiki size/style guideline. You articulate your objection at this point as "images of the hijackers might be less relevant to the article subject than just about anything else related to his life, such as say, the place of his birth". Really? How in the world do you reach that conclusion? Not, I'm just guessing here, by reading the 100,000+ wiki hits that one arrives at by doing a search of "Awlaki 9/11 hijackers", and the 30,000+ that one arrives at by doing a search of "Awlaki 'September 11' hijackers". That's just the sort of baseless assertion that erodes assumptions of good faith. I expect more from a sysop.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Right-- again, the issue with the size isn't that they fail to conform to the style guideline, but that they don't serve an entirely encyclopedic purpose. The purpose, as I take it, is to make sure the reader knows that the subject is a very bad man and to reinforce his association with The Terrorists. It's not something I feel too strongly about, though, so I think we could compromise on this by, say, putting the images closer together and reducing the size a bit. I'll make a bold edit. --causa sui (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wrong. Earth calling Causa sui: It is to illustrate the topic in question. I’ll follow up with a encyclopedic edit. Greg L (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  P.S. No need to undo it. I don’t see what’s WP:BOLD about that. I see some progress here… Greg L (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Causa already agreed that thumb is the style guideline. He has expressed no reason for reducing it, other than his POV. The subject of the article and the subjects in the pictures are reflected together in text in over 100,000 ghits. That's sufficient, by any stretch of the imagination, to include their pictures at what Causa already admitted is the normal guideline size -- and demonstrates ineluctably the "encyclopedic purpose".

Causa -- if you keep this disruptive editing up, I would ask that you put yourself up for recall, because your intentional disregard of guidelines and policies is now clearly one that you engage in not only in the heat of the moment but with forethought. I don't know what damage you are doing elsewhere, but what I see here concerns me.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I say, “Let him have his weenie-size pictures.” The whole point of having unspecified pixel width on thumbs is to allow our I.P. readership (you know, that 99.95% of our readership we write for) see pictures in the default width that the Wikipedian community has decided is best for general-purpose images in body text. I override these defaults whenever it is a decorative picture in the lead, or if there are page layout considerations such as crowding of following sections, or for other purposes, such as to control dithering in animated GIFs. Causa sui wrote It's not something I feel too strongly about but then <incredulity>flouted the guidelines over it</incredulity>; it is a minor issue over which he chose to make hay. Nevertheless, I suggest you save you ammo, Epee. C.S. has clearly earned his “involved admin”-status here with this petty stunt and may now be looked upon as a regular editor here who may not edit against consensus. Greg L (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

@GL--I understand your approach of: "Let's consider letting the admin ignore both (1) the wikipedia guidance that Causa has admitted says we should use size x photos, and (2) also ignore the consensus on the talk page". Causa may have intimidated you. When he threatened to abuse his sysop powers by -- despite being a deeply involved sysop -- using those powers to get his way, ignoring guidelines as well as consensus. That would make for a third violation, if we were to keep score. And I can understand your reaction. His threats were rather blunt. And appear fashioned to intimidate. Alternatively, if it is not that he has cowed you, perhaps you are in a mood of: "this guy is too small for me to let him ruin my day, let's keep peace by letting him do the wrong thing".

I see it a bit differently. This is yet one more in what is now a long series of manifest violations of wiki guidelines by Causa, which started just a few days ago with massive innappropriate base-less deletions at this article. Sysops are obliged to set positive examples and follow wiki guidelines. It is a concern for the wiki community when a sysop does the opposite, and then threatens to use the wrong end of the mop to get his way in a dispute, as Causa has done here. Plus, it leads to a lesser article (and, unchecked, to many lesser articles).

Causa is ignoring consensus. Ignoring wiki guidelines. Ignoring common sense and requirements of NPOV. And making baseless assertions that erode initial AgF, with his "oh, just because these three are mentioned in over 100,000 ghits together, I still feel they are not related, and will therefore unilaterally cut the pictures sizes in half".

On top of that, he threatens those who side with wiki guidelines and consensus with his ability to use the other end of his mop against them. Because he is a sysop. Because he is Causa. End of story.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• As to your last paragraph, Causa thinks it works that way. It doesn’t. See WP:INVOLVED. It states the following:

“ In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have a conflict of interest in conflicts they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. ”

It goes on to add this:

“ In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. ”

Causa might allege that your edits are vandalism, or create a clear and present danger to Anwar al-Awlaki’s life (given that the U.S. is trying to drop a 2000-pound JDAM on him), or that Anwar al-Awlaki’s right to privacy like our revealing his whereabouts via citing U.S. Government documents rather than Readers Digest. That last one is, of course, hard to do since the guy is likely living in a cave today. At any rate, an involved Admin using Sysop powers here is contrary to Wikipedia’s guidelines for precisely the reason the community has such a guideline: he has lost any semblance of being objective. Accordingly, he will edit like any other editor or there will be repercussions. Period. Greg L (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Are we talking about the Awlaki article? From my browser, I see the two 9/11 hijackers' images defaulting to 150px, which is the size limitation of the stocked image. They are in no way excessively large, by any stretch. I see that cause changed them to 100px, which I believe is a bit too small. I thought Causa may have been referring to the two images further below in the article, but that does not seem to be the case. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• As it turned out, putting them on the right hand side made the situation much better. I'm still on the fence as to whether they should be in the article at all, but we can determine that at a later date as the article content evolves. --causa sui (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• @Oh--Yes, we are talking about the two 9/11 hijackers images in the Al-Awlaki article. Causa has a non-consensus view that -- in spite of the fact that there are 130,000+ ghits with Awlaki and the 9/11 hijackers -- "images of the hijackers might be less relevant to [Awlaki] than just about anything else related to his life, such as say, the place of his birth". I'm not clear how he reaches that conclusion. But as to his analysis, there you have it.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding edit 355656180 re: Education

On April 12, 2010, according to an ongoing investigation, it was discovered that Awlaki was educated in the United States with taxpayers money.

Should this not be integrated into the Early Life section? While it is information gained through a current investigation, it pertains solely to his early education, and the fact itself is not part of his current status. I also do not feel it is entirely neutral in tone, or at the very least puts more focus on where his scholarship money came from than on how he obtained it. Trorbes (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The "with taxpayers money" bit is definitely not good WP:STYLE. I'm a bit embroiled with more serious issues right now (see above) but based on your comments you certainly have my blessing to rework that bit.:-) causa sui (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I don't feel entirely comfortable in editing the article myself, as I don't do much editing on Wikipedia aside from corrections and reversions, so it might not be up to standards either, but it should hopefully be less out of place now. Trorbes (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Accused"?

The text says "Al-Awlaki has been accused of Islamic fundamentalism and encouraging terrorism." Obviously terrorism is something one should stand accused of, but that word doesn't seem very neutral when applied to Islamic fundamentalism. Many proudly acknowledge it. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 02:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Many proudly acknowledge being terrorists as well.  ;-)

But you make a good point, and I do agree with it ... wiki guidance is on your side. Something along the lines of "has been said to be a supporter of ... and to have encouraged ...." would be more appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Accused of fundamentalism" doesn't make much sense I suppose. Not a big deal to say that he is accused of inciting or encouraging terrorism either since that's pretty much unambiguous. I have no strong feelings about this either way. We need to be more careful when it comes to accusations of direct involvement, though. --causa sui (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Semantics

Re. my revert, there is a subtle, yet crucial difference between being tied to a person who has engaged in terrorism, and being tied to terrorism. Your source says the former; you cannot use it to support the latter. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 04:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Better practice might have been to make that subtle change. I'll do it.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your new version is worse. a) "ties to terrorists" is wrong because the "terrorists" are only alleged at this point - and your source says the links to them are only reported as well. So to correct your version, we would have to say "alleged ties to alleged terrorists", which is certainly clumsy and less preferable to "alleged ties to terrorism"

There is good reason reliable sources like ABCNews don't say he has "ties to terrorism". Please follow their example on this. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 12:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. We must do due diligence to distinguish from accusations to actual "ties". --causa sui (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

FamilySecurityMatters.org

This is a self-published activist site hostile to the article's subject. It cannot be used to source claims as per BLP. The claim in question appears credible, so if you want it left in, finding a WP:RS for it should not be difficult. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 04:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Many of the citations in this article are editorial rants. Getting them out and finding reliable sources will be a long haul, but someone has to do it. --causa sui (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

NefaFoundation.org

Same objection as above. Unless this material can be resourced (and quick), its going to need to go. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 05:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. It's clearly an RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not according to WP:RS. It's self-published site. Allow me to quote the relevant policy, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". I trust that should clear up any confusion.

Please properly source the material immediately. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 12:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi FellGleaming. I had my doubts about this site myself, but when I asked at the WP:RSN, it was considered to be an adequate source for copies of documents. See this. I hope that helps.--Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Slp. The statement from the NB though is a bit different in the case of BLPs regarding crime. See this (highlighting what I believe are the relevant points):

“ "Even if they have a political point of view, they should be reliable enough to host primary-source documents. That said, there are some caveats in WP:BLP about using court documents in biographies. They don't want us digging up criminal records and then writing on WP "this guy was guilty" or "this guy was framed"; there is too much risk of it being the wrong person, or the decision being overturned, and so forth. Whether you can cite the court filings with attribution is a maybe. You can ask on WP:BLPN but be warned many of the regulars tend toward an exclusionist stance, especially on articles about crime..." ”

So I believe you are correct that the source shouldn't merit a blanket removal, but we should consider whether it is a RS for specific claims. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 13:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I confess that I didn't look at how NEFA was being cited here and was thinking it was similarly to another article, but I see that it isn't. Sorry. What I see is....

• "The NEFA Foundation noted that on December 23, 2008, six days after he said Hasan first e-mailed him, al-Awlaki wrote on his blog: "The bullets of the fighters of Afghanistan and Iraq are a reflection of the feelings of the Muslims towards America"." cited to New York Daily News This seems fine to me. The NYDN doesn't mention anything about 6 days and talks about a website not a blog, however, and "noted" seems weaselish. Some changes are required per V and NPOV.
• One arrest warrant posted on NEFA, used in support of a secondary source. Fine, in my view.
• Some NEFA produced documents, [11][12][13][14] which I didn't ask about at all at RSN. Whether they can be used depends whether NEFA is considered a reliable or self-published source. Maybe some others would like to weight in, or you could suggest asking a specific question at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. --Slp1 (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

More Progress

Lede looks like a lede now, but the sources still need vast amounts of cleanup. What's up with doing things like attaching no less than seven sources to an uncontroversial claim such as where he worked on a doctorate? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 04:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In these cases, many of the sources don't even support the claims made. It's going to be a laborious task to unlink all the unrelated sources, but the BLP concerns are a much higher priority for me right now. --causa sui (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've only really read through a small percentage of them, but am seeing persistent WP:Synthesis in how many are being translated back into the article. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 05:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Lectures

Where is this material being sourced from? I can't see what's backing it up. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 05:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche blocked

I've blocked Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours and per the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy I am declaring him topic banned from this article for two weeks. No doubt he will want to appeal this decision. I invite him (or anyone else who disagrees with my decision) to appeal it through the normal Wikipedia:Dispute resolution channels as I will not any longer suffer delays in efforts to bring this article into line with our core content policies due to tangential debates about policy. --causa sui (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that others have debated your application of BLP here and you are involved in the content of this article, do you really think you should be the one taking administrative action? imho to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, you should recuse and report to ANI. –xeno^talk 15:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Xeno. Causa has been very aggressive in implementing their own understanding of BLP policy even possibly violating WP:3RR in so doing—although I failed to report this. Given this user's threats to utilize their "administrative powers" to get their point across, it is extremely inappropriate that Causa be the one to block Epeefleche.--Supertouch (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP supercedes 3RR. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 16:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If you actually read WP:3RR it is not as black and white as you present it. Read under "Exceptions to 3RR": "Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates Biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."--Supertouch (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

A BLP violation supercedes 3RR, period. Admittedly, defining whether or not a particular edit is a BLP violation can sometimes be problematic, but that's a different issue.

• I have just unblocked Epee. Causa, the block and topic ban are both abuses of your power since you are clearly involved in a dispute with him--Jac16888^Talk 17:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • While I think the block was unwise, and support the unblock, I don't think the involvement is so clear, as it is not clear that Causa was not acting at all times as an adminstrator enforcing BLP here.John Z (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

  I don't intend to wheel war, but I would do it again in similar circumstances. I don't want to fill this talk page with debate about BLP and administrative policy, so if you think further measures are required, you should start a user conduct RFC or an arbcom case about it. That's what I meant when I said I don't want to discuss it-- I won't discuss it here, as debates about my admin conduct are a distraction and not appropriate for this talk page at all. Accordingly, in the interest of not fragmenting discussion, this will be my last comment about the matter on this talk page. If you, or others, think further discussion is necessary, I'll be happy to meet you at the appropriate venue. --causa sui (talk) 05:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who finds it mildly ironic and peculiar that Causa opened up this string on editor conduct here yesterday, and yet today he says he will not discuss his conduct on this page as it is "not appropriate"?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No need for warning tag from involved admin

I’ve reverted this edit by Causa sui as unnecessary. That principle that “Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about living people are strictly forbidden on all Wikipedia pages” applies to all biographies and is certainly understood by the active editors here. The part (in bold) as to how the article “may contain unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about a living person. Such content must be removed immediately” clearly amounted to nothing more than a declaration by Causa sui to Epeefleche that Causa sui reserved special editing privileges and powers and could act with impunity. It was placed there well before it was explained in several venues to Causa sui, that as an involved editor, he can’t be overstepping his authority. Greg L (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Having a dispute over a dispute tag is pretty lame. If whether a dispute tag should be on a page is a matter of dispute, then there probably is a dispute. The tag should stay. --causa sui (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no need for such a tag.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This is what I’m talking about

…with how editors can selectively quote from secondary sources. The March audio tape from CNN is now linked so readers can go listen for themselves what al-Awlaki really said in its full context. It is clear this article has suffered from some severe POV-pushing.

Just before I started getting to the bottom of some of the facts here, the Ideology section (Anwar’s dearest principles) read as follows:

Al-Awlaki said: "I lived in the U.S. for 21 years. America was my home. I was a preacher of Islam involved in non-violent Islamic activism. However, with the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim."

Well, there you go. He appears to be a pacifist who leaves the U.S. to live his life in peace and harmony with like-minded peaceful individuals.

So I first blithely included that quote right next to another one where Awlaki pledged personal jihad against America. Realizing they came from the same CNN tape, I thought they were from wildly different segments of the audio tape. Then I discovered that the above *quote* was a fragment way out of context.

I’ve now consolidated the whole passage at the bottom, here at “In Yemen; 2004–present”. The actual quote is as follows:

I for one, was born in the U.S., and lived in the U.S. for 21 years. America was my home. I was a preacher of Islam involved in non-violent Islamic activism. However, with the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other able Muslim.

Compare the two. Look at their meaning. Hmmm… that *ideology* bit sorta left off the “jihad against America” bit. Someone had taken the first half, ended it with a period, and passed that off as al-Awlaki’s “ideology.” This stunt wherein editors come here with an agenda to spoon-feed half-truths (which is every bit as bad—or worse—than “no-truths”) has got to end.

This experience also speaks to the issue of citing right back to the horse’s mouth for the facts. In this case, it was CNN that received the tape. Reuters and everyone else was just reporting what CNN had. Now, with the YouTube video where readers can listen to the actual tape in CNN’s possession, Wikipedia (and our readership) is far better off. Greg L (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Now I’m gonna go back and find out who pulled that little stunt… Greg L (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. I’m not naming names. Appears to have been an unfortunate, ill-thought-out edit. We need to be careful when quoting fragments of speeches and go to the original sources where possible rather than vomit pre-digested material from further down the informational food chain (which often tends to be selective to make a point). In this case Reuters did a piss-poor job of quoting from the tape. The “quote” that ended up here was verbatim as written on Reuters (at the very bottom of the article) but did not precisely match what al-Awlaki really said. Moreover, the period Reuters added at the end of the *quote* (added mid-sentence) totally changed its meaning. The error on the wikipedian’s part was in not appreciating that Reuters article was chock full of how the tape threatened jihad (it was also the article’s title) so it was exceedingly inappropriate for someone to take that small fragment and pass it off as somehow being properly representative of al-Awlaki’s ideology—even if he or she hadn’t listened to the tape. Greg L (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. I also took the time to make it clear about the reliability of the CNN tape. Everyone else, by quoting secondary sources like Reuters, were passing off quotes from the tape as irrefutably being attributable to the voice of al-Awlaki. To do this properly, we must mention that CNN didn’t have the capacity to authenticate the tape themselves, but relied on unnamed independent sources who said it was genuine. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth please. Greg L (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg, I'm not seeing your problem with this. I don't believe it was me who made that change, but there's nothing that "totally changes the meaning". First, there are no "periods" on audio tapes and, even had it been written material, it is pure Chicago manual-of-style correct to punctuate quotes properly when terminating them. You shouldn't quote in a way that changes the meaning of the portion you are quoting, but that wasn't done in this case.

Now, had there not been such a heavy focus on the jihad aspect earlier in that section, I would definitely support including the second portion of that quote. But as it stands now, the entire section has a false light issue. The quote itself was cherry picked off a lengthy tape, and the tape itself is just one of thousands of hours and pages of his ideology. The section gives the impress that al-Aklaki does nothing whatsoever but talk jihad in every other sentence. Do you feel that's a correct, neutral interpretation? Fell Gleaming^(talk) 03:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

1) Threatening jihad against America is highly germane, topical, and notable to this subject. 2) Because the threat comes from an individual with Security Council and presidential authority to assassinate him even though he is a U.S. citizen (unprecedented), that makes the threat extra germane, topical, and notable. 3) Two pieces of that taped segment were previously in this article but placed in ways that took them far out of context. The first part was all by itself and passed off as representative of his ideology. The second part was passed off to convey how he is dangerous. 4) As for your “thousands of hours and pages of his ideology”, all that clearly hasn’t been notable since its contents haven’t been widely—if at all—reported in the press. What has become notable are these particular portions of the taped message, which was picked up by every major news organization. That’s what makes this particular potion of the tape and its contents especially worthy of inclusion and not the other thousands of hours. Thus, it is not a matter of me “cherry picking”, as you put it. Of the 12 minutes of voice on the tape, this is the part CNN thought highly newsworthy and aired on their broadcast (which readers can now listen to themselves). 5) The two quotes are now together, as they were spoken and that is how they ought to be presented here; together, in context. Finally… 6) I actually read those authoritative, blue links editors like you are fond of employing. They think it makes them seem *right* somehow. Your False light link begins with False light is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. Your link is irrelevant, POV-pushing garbage; there’s no “defamation” nor “privacy” problems going on here because he is A) a public figure, and B) truly uttered those words, and C) sent that tape to CNN (meaning he obviously didn’t expect the words to be private.) If you don’t want the entire, verbatim, exact quote here, go reverse time and prevent Anwar from making big-time news with it. Greg L (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Section break: Do quotes from the tape belong here?

"Your link is irrelevant, POV-pushing garbage" You lost your credibility entirely right there. You also missed entirely my entire argument. There is no false light issue with that particular quote. There certainly is relevance to statements he's made concerning jihad. The issue is, are we using undue weight to present a false light? Are the majority of his idealogical statements concerning jihad?

And, before you again break WP:Civ by accusing me of POV pushing, let me explain a few things to you. First, you may find it difficult to believe, but before I began on this article yesterday, I had never heard of this chap. After reading the references, I'm thoroughly convinced he is, to mince words, "a scumbag." There are few things I hate more than Muslim fundamentalism...but one of them is bias in reporting. That includes Wikipedia entries.

I asked you a good faith question at the end of my post. I ask you again to answer it. I honestly don't know how representative that section is...but from the degree of original research, synthesis and poisoning the well I've seen in the article so far, I strongly suspect there's a real problem with it. I intend to listen to the entire audio in question, continue my research, and find the answer. Still further, I wish to remind you that this quote is not from al-Awlaki. It's allegedly his...and alleged by "unnamed sources". Try to keep that in mind.

So how about we put aside the insults, and work together to make a 'neutral, high-quality entry? Believe it or not, Anwar's fate doesn't rest in our hands. It's not our job to try to convict him in the court of public opinion. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 04:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

But the phrase 'jihad against America' by itself is relatively informationless isn't it ? That could mean all sorts of things ranging from peacefully demonstrating to violent action. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: I just listed to the clip. A 12 minute tape...and CNN picked (almost certainly) the raciest two quotes from it, about 30 seconds worth. Then you picked the worst of those two; boiling his entire philosophy down something that can be stated in 15 seconds. Does that synopsis accurately represent his viewpoint? I don't know yet -- but I care whether or not it does...and I hope you do as well. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 04:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• I see… *I* “cherry picked” the most incriminating passage from the whole tape. Yeaaaaah… You didn’t comprehend a thing I wrote. *CNN* and every other news organization, like Reuters, here picked up on that portion of the tape and that decided for us what is considered to be the key portion and is notable. It sounds like you are suggesting that Wikipedians go and choose what portions of the tape we think are notable. That’s called WP:Original Research. Anwar’s actions and fate have decided this for us. We can only present the information accurately, in context (which was sorely lacking before) and cite it to the most reliable and authoritative source. I took a horrible job where editors had split the quote mid-sentence and planted it into two different places where the meanings of the two fragments were two entirely different things. Together and properly cited, it is much improved. If you want to go strip it out, because you dislike how the world has overlooked the “thousands of hours and pages of [al-Awlaki’s] ideology” and how fate served up a raw deal as far as what is notable, and you find ‘CNN to be racist’ (and Reuters and every other news organization that picked up on that story), I can’t stop you (though I can revert you). Don’t be surprised if others revert you too for violating just about every policy we have. Goodbye and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

  P.S. If you don’t like the article, don’t rag on me; I hardly touched the damned thing. My contribution before this was to lighten that picture of him, which used to look like this. Besides that, I pretty much just consolidated that bifurcated quote into one seamless quote so it isn’t presented colossally out of context. So when you say the article has all sorts of shortcomings, I agree with you 100%; far too many editors with a clear bias one way or another have battled over this article and I find it sickening. If you don’t like the present state of the article, then go roll up your sleeves and improve it. You then can have people harp about your efforts. It would be exceedingly nice, however, if you followed the letter and spirit of every single guideline and policy we have while making your contributions so you just aren’t adding to its problems. Greg L (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) " It sounds like you are suggesting that Wikipedians go and choose what portions of the tape we think are notable. That’s called WP:Original Research." -- Heh, no it isn't. OR is when we express our conclusions as text in the article. Editorial decisions about what actually goes in or out is what we're here for. Why on earth do you think policies like WP:Notable and WP:UNDUE exist to guide us, if we couldn't make such decisions?

"I took a horrible job where editors had split the quote mid-sentence" -- You mean they split it exactly as the Reuters source did?

"you find ‘CNN to be racist’ " -- I'm going to suggest once more you read what I type. You're ascribing views to me that I don't hold (quite the opposite in fact). CNN's job is NOT to generate a neutral, encyclopedic image of al-Awlaki's entire life, background, and ideological views. That's our job. Different goals...and the end product will be different as well. CNN picking out the juicy bits is not racist. But its not scholarly either...nor should it be.

"If you don’t like the present state of the article, then go roll up your sleeves and improve it. " -- Well, I made over 150 changes yesterday alone, wrapped into about 10 separate transactions, cutting out nearly 10K of text, and rephrasing portions of nearly every paragraph in the text. That was the easy part though...the hard part is source verification.

In closing, and with all due respect, I'm going to suggest you try for a little emotional detachment here. I asked a good faith question...twice. You've been so busy insulting me that I don't think you even saw the question, much less thought about answering it. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 05:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• You wrote The quote itself was cherry picked off a lengthy tape, and the tape itself is just one of thousands of hours and pages of his ideology. The nature of al-Awlaki’s press release and the sum of the entire world’s press decided that the taped release al‑Awlaki sent to CNN is newsworthy and stands out from the rest of his no-doubt fine works. Moreover, CNN, Reuters, and all the other world’s press point us towards what is considered the especially newsworthy passage in it: threatening jihad against America (yeah, those *silly little words*). Accordingly, mentioning the tape here and providing the highly notable passage that the world’s press is quoting means its inclusion here is germane, topical, balanced, and encyclopedic.

  You wrote The issue is, are we using undue weight to present a false light? Are the majority of his idealogical statements concerning jihad? Again, shear nonsense. Our article on Manuel Noriega states as follows: On 15 December 1989, the PRD-dominated legislature spoke of "a state of war" between the United States and Panama. Well, why would we include such a inflammatory statement—you know, that *war-thingy* stuff—in Wikipedia? Running with your logic and paraphrasing you with your emphasis, one might ask “Do the majority of the Panamanian legislature’s statements mention war?” That, of course, was a rhetorical question. The declaration of war rightfully caught the attention of the world’s press (and the United State’s government, which invaded the country). And it appears al‑Awlaki’s pledge of jihad (and likely classified items we aren’t aware of) caught the attention of the world’s press and the U.S. government because the press rightly reported it and al‑Awlaki now has been targeted for assassination by the president and National Security Council. It seems, they too find his actions notable.

  Similarly, our article on Lee Harvey Oswald might seem to give undo weight to a few hours in Dallas and not nearly enough airtime to his thousands of hours of other activities elsewhere that didn’t capture the world’s attention. Too bad. At least in that situation, they let regular Texas law enforcement authorities criminally handle the case and didn’t have the National Security Council target him for being bombed.

  I’m sorry; I find your arguments to be nonsense and embody precious little understanding of how Wikipedia works. As I mentioned before, if you think al‑Awlaki’s taped statement reflects poorly upon his character and don’t want the entire, verbatim, exact quote included here, go reverse time and prevent Anwar from making big-time news around the world with it. If you think material from his thousands of hours and pages of his ideology is somehow notable, germane, and topical to the article—and you can reliably and authoritatively cite it without viloating WP:OR, feel free to add it to this article. While you’re at it, you might go fix the clear “undo weight” problem in our Manuel Noriega article. The “thousands of hours” of other material from Panama’s legislature that doesn’t mention “a state of war” should make for interesting reading. Greg L (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Greg L on this string as to Fell's edits.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"If you don’t want the entire, verbatim, exact quote included here, go..." The text presented is not the "entire verbatim exact quote". It's 30 seconds snipped out a twelve minute tape. From a news perspective, that is appropriate. For an encyclopedia, we have a duty to not cherry pick material to present a false light that al-Awlaki's sermons and speeches contain nothing but references to jihad. The point you keep missing is that the problem lies not with this particular quote, but the quote, considered as a whole with the rest of the article. Has a consistent effort been made to include nothing but material that casts the subject in a false light?

However, to argue your side of the issue -- it very well may be the case that al-Awlaki truly does talk of little else but jihad. I'm awaiting some further research material on the subject and will reply back here when I can speak with more authority. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 20:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why in the world is this point not sinking in with you?!? The passage chosen from his 12-minute-long tape is the passage that every press and new organization in the world picked up on. Per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:Original research, that defines for us what is notable about it and is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Look at how Paula Newton at 1:05 into her report, highlights for the television viewer what CNN considers notable in the tape. That snippet was how Reuters elected to title their written article on it: Yemen preacher urges jihad on United States: tape. The reasons we have guidelines on looking towards sources such as these for guidance as to what is and is not topical and notable is it avoids edit wars with editors who would otherwise do original research, cherry-pick non-notable, irrelevant materials to POV-push to make the al‑Awlaki look either especially good or especially bad. It is just that simple.

  It was al‑Awlaki who chose to send that tape knowing full well how the world would react to his threatening jihad against America (and inciting every able muslim to do the same). Perhaps you wish he hadn’t done that. You clearly wish to bury an encyclopedic treatment of this uncomfortable fact. Deal with it; the guy made big-time news with it and it is an exceedingly important point in helping the reader to understand the unprecedented move (also mentioned in the article) wherein the president of the U.S. and the National Security Council approved the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen. YOU DON’T LIKE THAT. As the saying goes in the military: So sad – too bad. Desist with your ranting about this please; it has become tedious because Wikipedia’s policies couldn’t be clearer on this issue. Greg L (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Must have balance in the article’s lead

• I note, FellGleaming, that you have just been sanctioned at Wikipedia:General sanctions (here at the bottom), and received final warnings for not exercising basic due diligence in reviewing the content of sources before making assertions about them. You were further warned to be scrupulous in your representation of sources. And required to avoid aggressive posturing. I guess that explains your sudden silence here. I fancied your silence as having acquiesced to the unassailable logic of my last post. Wishful thinking on my part. (*sigh*) Why? Because…

  Instead, I see the heat has apparently made you very quietly work in collaboration with Causa sui as you two “clean up” and “trim” the article. Unfortunately, you two seem to have managed to get information from late 2009 into the article’s lead where al‑Awlaki denies involvement in al-Quida while inadvertently omitting a more recent and far more notable event where he said that jihad (holy war) was binding upon himself and every other able muslim (oopsy… “that silly ol’ thing”). This strikes me as subtle POV-pushing intended to fly under the radar and slowly erode the article by you two. This has been an ongoing issue by you two and doesn’t seem to be subsiding notwithstanding some recent and extremely unfortunate incidences involving both of you (Causa sui’s being this one over this very article). I really think it is time for this to stop.

  The lead now has the balance one would find in any fine encyclopedia (with the key, recent, notable events surrounding al‑Awlaki grouped together in context). That doesn’t mean I find the lead to be perfect and can’t be further improved, but both the good and the bad need to be fairly and properly presented in the lead to have a proper encyclopedic treatment of this subject. Wikipedia is noted for its tight, well-written, pithy leads and it is important for readers with little time on their hands to be able to quickly gather a balanced and complete gist of what the issue is about with this guy when deciding whether to read further. Greg L (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)