Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Per the non-free content criteria policy item 10c, this file in this section needs to be removed because there is not a separate, detailed, named rationale for use in this article.--Rockfang (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a separate, detailed rationale on this page. Are you suggesting that it be stated elsewhere? Plus -- this is an image circulated by the U.S. government; don't special intellectual property laws apply in that instance?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There must be a {{non-free use rationale}} on the image description page. –xeno^talk 22:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Like Xeno stated above, if one is going to have a rationale for this article, it has to be placed on the image's page. With regards to the copyright status, it appears the photo was a part of his Virgina driver's license, before the FBI published it.--Rockfang (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Done. Actually, I doubt if a rationale could be written for the use of this non-free image in any other article except his own. The article isn't about this person, and the reader's understanding of this article isn't significantly improved by being able to see what he looks like; I would say the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as well as 10c. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll look into reflecting the rationale there. Once the federal government publishes it, doesn't that obviate the need for non-free use rationale? Even if the federal government received it from the state government?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. For example, if I take a picture of myself, put it on Facebook, and then give it to the White House, and they publish it a monthly newsletter, the copyright of the image would still belong to me unless I stated otherwise. Obviously, that is hypothetical situation though, because I doubt the White House would want a picture of me anyways. :) Rockfang (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Checking this now. Either both of these images are PD or they're both non-free. They're both from the same FBI press release source. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

According to precendents that I can find and the legal notice on the FBI website that published the photo, the image appears to qualify for PD-USGov. I have tagged it as so with the rationale and FBI website links for doing this. As such, I have restored the image to the article. If I have missed something obvious, it's probably best dealt with at WP:PUI. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Am pleased I don't have to return my degree. BTW-kudos to Black Kite. Some editors/sysops aren't bold enough to review their decision, and finding the reverse to be the proper course to fix it. And to go even further, and improve the project by taking it upon themselves to take care of the proper tagging. Kudos to BK for a job well done.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In light of the BLP proceeding, I have a rather minor edit request, please remove the {{cquote}}, oversized quotation marks in Anwar al-Awlaki#In Yemen; 2004–present as this violates MOS:QUOTE. Thanks in advance.--Supertouch (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. Obviously inappropriate to use square quotes there.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. (hey, look at that!) --causa sui (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Strongly DISAGREE, and I will seek enforcement if anyone dares touch it! -- Just kidding. Sounds like an excellent change. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 04:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done [1]. –xeno^talk 05:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

N Undone per below at #Goose and gander. –xeno^talk 12:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: Category removal

I propose that this article be removed from the following categories:

• Category:Al-Qaeda propagandists
• Category:American al-Qaeda members
• Category:People associated with the September 11 attacks

-- causa sui (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The first two categories I agree utterly with. On the third, al-Awlaki is certainly associated to 9/11, as he met two or three of the hijackers beforehand. Furthermore, he is discussed by name in the official 9/11 Commission report. Ties definitely exist, though reasonable people disagree on what those ties are. Finally, I don't believe it's a BLP violation to say he is "associated" with an event, as the word by itself has no derogatory connotations. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 04:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the last is the least bad. But I find it problematic because if anyone who met with the 9/11 hijackers is "associated" with the 9/11 attacks, then the guy who gave them flight lessons should also be in this category. "Associated with" quite clearly, though not explicitly, implies direct involvement. --causa sui (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I looked at who is in the category, and we even have articles on Americans who died in the 9/11 attacks. I guess it's not as big a deal as I thought. I still have a bit of a bad taste in my mouth about it, but I don't object if it stays in. The first two definitely have to go, though. --causa sui (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any rationale presented at al by Causa for these deletions. This is a bit of deja vu. It would be helpful for him to explain his thinking. As it stands, given the references to RSs that support those cats when I last edited it, I can't imagine any NPOV reason for his suggestions.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

He is accused, but has not been proven, to be an al-Qaeda member, something he denies. I doubt the bulk of the reliable sources say definitively that he is. Thus, I think it goes beyond the sources (and is therefore a BLP problem) to put him in the category, which seems to make that claim. I'm surprised the "propagandist" category even exists because it is a loaded word. So I do agree with removing the first two. The third category merits further discussion - "associated with" has dual meanings, one implying that people make a logical association, and the other that he is involved in the attacks (something that may or may not be reliably sourced). - Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to the cat policy on this (the "bulk of the RSs test")? I recall seeing discourse that came out differently. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories are only to be used in unambiguous situations, particularly for (living) people, because there is no way to modify their implicit factual assertions. If a debate came out differently, it very likely came to the wrong conclusion. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates : "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category" . WP:BLPCAT, Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations, Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Categorization are relevant too, and might be more prominent places to contain this advice, thanks for pointing this out. See, e.g. the helpful example given that Menachem Begin should not be categorized as a state terrorist based on a significant minority of RSs.John Z (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think this is settled. Anyone want to pull the trigger? --causa sui (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

   Done I did it, but reverted self to avoid the appearance of you know what. xeno (talk · contribs) did it. --causa sui (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP-problematic content about the subject in other articles

Also, as to the Category:Anwar_al-Awlaki, there is a lot of coatracking about al-Awlaki in various other articles located in this category. For example, 2007_Fort_Dix_attack_plot:

The incident would be one of many linked to the message of Anwar al-Awlaki, the Muslim cleric most commonly credited for promoting extremist indoctrination who celebrated the Fort Hood shooting but denied that he ordered the "justifiable operation". Although he has never been accused of shootings or planting explosives himself, terrorism experts believe he has helped many Western Muslims into terrorism, including Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the suspect charged with killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, but not believed by the FBI or Army after carefully reviewing e-mail conversations with Awlaki intercepted by the NSA about suicide bombings and attacks on US soldiers to have contacted any known terrorist organizations. In 2006, Canadian Muslims in the 2006 Toronto terrorism case heard Awlaki’s sermons on a laptop computer before they were accused of plotting bombings, shootings, storming the Parliament Building and beheading the Canadian prime minister in Ontario. One of the men in the Fort Dix plot was recorded on a now widely broadcast surveillance tape in which Shain Duka exclaimed “You gotta hear this lecture ... it's the truth, no holds barred, straight how it is!” [19] Awlaki would later be the target of an airstrike which mistakenly claimed to kill him on his home in Yemen. Awlaki was reported to have recruited, planned and help to train the suspect in the "underwear bombing" attempt on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 which the Obama administration called a terrorist act after initially discounting statements by the suspect that he was sent on a mission by Al Queda.

Obviously, this is a big problem. I'm not sure how to handle this, as there seems to be more BLP-problematic content about this living person in articles related to Islamic terrorism. Should we fragment the discussion article by article, or deal with it here? I'm not sure what the precedent is in a case like this, if there is any. --causa sui (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

After the December 2008 Gaza war and the subsequent allegations that war crimes were committed by both sides etc there was quite a well coordinated campaign against Human Rights Watch and its staff. It spilled over to Wikipedia. Several editors repeatedly pushed poorly sourced and questionable material about named Human Rights Watch staff (within scope of BLP) into multiple articles. I recall that at least one editor was blocked at the time. The coatracking/policy non-compliance issues were discussed/handled at the individual article level. Some of the issues eventually moved into the mainstream RS so things calmed down and were easier to deal with policy-wise but the salient point is that discussions were article by article (and still are). Sean.hoyland - talk 05:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some obvious problems with the text, but not obviously a BLP or COATRACK problem. The guy is connected by the reliable sources to a variety of terrorist incidents, and his teachings are reported by the sources to have inspired terrorists. It appears that if there are coats on a rack it is al-Awlaki who put them there, not us for repeating what the sources say about the subject. Rather, the problems include among other things encyclopedic tone, relevance, and weight. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the policy compliance issues are the same. They seem analogous enough for me to mention it as a kind of precedent. I think the main issue here is the tone of communication on the talk page. It doesn't really encourage new editors unless they happen to enjoy dealing with numerous verbose, fairly belligerent talk page postings. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sean, for the clarification. Wiki--I agree with you had to say here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll tackle it article by article, in that case. --causa sui (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

al-Qaeda

Is there a reason why "al-Qaeda." is a red link in the introduction of this article? It looks like the period at the end of that sentence is inside the brackets. Can some admin fix that please? Tex (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} He's right. Thundermaker (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done --causa sui (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

“Some analysts” (plural)

This addition is not factual. It references this op-ed piece, published in Newsweek. To be factually presented, it would have to be something along the lines of as follows:

Gregory D. Johnsen, who has a degree in Near Eastern studies at Princeton University, wrote in an op-ed piece that al-Awlaki’s “links to the two attacks are more speculative and assumed than concrete” because al-Awlaki “never acknowledged meeting either man.”

Notwithstanding e-mails he sent, it appears, al-Awlaki never sent the Associated Press a notarized statement wherein he acknowledged meeting with either man, both of whom went on to commit acts of terrorism.

The current wording: and some analysts have said the alleged ties are "more speculative and assumed than concrete." fails to satisfy Wikipedia:Blp#Public_figures requirement, which is “In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say.” Writing a plural “analysts” doesn’t satisfy the requirement of “multiple”, and an op-ed piece does not satisfy the requirement of being a “reliable source.” Greg L (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The requirements in BLP are for potentially damaging, defamatory, or libelous statements about a living person. I think your argument stands more firmly on WP:CITE grounds as the statement in the article creates the impression that the "analysts" are plural, whereas the citation only supports a claim that one analyst has made the claim. We shouldn't amplify what the citations actually say, whether what they say is positive or negative. So I agree that some reworking is in order here. --causa sui (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• What’s good for the goose, Causa sui, is good for the gander. If you think an item in the article referenced to a single citation in The Washington Post quoting an un-named U.S. government official fails WP:BLP, then the same logic applies to this one. Wikipedia is certainly not in the business of printing op-ed pieces. (Why did I just have to write that?) If, by “reworking” you mean “delete the ‘s’ ”, then your bias here shows through again. If you mean “delete that wholly inappropriate bit,” by all means, yours and my views seem to be converging. Greg L (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely correct. Causa -- your statement was, first of all, false. Wrong. Where are the "analysts"? Why did you FellGleaming introduce that error? Using a plural does not as you say "create an impression". It states a fact. One that is not supported by the ref. One that is false. And even above, you seek to incorrectly describe it as "creating an impression". Is this a game for you? Are you trying to fool all your fellow editors? Destroy our AGF? Second of all, Greg is right. It looks as though it would be good for someone to do an audit of your edits, to see what other inaccuracies and inconsistencies you have introduced.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• That bit’s inclusion here in any shape, form, or fashion, is entirely inappropriate. That op-ed article is an advocacy piece trying to make a case for why the U.S. government’s targeting al-Awlaki is unwise. Can you imagine what would have happened if you, Epeefleche, had misrepresented an article as being the views of a plurality of analysts and it was actually the views of one man in an op-ed where he opined that the U.S. government’s position is a necessary and proper one and that al-Awlaki should be bombed until one of his sandals flies to the next cave entrance??? Causa sui would have given you a Wikipedia-wedgie into the next century. This persistent, profoundly one-sided approach of his is why, if I don’t see even-handendness from him from hereon, I’ll see to it that the problem is properly disposed of. Greg L (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, do you guys think FellGleaming (talk · contribs) is a sock of mine? I'm getting the sense that you're insinuating that-- please clarify. --causa sui (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Speaking for myself: No. Greg L (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Boy, if I can't even agree with you without attracting personal attacks, we are in bad shape here. --causa sui (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well then, a scrolling disclaimer: My preceding post is intended to satirically be highly critical of Causa sui’s exceedingly one-sided and biased behavior here on Wikipedia wherein he reverts the edits of one editor with whom he had a long-running feud, and where he tag-teams with, and gives wikipleasantries to (‘campy edits there Fell Gleaming’) to Fell Gleaming as he adds horse-crap contributions that don’t have a leg to stand on. It is also being critical of his abusing his sysop powers as part of this extremely one-sided bias. Such criticism of editing and sysop behavior here on Wikipedia is not to be construed as being intended to make Caua sui feel poopy about himself as a person. Moreover, nothing was mentioned regarding Causa sui’s motives underlying such behavior (assuming good faith); just the adverse effects of that improper behavior. Please don’t attempt to sweep justified criticism of your misbehavior here under the rug by trying to hide behind the apron strings of a “personal attacks.” I find your actions of late to be unconscionable and further suggest that if you can properly exercise your editing and admin duties here on Wikipedia precisely per our policies and guidelines, you and I will get along just splendidly. Instead of whipping out your ol’ Bat-Mirror in a lame attempt to deflect criticism of your unjustified behavior, just try engaging in justified behavior from hereon. I suspect you’re plenty smart to pull that little stunt off if you work a little harder on that attitude of yours of ‘I was right to do it in the first place and do it again under the same circumstances.’ How many other admins do you find backing you on that? Greg L (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Great. Can we talk about what changes should be made to the article now? --causa sui (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I’m sure Epeefleche is “all ears” right now. I suggest opining something along the lines of “Yeah, op-ed pieces clearly have no place in Wikipedia’s BLPs.” That position ought to receive broad support. Greg L (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg, please stop. Sarcasm will not help anything. Please take a look at Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well. No sarcasm in this post: While I’m reading up on your link (again), please try reading WP:Civility, which states that “lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information” is being uncivil. In that connection, I think some people’s treatment of Epeefleche at this venue has been outrageous. Please also note that I have a grand total of 19 edits to this God-forsaken article; terrorism-related articles aren’t my cup of tea because I find it brings out *odd* behavior in editors. I’d probably have better luck editing at Race and intelligence than putting up with the behavior of rogue admins with a clear bias and who pick on weaker editors. What is my cup of tea is coming to the assistance of the defenseless or vulnerable. And once I see “abuse under color of authority” occurring, I hop onto my tall steed. There, no sarcasm whatsoever; I said precisely what was on my mind. Comprende? Better? Greg L (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with pretty much everything you just stated, which is why I brought it up. Passions are already running high, so avoid anything that might make it worse, as that doesn't help improve the article. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 05:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no room for the "tall steeds", nor the personal attacks against Causa. Please tone it down a notch. 02:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Request

{{editprotected}}

This edit, the part reading…

, and some analysts have said the alleged ties are "more speculative and assumed than concrete."<ref>http://www.newsweek.com/id/236292</ref>

…is entirely inappropriate because it cites to an op-ed piece, An Act of Futility, that, by definition is a POV-pushing opinion piece of someone opining how the U.S. government’s targeting of al‑Awlaki is an unwise one. It is clearly not in conformance with the requirements of WP:BLP. Greg L (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Erm, hold on for a bit, please; I am not quite sure I agree with the rationale here. I do agree that there is only a single-author cite in the lead for a statement that implies that the statement is supported by multiple individuals. I do not agree with this theory that the cited source is "a POV-pushing opinion piece." It is an analysis by an identified expert in the subject area, published in a reputable source. Risker (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with Risker on both counts. The article text should be amended to clarify that it's singular. --causa sui (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  Aye. Factual, but should probably say "it has been said that...". Black Kite (t) (c) 01:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  Hmm, that seems a bit weasely to me. We might as well be specific. --causa sui (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  It is an opinion piece. They have no business in BLP. Greg L (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  As long as it's a reputable source, then it can be quoted. As long, of course, as it is not sourced as fact. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, is that all? An article written as an advocacy bit to push a particular point of view is OK? So then, “Muslim cleric Aulaqi is 1st U.S. citizen on list of those CIA is allowed to kill” by The Washington Post is a reputable source, right? In that article, The Washington Post, which quotes CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano and other top government officials, they quote a government official who explained the legal basis for their militarily targeting al-Awlaki. We have only one WP:BLP to which one refers for this sort of thing, right? Greg L (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  P.S. After all, I think WP:BLP permits both sides of an issue pertaining to a “a conservative Muslim scholar” (please, click that link) such as al-Awlaki should be presented, IMHO, in order for the reader to appreciate the unprecedented move by the U.S. government to militarily target one of its own citizens. I’d truly hate to see anything that smacks of POV-pushing going on after all the latest. Greg L (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not getting it. The op-ed piece in question was being used as a source of opinion, rather than a source of fact. This is valid usage -- assuming the source of the opinion is relatively notable. Facts however, especially "extraordinary" facts, require extraordinary sourcing. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 02:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Really? According to you it was being used as a source of opinion, rather than a source of fact? Then it is most unfortunate that when you added it, Fell Gleaming, you misrepresented it as and some analysts have said the alleged ties are "more speculative and assumed than concrete." That is, you took an op-ed piece and passed it off as representing the views of multiple “analysts” when it fact it was the musings of a someone at Princeton majoring in Near Eastern Studies. This deprived the reader of that necessary element of *truthiness*. More to the point, (the part you don’t seem to be fathoming here), is there has to be one single standard that is applied to identifying “reliable sources”. If that POV-pushing scholar is a “reliable source,” then so to (obviously) is The Washington Post when quoting a government official. No matter how the game is played here, there will be even-handed application of the rules and guidelines and awfully clear explanations pointing to the precise wording of our guidelines that purportedly support one position or another. This edit here by Causa sui almost made me gasp as to the breathtaking POV-pushing it exhibited. Greg L (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think (almost) everyone here understands that WP:RS has a contextual basis. A single piece in Newsweek is enough validation for the statement that not everyone agrees al-Awlaki is a serious threat. It is not enough for an extraordinary claim like "he is actively working to kill Americans", especially when the source itself can't get anyone to put their own name on the claim. This really isn't rocket science. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 03:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My “nonsense-O-matic” shredder is jammed to capacity for the evening. Same time. Same channel, tomorrow. Greg L (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Shrug, when this was posted to the RfE board, several people told you the same thing. The standard for verification depends on the claim being made. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 03:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Guys, please keep your extended ad-nauseum discussion threaded in order to allow outside views to breathe At least it got formally outdented - guess it's inevitable. As I've pointed out time and time again, an article called an "op-ed" or an opinion piece can be well-referenced, factual, and tightly-reasoned while a pure "news" piece can be extremely poorly-researched and biased. What matters is how well the article supports its assertions, not headlines. This is what Risker is pointing out. In this case, the author of the article, Johnsen, published in Newsweek, shows good knowledge of the relevant sources when he says "His name has been mentioned exactly once in 12 issues of Sada al-Malahim ("The Echo of Battles"), the organization's bimonthly journal. And even that citation was hardly an endorsement: it merely disputed recent claims that Awlaki had been killed in a joint U.S.-Yemeni airstrike". So I think it is clear that this article needs to be cited. II | (t - c) 04:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In addition to which Johnsen's Newsweek comments on al-Awlaki have now been cited by other reliable sources e.g. [2] [3][4], suggesting his views are indeed notable. I do agree that it needs to be changed from "Some analysts..." to Something like "Yemen terrorism analyst (per the Toronto Star article) Gregory Johnsen ....".--Slp1 (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: no consensus at this time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Goose and gander

Since every nidling detail will have to be laboriously discussed in detail-ad nauseam, I will be sure to point out every single breach of even handedness in the article. {cquote} and {quotation} exist for an obvious reason: page-layout clarity whereby we make it easier for the eye to parse a quoted passage and recognize it as distinct from accompanying introductory and explanatory text. So why is this quotation, wherein al-Awlaki (someone whose current street address is GPS coordinates because he lives in a hole) takes the U.S. president to task, remains nicely and clearly separated out so it is easy to read:

Al-Awlaki released a tape in March 2010, in which he said, in part:

To the American people ... Obama has promised that his administration will be one of transparency but he has not fulfilled his promise. His administration tried to portray the operation of brother Nidal Hasan as an individual act of violence from an estranged individual. The administration practiced to control on the leak of information concerning the operation in order to cushion the reaction of the American public.

Until this moment the administration is refusing to release the e-mails exchanged between myself and Nidal. And after the operation of our brother Umar Farouk the initial comments coming from the administration were looking the same – another attempt at covering up the truth. But Al Qaeda cut off Obama from deceiving the world again by issuing their statement claiming responsibility for the operation.

…but someone saw fit to take what used to have similar treatment (via a {cquote} as I recall) and imbed it into the surrounding text? This part, where al-Awlaki declares holy war on America and calls for other able Muslims to do the same is just as notable as his above rant and should be just as easy for the reader to see. The below is how that text now reads:

NN reported in March 2010 they had received a 12-minute-long audio tape pledging jihad against America. In that tape, a voice identifying himself al-Awlaki stated 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." CNN further reported that independent sources advised them that the voice on the recording is al-Awlaki’s and the “recording is genuine.

As I stated, our {cquote} and {quotation} templates are there to avail ourselves of for a good reason; the eye labors when lengthy quoted passages are imbedded like this.

All I expect is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. No bias, no slanting, no agenda-pushing. Just balanced, encyclopedic treatment of the subject. That is not too much to expect. Greg L (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are we using long quotations to begin with? They should be reserved for extraordinary material that is at the heart of the subject, you know, like "four score and seven years ago...", not just material that is too difficult or contentious to incorporate into the article proper. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There are standards, and also of course a degree of subjectivity. Long quotes should be used where relevant. Especially where one wants to give the flavor of the speaker, rather than paraphrase with one's own language. They're perfectly appropriate -- that's why we have the block quote template. As long as they aren't a layout problem, or a high percentage of the article content (very undergraduate-paper-ish), they're not just appropriate, but often illuminating. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Quoting Wikidemon: Why are we using long quotations to begin with? Not just any ol’ quote. Both quotes, above, are the words of al-Awlaki himself. Other than a historical look back on a man’s pattern of actions (which always speaks louder than words) there is no better way to accurately convey what al-Awlaki thinks than to quote his own words. Greg L (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that if another source is corroborating the notability of this quote by al-Awlaki, then we should change it back to the block quote format. Embedding a long quote into the text makes it too easy to lose track of the quote marks, make it appear the we are claiming those things about him, and not that he said them.

To Wikidemon, If the same passages are quoted by multiple news outlets (here they are quoted by CNN), I would say that we have a responsibility to quote it in the article. Of course, if a RS publishes that he did not say those things, then we would have to present that side as well. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 12:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the cquote per an edit protected request with unanimous support (see #Edit request). If you would like me to undo, I will do so (because it was an edit-through-protection), and then you can discuss further. –xeno^talk 12:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the {cquote}, which I’ve always thought looked most professional, stood out too much. Since the other quotes are using the {quotation} template, the indicated remedy here is to use that template rather than no template. I think this will best serve our readership. And, during an editing jihad like this, it looks like more even-handed treatment. Greg L (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done Replaced cquote with blockquote. –xeno^talk 18:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Greg happy. Go make a mocha cappuccino. Go do something pleasant off-wiki. Greg L (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem with removing the cquotes, MOS:QUOTE clearly states: "...(and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes)." I only requested this edit because it was a noticeable blemish I thought would be un-controversial.--Supertouch (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll quickly find that nothing related to this article is uncontroversial. --causa sui (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Greg L (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Greg L.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Abstract notions and concrete realities

For those who might think that the arguments here are arcane nuances with ulterior motives galore (“moral relativism” v.s. “ideological certitude”), I thought this article from the AP was interesting: Dirty-bomb test for terror may aid cancer research. It speaks to the extraordinary efforts the U.S. government is undertaking to protect its citizens from what it feels is an inevitability. Fortunately the U.S. has an Executive Branch that stays up at night worrying about people like al‑Awlaki as the rest of us go to bed worrying only about waking up on time to get to work.

For those who might respond with politically-correct rhetoric about how the arguments here are a simple matter of “fairness” and “properly applying Wikipedia’s policies,” I reply (in advance) that the issue, for me, is actually about “applying Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines fairly and equally, without bias,” which has taken a back seat, IMO, as single individuals undertake the responsibility of deciding right and wrong all by themselves. Greg L (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also glad the US government is on the job, although I would hope they get some sleep once in a while. But that does not mean I think Wikipedia should present views leaked out anonymously as fact or even as notable POVs. The government has its own, classified, repositories of information, which we cannot reference (most of us cannot even view). This data might make the al-Awlaki = al Qaeda connection crystal clear, but Wikipedia can't use it in court to defend against a libel suit.

Speaking of court, why isn't al-Awlaki getting a trial? I mean, I understand that he's a fugitive and the government thinks he's such a threat that they're going to kill him if they can, but shouldn't they be running a treason trial concurrently? I suppose it's a question that won't be answered in this article, because nobody notable has said anything about it. Thundermaker (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed, if The Washington Post quotes unnamed government sources (while also quoting a CIA spokesperson by name) as stating their reasoning for targeting al‑Awlaki, the following two things can be assumed: 1) The Washington Post remains a reliable source while doing so and can be trusted to be truly quoting a government spokesperson qualified to speak on the subject, and 2) the U.S. government targeted al‑Awlaki—in part—based upon classified information unavailable to the general public and volunteer wikipedians. The Washington Post piece is far more reliable than this op-ed piece intended as a POV-pushing essay, which is still in the article and still says “some analysists” when, in fact, that is not in the least bit true. In short, The Washington Post can be trusted. Volunteer wikipedians who misrepresent op-ed pieces: not so much. Greg L (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thundermaker -- No worries -- there is no concern about a libel suit if the information is verifiable.

As far as why he isn't getting a trial, that is information that has been deleted from the article on exaggerated BLP concerns.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well there's your reliable source

• Hmmm… It appears that al-Awlaki might have read Wikipedia’s accidental and misrepresented inclusion of an op-ed piece into the article stating that …“and some analysts have said the alleged ties to the group [al‑Qaeda] are ‘more speculative and assumed than concrete’” and taken offense to the slight and wanted to set the record straight. Because al‑Awlaki released a video statement (so there is no doubt the voice and face match) and the lower right-hand corner of the tape has an al‑Qaeda logo. I find al‑Awlaki to be a reliable source in the context of whether he has connections to the group. Greg L (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This may sound nit-picky, but I wouldn't trust terrorists' claims about who is in which particular group - they often make up names, titles, and organizations, exaggerate ties or responsibility for action to bolster their importance. The article can simply say that a video was released saying that he was part of AQ. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Quoting you: The article can simply say that a video was released saying that he was part of AQ. Very good. I agree. Greg L (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The CNN article says the video was released by AQ. I'd word it "In 2010, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula released a video which featured al-Awlaki criticizing US military actions."

The Johnsen comment should either be attributed to him personally (not "some analysts") or be deleted if he's not notable enough to mention by name. I wonder if his opinion will change when he sees today's video. Thundermaker (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm, no, Greg L. We don't actually know what that video says. What we could say is Al-Awlaki appeared in a video released by Al-Quaeda with some mention of date that it surfaced. It can then be put into context in the timeline (before/after the US named him on their most-wanted list, in particular). Risker (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That’s fine. See my starter wording, below, wherein I provided a sandbox for us to work on wording that is mutually satisfactory and is properly cited. Greg L (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

POV

• I thought it interesting to look at the POV-infused version of this article just six months ago, a couple of weeks before I first edited it. Curious to see that the most apt description that the editors could muster in the lede was that al-Awlaki is an author and public figure, trained as a civil engineer. And the peculiar absence of other germane information that was already widely available.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I suppose I should be exceedingly pleased with the herculean efforts by a few editors to get more balance in this article. To spare readers the need to click your link, here is how that version of the article’s entire lead read on November 9th:

“ Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi) is a popular Muslim author, Imam, lecturer and public figure. Originally trained as a Civil Engineer, he is associated with Iman University, Yemen. ”

Heck, that lead was even bigger than George Will’s lead is today, which totals this:

“ George Frederick Will (born May 4, 1941) a U.S. newspaper columnist, journalist, and author. He is a Pulitzer Prize-winner. ”

I prefer the current version for Anwar. The old version’s use of the adjective “popular” reads as if we need an “Anwar al-Awlaki Ride”©™© at Disney World. Greg L (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I’m still looking for any single-sentence lead in one of our BLPs that uses the adjective “popular”. I’ve checked Rachel Maddow (no luck) and a few others (like Buddha, Howdy Doody, Barbie doll, Roy Rogers, Ronald Reagan, and God). Failing to find that God is “popular,” I finally resorted to Oprah Winfrey but still found no such adjectives. Surly I expected to come across such wording with Walter Cronkite. Sorta. For right there, in that paragraph-size lead was “most trusted” (but that was apparently only permissible because it was a direct quote). I’ll keep looking for a BLP that uses “popular” without quotes. Greg L (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Hiromi Ōta....is a popular singer who is good-looking and has a pretty singing voice". Sean.hoyland - talk 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. There’s one. That now begs the question: Does al-Awlaki sing?  ;-) Greg L (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

BBC too?

P.P.S. Ahhh… Here is a source to cite for support that al-Awlaki is “popular”: the BBC, here, of all sources, used that adjective to describe him. However, as that article was written in 7 April 2010, it predates by half a year the November version of this article’s lead, which stated (without citations) that al‑Awlaki is popular. It would be interesting to know more about the editorial proclivities of the wikipedians who contributed to the article at that time and were responsible for that lead.

Of course, the context of using the word “popular” (for those wikipedians who believe context matters on our terrorism-related articles too) was in this sentence:

He became popular among Islamic radicals for his firebrand preaching in English which endorsed the use of violence as a religious duty.

I note also that we can also use this very same BBC article, which is titled “US approves killing US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki” in support The Washington Post’s report on the same subject (US approves killing US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki) because the BBC too reported as follows:

It was first reported in the New York Times and later confirmed to the BBC by US officials.

"Awlaki is a threat to the United States and our allies. He's plotted serious attacks against this country and others. Of course he's a US government target," one official said.

Note the “and later confirmed to the BBC by US officials”-bit.

So now we have independent corroboration by a highly reliable source that quoted government officials; they spoke to both The Washington Post and the BBC. Accordingly, I find it germane, topical, encyclopedic, very much needed, and properly cited to mention the U.S. government’s rationale for militarily targeting one of its own citizens (he’s trying to kill Americans). The omission of this 800-pound gorilla in the bedroom for such an unprecedented move by the U.S. government begs an explanation.

Moreover, given that al‑Qaeda is claiming (via their logo-stamped video just released to CNN) that al-Awlaki is a voice of their group, that op-ed piece about how his connections to al‑Qaeda are “speculative” is now a moot point; as the lead currently reads (where that POV-pushing op-ed piece purportedly represents the views of “some analysists”), I find that such misrepresentations has no place on Wikipedia; certainly not in light of recent claims by al‑Qaeda to the contrary.

BTW, note how al-Awlaki, in that op-ed piece, has his shirt tail out as he struck a pose reminiscent of the “Mac” guy, Justin Long, in those Mac v.s. PC commercials. Choice. Greg L (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed update for lead

{{editprotected}}

Given recent developments (the release of the latest tape by al‑Qaeda and the discovery of a BBC report corroborating The Washington Post), I propose the following wording for the first paragraph of the lead.

---

Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; born (1971-04-22) April 22, 1971 in Las Cruces, New Mexico) is an American Muslim lecturer, spiritual leader, and former imam. As of early 2010, he was thought to be living in Yemen. Numerous sources have claimed Al-Awlaki incites terrorism and has ties to the terrorist organization al-Qaeda but Anwar al‑Awlaki denied such charges. Later, a video with an al‑Qaeda logo appearing at the bottom was released in April 2010 showing al‑Awlaki speaking against the US military. President Barack Obama approved the targeted killing of al-Awlaki; a step that at the time required the approval of the National Security Council. U.S. government officials cited how al‑Awlaki’s presents a “threat to the United States” and its allies and is “working actively to kill Americans” as the basis for the unprecedented step of militarily targeting one of its own citizens.

References

---

I claim no title to the above proposal between the rules; I consider it a sandbox that may be freely edited by others until the wording achieves consensus. Greg L (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Update If any editor wants to add the bit about “analysist” cited to that op-ed piece, to instead create a new sandbox of their own, below. I consider the op-ed piece as falling far short of being a WP:Reliable source. Short of that, good-faith contributions to my above-proposed wording are more than welcome. Greg L (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of sandbox

I've disabled the edit protected request for now. We need some yea or nay from other involved users; and I would also think that ^{an admin fulfilling your edit protected request} re-inserting the quote that Risker edited through her protection to remove citing BLP would probably be considered wheel-warring, so getting her input here would also be advised. I've pinged her. –xeno^talk 18:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC) ^{clarified, per below 19:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)}

Very well. I didn’t quite understand that the tag was tantamount to a command of “insert this now or may pestilence fall upon your crops.” I placed the tag as a call for attention to a proposal with specific wording and figured the purpose of the tag was to provide some sort of automated “ping” for admins responsible for this sort of thing. Suggesting wording on a talk page doesn’t strike me as “wheel warring” by any stretch; it certainly was not my intention and I wish you would refactor or revise that bit, xeno.

The recent development underlying this proposal is that others here and in related talk venues had opined that BLP requires that assertions be supported with a plurality of secondary sources. With the BBC, we now have that. The government’s rationale for its unprecedented move very much needs to be included so the reader properly understands the issue.

As I already stated, I consider the above to be a sandbox that others may freely edit in good faith. Rather than just cite WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, editors can pony up with something they think is better and more encyclopedic and is in better keeping with our current policies on WP:BLP. Greg L (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries. See Template:Editprotected#Description for more. –xeno^talk 19:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Suggesting wording on a talk page doesn’t strike me as “wheel warring” by any stretch; it certainly was not my intention and I wish you would refactor or revise that bit, xeno." You appear to have misparsed me; what I meant was were I (or another admin) to fulfill this editprotected request without asking Risker, that would be tantamount to wheel-warring or at least on the brink (Edit through protection is considered an administrative act, and we reasonably know Risker, at least as of a few days ago, opposed this particular quote). –xeno^talk 19:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, after reading WP:wheel warring, I realized what your concern was about and was coming back to fix my post but you beat me to it. Placing wording here as a sandbox for others to roll up their sleeves and work collaboratively on was not a call for me to request other admins to perform a knee-jerk reaction and wheel war with another admin. I thought it an automated “ping” to get the shepherding admins involved in a specific proposal based on new developments. Greg L (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Not quite: it should be used after consensus exists for the edit. –xeno^talk 19:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood. The {edit protected} tag signals that consensus wording is being presented on a silk pillow and is ready for prime time. I seem to remember having understood that at one point in the past. It rings a bell. Greg L (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a change. "for the group" (meaning on their behalf) isn't clear from the available facts or source, so I changed it to "against the US military". If we can get the text somewhere and he actually mentions the group, then by all means change it back. I could probably dig up some video of (say) Arnold Schwartzanegger saying something I agree with and re-release it with my logo on top, but he still wouldn't be speaking "for me". Thundermaker (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Very good. I’m gonna try to butt out for a while. Real life calls. I look forward to other editors who have an eye for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to weigh in and contribute to ensure the lead properly discloses the true, general nature of what makes the man notable today. Remember, this is just the first of three paragraphs in the lead. Wikipedia is famous for its excellent, pithy leads. Greg L (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I would indeed consider it wheel-warring to reinsert that phrase, which does not appear in the BBC article, as you know full well, Greg L; the BBC story quotes an unidentified US official as saying "Awlaki is a threat to the United States and our allies. He's plotted serious attacks against this country and others", which is a much different kettle of fish. Further, from Wikipedia:Protection policy: "Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum). After consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page. To draw administrators' attention to a request for an edit to a protected page, place the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page." More particularly, the lead of an article needs to reflect the content of the article, and cannot stand alone; nothing (including references) should be in the lead that is not elsewhere in the body of the article. And finally, this is an encyclopedia, not a court of law, and "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" has no relationship to "derived from reliable independent third party sources". This is not the place the prosecute al-Awlaki; and indeed, it doesn't seem any of the governments involved have any intention of doing so either.

I've made it through a fair number of the references used for this article, and the way they are being used, and I have some serious concerns that what has happened here is that the article has swung from missing a lot of significant information that is widely available (the "before" state that Greg L has referred to) to heaping every single mention of al-Awlaki that exists into the article, whether or not it is necessary or appropriate. A balance needs to be struck here. Nobody is suggesting that al-Awlaki is a charming fellow who just happens to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time on multiple occasions; on the other hand, simply because the US government says someone is evil incarnate doesn't mean it's corroborated by independent third-party sources. Particularly when writing a biographical article about someone whose actions are distasteful to many of us, special care must be taken to ensure that the highest quality sources are used, and that the most controversial statements included are directly reported by multiple sources.

I believe that there is a "good article" just waiting to come out of all the information that's available on this subject, but it will serve Wikipedia particularly well to take what we have and improve it section by section. Instead of worrying about the lead at this point, we need to ensure that we've got each of the other sections up to scratch so that they can support what is said in the lead. I propose that we start with the "Early life" section, which needs some cleanup and also can probably be expanded further from what I saw in a few of the current reference sources. We also need to rationalise what reference sources to use, generally speaking: there is at least one duplicate in the list (and I think possibly a few others), and quite a few that mention the subject of this article only in passing but focus on other issues entirely. Risker (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(*sound of sipping on a fine mocha cappuccino*) Your above rant, Risker, sounds like a lot of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. First off, get up to speed on current affairs. The above posts makes it perfectly clear that I didn’t understand the proper utilization of the {edit protect} tag. Now I do. If you want to allege I put it here in bad faith because I was looking forward to a wheel war (contempt of Risker), we’ll see where you get with that one.

If you want to sit back and see what the rest of the community comes up with for a general consensus, be my guest. Or you can add your contributions to a new, Risker-proposed sandbox so we can better see past your rhetoric by witnessing your editorial deeds here. Might you like to add that bit about “analysts” cited to an op-ed piece back into the article (as if you think that is a WP:Reliable source)? Or do you just want to complain about how Greg L is responsible for how midwives cry, crops dry up in the sun, and plague spreads upon the land because of my doing?? It’s easy to make pot shots. If you want to point out a specific problem with the above, which is now the product of at least one other editor besides me, copy it and propose your own below so we can all see your true spots here. If you aren’t up to that, then I suggest you sit back and watch as a community consensus develops here because I tire of talk talk talk with precious little apparent willingness to pony up with some specifics so we can see what people bitterly complaining here really mean. Greg L (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• @Risker: Well, this version of the article from just six months ago was unquestionably an utter abomination. An embarrassment for the Project, of the highest order. It provides an example of the worst charges against our Project. That Wikipedia simply can't be trusted to reflect what the reliable sources clearly state. Wikipedia completely failed its mission there.

  And it wasn't a question of a slight difference in view regarding a gray area of policy. Rather, it was an example of Wikipedia having an article that was 180 degrees off from what the 9/11 Commission Report and all manner of U.S. and U.K. and other RS sources of the highest order had to say on the fellow. This wasn't, as Risker pooh-poohs it, a question of "missing a lot of significant information". And I'm frankly dumbfounded that any editor who has read the then-existing sources would down-play it so. It was a question of missing all the significant information. An article that cried out: "I am a POV article that has been sanitized of all information reflected in RSs that is at all negative, and I only include positive information and relatively irrelevant information, such as the fact that AA has a civil engineering degree".

  When outsiders criticize Wikipedia, they criticize it for getting it wrong. They don't criticize Wikipedia for writing "The Washington Post reported that a U.S. official, who they did not name, said x". Never. Ever. Nor would that raise any libel issues at all -- which are at the root of Wiki concerns in this area (truth being a defense, here). Instead, they criticize Wikipedia for being 180-degrees-off, as in the first version of the article that I point to. Let's not lose the forest for the trees.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And thanks again to Thundermaker for rolling up his (or her) sleeves and trying to work towards a general consensus with a good-faith edit to arrive at verbiage that is encyclopedic and is properly supported by the citations. He *gets it* about working in a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake. I was in the process of writing my prior comment when you posted your response, Greg L, and there have been repeated attempts (not just by you) to have edits inserted into this article without consensus or discussion; hence the reminder that there is actually policy on this part of the process. Perhaps that quote should be put into a fancy quote box so that everyone remembers about it. There's no doubt the "old" version of the article was very incomplete, Epeefleche, and I have never said otherwise; the same is true of hundreds of thousands of articles, so the prior lack of a detailed article is normal rather than some sort of deliberate plot or whitewashing. I expect that, with consensus editing, most of what is currently in the article will be there at the end, but I also expect that more will be added, and that there will be some reorganization. As to identifying problems, I will indeed start a section below discussing the "Early life" section. Risker (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gosh golly gee. Quoting you and there have been repeated attempts (not just by you) to have edits inserted into this article without consensus or discussion; hence the reminder that there is actually policy on this part of the process. I explained (several times now) that my {edit protected} tag was due to not understanding how it is supposed to be used. My accompanying post couldn’t possibly have been any clearer that I was using it to call for community input into my proposed wording. If you want to stand on such a flimsy soap box, that just speaks to the shortcomings of your message.

Moreover, as I see no proposed alternative wording from you, I guess you will just have to sit back and watch the community roll up its sleeves and work on the above sandbox. That is your right. Please just stop tilting against windmills here as the community moves forward; you loose the appearance of serving as a good, shepherding admin here who is only out to prevent edit warring when you direct so much vitriol against select editors. Your intense focus on my accidental misuse of the {edit protected} tag (not withstanding repeated explanations in black & white, above) betrays that you seem profoundly and overly anxious to pick a fight.

I’m beginning to think you should recuse yourself entirely from this article and leave it in the hands of someone who is not so emotional. Greg L (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• @Risker: You're kidding, right? "[T]he prior lack of a detailed article is normal rather than some sort of deliberate plot or whitewashing." I could understand someone who has not read the refs to this article making that dramatic mistatatement. But here we have you -- who profess to have read the article and its refs. And you are taking the position that it is normal for a Wikipedia article about AA -- a subject who has been mentioned in the 9/11 Report and virtually dozens of top-level RS articles in The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Times, etc., etc. over a ten-year period with regard to his links to various terrorists and his calls for jihad against the United States ... you, a senior Wikipedia person, maintain that it is normal for Wikipedia to reflect zero of that material? And yet, go into curious detail about nice minor facts, such as that he studied civil engineering? That's normal, and not "deliberate"? You simply can't be serious. Again, you mischaracterize the article from six months ago as simply being "incomplete". "Incomplete" is when, say, the Obama article fails to mention what he named the new family puppy Not when it fails to mention that he is President -- the fact that he has been most known for, as reflected in RSs, during his entire lifetime. That stark mischaracterization fails again to approach capturing the outrageously misleading aspect of the article (which you again defend) -- that the article was replete w/positive minor details, and completely devoid of any (please note, any) negative details. Why in the world would you assert that Wikipedia normally fails so dramatically in its purpose? If senior Wikipedia people are suggesting that a 180-degree-misleading bio is "normal" for Wikipedia, that reflects horribly on the Project and its reputation. I'm more than a little surprised and concerned that you, in your position, would makes such a statement, which is less than helpful to the reputational risk of the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche, it is normal. The thing is, there is no hierarchy in wikipedia that decides on who will work on what. This article was even nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anwar al-Awlaki. Since I don't think there were any ancient edit wars that resulted in the forces of evil eliminating anti-Awlaki material from the article, all this meant is that there was no one knowledgeable and interested who got around to writing much about him, and for a while there probably wasn't a lot available on the net through a google search about him, even though print etc information may have abounded. Wikipedia is always going to be behind breaking news. The biggest problem at wikipedia is editor attrition and a diminishing flow of newbies; this is inevitably going to lead to incomplete and out of date articles.John Z (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Involved admins

BTW, aren’t there rules about admins, who claim entitlement to lock down an article and decide when text goes in, being so heavily involved on one side of a debate and with proposed wording? This is the first I’ve seen such behavior. In all my previous experience, wise admins merely sat back and watched as regular wikipedians wrestled back and forth with text, arrived at a consensus, and advanced it with an {edit protected} tag. Perhaps the shepherding admin might step in if an editor resorted to personal attacks so the discussion could stay on track. I find it odd indeed that an admin with such a prejudiced view and such extreme involvement pretends she retains the privilege of not being “wheel warred” by another admin. I’m not so sure it is proper to “have it both ways” so to speak. Is an ANI indicated here? Greg L (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This already went to ANI and didn't draw many dispassionate voices (admittedly it was well-entangled with the involved-admin-blocking). I would suggest RFC. –xeno^talk 22:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

See my below post, then. Risker isn’t working out. Greg L (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to qualify that a bit - Risker is a fine administrator and capable editor, just doesn't seem to have full support in policy or by the community in this one case :) - Wikidemon (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

See my below post, then. Risker isn’t working out (here). Greg L (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone (preferably an admin or someone who really knows Wikipedia’s policies), please answer my above question. Risker’s conduct here seems highly irregular as of late. Greg L (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Mmm, no. This whole thread is based on a mistaken premise. The reason the article looked as it did in October was because it was only in October - post the Fort Hood shooting and then Christmas day bombing attempt - that most of the information started to appear.[5]. Just take a look at the dates of the articles cited in this article to confirm this.
• And I'd disagree that Risker doesn't have policy or the community behind her. In fact, it is Greg L's view that "Living public figures of world-class infamy such as Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki" should not be subject to BLP policy[6] and Epeefleche's opinion that primary sources [7] should be preferred that have not met with any consensus or their desired changes to policy. Does anybody else notice the pattern here? An administrator who disagrees with their edits, suggested edits or interpretation of policy is determined to be ignorant, involved and ignorable. Count me in here as one who is very concerned by this (and other similar articles). I'd entirely agree that Greg L's proposed lead is unverifiable from the sources given, and "Though Anwar al‑Awlaki denied such charges in the past (sources) a video with an al‑Qaeda logo released in April 2010 showed al‑Awlaki speaking against the US military" (other sources) is also obviously original synthesis (not to mention POV). I do agree that we need to start to fix this article. But unprotecting the article without signs that editors actually understand the policies here is doomed to failure.--Slp1 (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps, Slip1, you would like to put the part about “analysts” cited to an op-ed piece back into the above sandbox? Risker, an involved admin, gave only lame nonsense for how an op-ed piece was a reliable source suitable for citing on a BLP. As if we are to overlook her simultaneous poo-pooing of The Washington Post and the BBC. Unbelievable nonsense.I find the biases here by your and Risker to be profound and the arguments don’t hold water. I did, however, take your input and use it to revise the sandbox text. Greg L (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I have always agreed with you that "analysts" is inappropriate [8] and since we all seem to be agreed on this, I will boldly change it per consensus. The Newsweek article you cite is not an OpEd article per se, but even if it was, it is useable, with care and if notable, for the opinions of its author (though not for facts). As a widely quoted analyst on Al Qaeda in the Yemen, Johnsen's views on this specific subject have been republished in other reliable sources including the Toronto Star[9].

Once again, as Risker pointed out above, the BBC article doesn't say what you claim it does, and thus fails verifiability.

Thanks for improving your sandbox suggestion following my comment. It is better, but the lead is not the place to start when writing an article.

And yes, I proudly acknowledge that I do have a profound bias: this article should be verifiable, well-sourced, without original research, and of neutral point of view. If that makes me or other admins "involved", then we have a big problem.--Slp1 (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well… just pardon me all over the place for not realizing I was in the shadow of yet another admin with keen insight into what escapes we little folk. Maybe you might one day—you know—properly discuss things here and arrive at a consensus before hauling off with an edit like this. Your edit (“a Yemen analyst”) strongly reads as if the is based in Yemen and has some official Yemeni role there; he isn’t. He’s an American college student (“currently a Ph.D. candidate in Near Eastern studies at Princeton University”) in the U.S. when he wrote that op-ed piece. He specializes in Yemeni issues.

This is precisely why admins aren’t supposed to be directly involved in edit warring over these sort of things (or jumping the gun because they think their keen insight can cut through clutter like a surgical blade to the heart of issues). They get all power drunk and fancy themselves as having special editorial capabilities. This experience also highlights why it is important for everyone to work towards consensus instead of fancying oneself as being too important to bother with the niceties expected of we little folk. (“Boldly”) Sheesh. Greg L (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to be complaining about the correction of the plural (which seems universally agreed) but that I added that Johnsen was a Yemen analyst. Well, since the CNN calls him "one of the country's leading experts on Yemen" and "Yemen analyst",[10], the Washington Post "a Yemen scholar and terrorism analyst", [11], the Toronto Star a "Yemen terrorism analyst" [12], Salon and Asia Times a "Yemen expert" [13][14], NPR a "researcher on Yemen and terrorism" [15] and Citizendium "widely quoted expert on Yemen" [16] (okay forget that one!), I don't think calling Johnsen a "Yemen analyst" is in any way controversial based on the sources. But if this addition of the country name is opposed to other editors I or others can certainly delete it. --Slp1 (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And since the edit has been deemed unhelpful by another,[17] I have indeed reverted it.[18] Seems a pity to revert to an inaccurate version, but que sera sera. --Slp1 (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think my “problem” with that whole bit can be summarized as follows:

1. Johnsen’s opinion that al-Awlaki’s connections to al-Qaeda are “more assumed” than concrete is outdated and obsolete given the fact that al-Qaeda sent CNN a tape with al-Awlaki railing against the U.S. military. And,
2. WP:BLP has nothing in it that would suggest an op-ed piece—an article intended at the outset as a POV-pushing treatise—would be regarded as a reliable source. It doesn’t matter how much the individual’s credentials nor if he has sheepskin lining his walls and coming out of his ears.

Can you imagine if George Tenet had an op-ed piece published in The Wall Street Journal wherein he tried to pitch a POV-pushing view that all al-Qaeda members and sympathizers constitute a clear and present danger to the stability of the Western World and that a $100,000 bounty should be placed on the heads of every single one of them? He is clearly a reliable source. And just as clearly, op-ed pieces have no place as citations in Wikipedia’s biographies on living persons. I shouldn’t have needed to just explain that one.

That you would come here to the aid of your friend and “repair” the faulty inclusion of that bit speaks—again—to why admins mustn’t be directly involved in these things if they pretend to retain sysop powers at that article. You should have had to discuss things and work towards consensus just like every regular editor has to rather than bypass the inconvenience. Greg L (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for misjudging the consensus here about changing the plural to a singular and adding "Yemen". Re-reading the discussion above it still seems clear that all are agreed that the current version (analysts) is unverifiable. So that's not really the problem. Greg L's post above implies that the "Yemen" thing isn't really the "problem" either. The fundamental disagreement seems to be with the inclusion of Johnsen's comments at all, which I did not alter at all, of course. But reverted it is.

You are correct that OpEd pieces need to be used with care, and only for the opinions of the writer as has been done here, see this for details. But if you don't like the Newsweek article, then let's use the Toronto Star news article [19] which makes much the same points in a standard article format.

The first point made above is original research. Your view is that Johnsen's views are incorrect and obsolete, but we need sources for that view. Appearing in an Al-Qaeda video actually says nothing concrete at all about clear connections to the AQ, since they could splice anybody into a tape. And to date reliable sources carefully state nothing more than "his image appeared in a AQ video". We simply can't go beyond our sources. --Slp1 (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It’s a pity you didn’t see fit to remove it entirely. It is outdated, superseded and proven wrong by al-Awlaki and al-Qaeda themselves, and was unsuitable for use in a BLP in the first place. Now I just ask that back away from directly editing the article; there is no emergency over there, such as Epeefleche adding al-Awlaki’s current street address (a hole in the ground). Accordingly, the article can wait and you can hold your horses. We’ll see how the community works out how we’re going to proceed from here. Greg L (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please unprotect

The article was protected a week ago now for a purported editing dispute. Protection is supposed to be a short-term measure to prevent disruption, and there is no current editing dispute. This article is well-watched and there are plenty of eyes on the page. I'm making this request here as a courtesy rather than escalating it - if there is any doubt here as to whether we should be editing by normal consensus process we can talk about it at WP:AN or some appropriate forum. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I like the idea behind that Wikidemon. However, I fear that might lead to chaos. I would instead propose that the community have an RfC, right here, to decide who better should serve as the shepherding admin during lock down. I truly think we can more easily and more quickly arrive at a consensus if people have to discuss and tweak text here. I propose we first see if we can fix that first paragraph of the lead (see the above sandbox). If that goes smoothly, then I propose the article be unlocked. Does an RfC here for a new shepherding admin sound like a wise next step? Greg L (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was more talking about an RFC to determine whether it is generally agreed that quoting the Washington Post quoting the anonymous official is a BLP violation. Since that is apparently why the article is protected. –xeno^talk 22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine. That too, perhaps. I think another RfC may be in order here as I suspect Risker is quickly loosing the confidence of the community. Per my above post in the preceding section. Greg L (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict X 2) An administrator should not continue when their involvement / judgment is reasonably disputed. They shouldn't be editing so as to create the impression of a conflict of interest. I don't think we need to go through an RfC to deal with that obvious point, simpler just to get it done and move on. I still don't see what the need is for protection. I think we can all agree that the specific statement that was the subject of the mini edit war, the anonymous government source who said al-Awlaki was actively plotting to kill Americans, is not going to go back in the article without a clear demonstration of consensus (I don't favor it at all), so any issues there are moot. Protection isn't there on the hypothetical chance that there will be problems in the future, it's to deal short term with current problems. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Very good. I entirely agree and accept the first part. As to unlocking the article, I don’t disagree with what you say; I suppose I am agnostic at best, and highly skeptical at worse. I definitely think it is time for Risker to recuse herself of any admin duties here on this article and relinquish them to someone else who is willing to step into this pile. Greg L (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• How about this: we create a new == thread, below, calling on Risker to recuse from admin duties and become only an editor here. I propose also that we nominate xeno to step in and shepherd all further motions, including the possibility of unlocking. How say you? Greg L (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your vote of confidence as to my impartiality, but I respectfully decline; I would suggest an admin who involves themselves with substantive article content far more often than this humble gnome. –xeno^talk 22:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

All we need is a level head from an experienced admin. WP:BLP is written to be within the grasp of us all. No one expects a miracle worker here and none is required. Wikidemon doesn’t strike me as someone who just fell off the turnip truck and he’s calling for the article to be unlocked. This isn’t hard. I can post motions below that bifurcate the issue: one calling for (demanding) that Risker recuse as her involvement and judgement here is questionable at best. The second motion I would advance is that some other admin step up to the plate to oversee unlocking the article and any other housekeeping maters that might be indicated before that. Greg L (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(*sound of crickets chirping*) I’m going to get something to eat and tend to real life again. In the mean time, I propose to allow my above suggestion for motions (which I think asks only for a metric ton of common sense and grown-up behavior for a few days) percolate in some minds here. The status quo under Risker is unacceptable and the remaining problems are not so complicated that any half-way decent admin can’t solve things here in short order. Greg L (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. In the mean time, well-meaning regular editors can roll up their sleeves and tweak my proposed sandbox, above, if they see room for improvement. We’ll see what it looks like later—maybe tomorrow. Greg L (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg, Greg, Greg. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make their judgment questionable to anyone but you. The reason the article remains protected is that you have made it very clear that you have every intention of re-adding the statement that was removed as a BLP violation. You've removed any doubt about that just above in your proposed rewriting of the lead of the article. Your failure to grasp this is the key reason the article is still locked. The alternative would be blocking you (and others if applicable) for repeating the BLP violation, and I think it is much better for the encyclopedia, and for this article, if you remain involved in discussing it and (I hope) improving it, so I have not given it any serious consideration. Risker (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with Greg somewhat - the "actively working to kill Americans" quote, even though from unnamed government source, does probably have a place in the article. Maybe not in the lead (but maybe yes). If carefully enough hedged and phrased it should not violate BLP. And I think that the article should be unprotected. Active editors here should just affirm that they will not war over anything controversial like this, keeping only stuff in that has achieved consensus. I of course am fine with you, Risker, or any other admin here taking the thankless task of shepherding the article. It isn't necessary that every editor here have the same view and understanding of BLP or sourcing policy, just that they will abide for now with the temporary talk page consensus here, to get the ball rolling.John Z (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Risker Risker Risker. I’m not saying your leadership shortcomings are due to disagreeing with me. Read what I wrote above; you’ll *get it* eventually. You simply lost your right to claim any admin privileges on this article by virtue of your above rants and other conduct, which betrayed that your pretty much “lost it” today and have become far too emotionally wrapped up in this. As Wikidemon wrote above, An administrator should not continue when their involvement / judgment is reasonably disputed. So wise up please; the community deserves a better (read: uninvolved) admin here than you, IMO. There should be no problems with “wheel warring” since you should have yielded to Xeno or some other dispassionate admin before today. Greg L (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Could I please get a serious answer before I escalate this? Ideally, the article will simply be unprotected and any dispute between Risker and Greg L can take place on a different forum where it does not involve mucking up our editing process. Last chance here. Any thoughts? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I think I've been pretty clear what my conditions for unprotecting this article are, but I will repeat it here: that the editors working on this article undertake to *not* add that "killing Americans" quote, and to work on the article as a whole, improving the problematic areas with solid sources and accurate contextual use of references (i.e., the references actually say what the edits say). I take it that neither you nor anyone else has found another source for that quote? Risker (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Okay, well, editing comes without conditions or promises, and I'm in no position to say what other editors might do. If that's a firm "no" I'll wait a while to see where this discussion goes, then if necessary take it back to WP:AN unless anyone has a better suggestion regarding the best forum for contesting a refusal to unprotect. In the meanwhile, if Greg could signal that he won't re-add that particular statement without a clear prior consensus to do so that might help. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Seems escalation is in order, Wikidemon. Slp1 is doing the “campy edits there Risker” with Risker doing her “Oh, indubitably, indubitably”-thing. And now Slp1 just jumped the gun with a “bold” but ill-thought-out and misleading edit because she doesn’t need to participate in such niceties as working towards consensus in sandboxes. This is not, IMHO, what the community expects of its admins when we want them to conduct themselves in a manner that looks fair and impartial. Risker, and now Slp1 are up to their hips in the editing fray (see Risker’s huge section, below) and can’t possibly be trusted to properly discharge their duties without at least the appearance of bias. All I’ve been asking is for editors to work towards consensus on the sandbox I started. So far, it appears only one editor (a non-admin, mere mortal) has seen fit to do so. Certain admins simply bypass that as they circle the wagons and hide behind the apron strings of “Oh, I’m the only one trying to do the right thing here.” And, while attempting to do so, they manage to do all the wrong things. Greg L (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I did not notice Slp1's edit to the article, and have asked her to self-revert[20]; I don't really think there was consensus for that wording, at the minimum. Risker (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• John Z makes some excellent points, which I believe reflect the consensus of comment on this page, and which I support. A few thoughts, which augment and support John Z's suggestion:

1) Problems started with 5 reverts within hours by Causa, for which Supertouch raised a 3RR discussion. Causa's edit warring was also discussed by the community here. That slowly seemed to work, as Causa began to ultimately discuss issues on this talk page, before unilaterally effecting them. The "urgency/gravity" (or not) of his points, which I gather were his top 5, and the community reaction to them can be seen above.

2) Causa then fell off the wagon, however, and acting without consensus not only effected changes, but effected controversial ones--in an article in which he was very much involved, and then blocked and banned me for pointing out that uncomfortable fact. What did work, however, was that the community informed him quickly that he had abused his sysop tools. That led to an AN/I, where community reaction to his conduct was the same.

3) That was the only "trouble" this article had seen. But Risker shut it down, in a form that Causa had left it in (and in which he supported locking it down), and then Risker started suggesting what appear -- as best I can gather -- somewhat unimportant, immaterial FA-review-like changes (such as: "#1: Why don't we change the header "Early life" to "Early life, education and family relationships""), mixed in with obvious synth suggestions (such as: "In 1991, did either the US or Yemen recognise dual citizenship? What were the citizenship rules that would have applied?"). She is doing this as she at the same time keeps the article locked down, and turns a tin ear to comments directed directly to her on this page. About far more important issues than "should we add "education" to the header, or will that already be understood in "early life"? This is somewhat baffling.

4) It strikes me that the only actionable misbehavior here has been Causa's. I'm willing to assume Causa has read the comments at his AN/I, and I for one (and though I'm not the editor who made the 3RR complaint about him, or made the motion to have him de-sysopped, I am the one he blocked and banned) am willing to give him the chance to edit this as an open page -- by him first putting any controversial edits on this page, and seeking consensus support for them. As to Risker's minor points that she has shared with us above, she is of course welcome to do the same, and to also seek consensus (though I will suggest at the outset that her synth suggestions are flawed, unless she can find an Awlaki article that discussed those issues).

5) Full protection, as Jimbo will tell you, is for a "very short period of time" when there is a huge quarrel or the like. It is not intended to be put in place for long periods of time, as the blocking admin considers inputting synth, and adding the word "education" to the title "early life", and makes statements that add reputational risk to the Project. Let's not miss the forest for the trees, folks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Improving the "Early life" section

• First off, it's important to delineate what will be considered al-Awlaki's early life. I would be inclined to suggest that it be up until 2002, when he leaves the US and does not apparently return; however, arguments could be made that it should be earlier (e.g., when he finishes his bachelor's degree) or later (e.g., when he leaves London in 2004 or so). Deciding what period is covered by this section will make a difference in what information falls into this section.

• I'm not suggesting removing anything permanently, but instead potentially moving some information to other sections.

• It might be useful to consider retitling this section to "Early life, education and family relationships"
• The Santa Fe reference speaks of finding information about al-Awlaki's father in an alumnus newsletter. It would be useful to try to find this newsletter so that we are getting the information directly from the original reportage, rather than filtered through a third party. It's also possible that there might be other useful information there (additional dates, possibly more information about AA's mother, and so on) that were not important to the New Mexican, but could be useful to Wikipedia. Otherwise, this source outlines what degrees AA studied for, and where, but dates aren't specified.
• This Washington Post article simply says he "was born in the United States and spent time in Yemen as a child", so is probably not necessary to support this statement. However, it does have one salient fact that is relevant: "The Aulaqis' descendants were sultans who once ruled what is now Yemen's southern province of Shabwa, home to the ancestral village where Aulaqi now lives with his wife and five children. " This speaks to both family history (only slightly touched upon in the article now, but something very significant in Middle Eastern culture) and his apparent marriage and fatherhood. Editors should watch for similar personal information in other reference sources.

• Some discussion of the stature of AA's family in Yemenese society, and the role of nuclear and extended family relationships in that culture, would probably be appropriate in this section.

• What do we know of AA's early education, especially in Yemen? Logically speaking, he must have had some fairly Western-style education to have been accepted into an engineering program in the US. There may be sources later in the article that help flesh this out.
• The section about the circumstances under which AA returns to the US for study purposes needs to be examined and more fully discussed. There are contradictions in the sources here.

• The Sperry reference says that AA wasn't even born in the US, something that is contradicted by every other source, which raises the question of accuracy generally; AA's birthplace should have been very easy to ascertain even in 2005. It notes that AA came to the US as a Yemeni citizen on a J-1 research-scholar visa in 1990; this too seems contradicted by at least some other sources, and is an area where further research is warranted.
• The UPI article does not discuss AA's early life or education, and gives a shorter version of the information about AA's father as was presented in the Santa Fe ref above. (This is an example of a reference that is not particularly useful, everything it says is said better in other reference sources.)
• The NYT article, likewise, doesn't give any more specific information about study dates; it is probably not needed for this section though other information in it may be useful elsewhere in the article.
• This CNN report, while it gives more information about recent events, does not discuss AA's education. It is based on an interview with AA's father.
• This FOX News article has some interesting statements in it. Contradicting what is currently in the article (that AA studied on Yemeni scholarships), this article states that he received US government scholarships. This article also states that CSU sources confirmed AA listed himself as an international student while there.

• Side question: In 1991, did either the US or Yemen recognise dual citizenship? What were the citizenship rules that would have applied? (Not essential to the article, but would be helpful for context.)

• The 911 Commission Report states "Born in New Mexico and thus a US citizen, Aulaqi grew up in Yemen and studied in the United States on a Yemeni government sponsorship." No other statements about his student years. There may be some useful information on when he became Imam at the San Diego and Falls Church mosques, which is information that should probably be developed further in this section.
• This Washington Post article has a few useful tidbits in it, including the date of enrollment for the PhD program, and a statement that AA was a mosque leader in Colorado after graduating but before moving to San Diego.
• This Denver Post article talks about the reason for the 2002 arrest warrant, as it pertains to "early life": "It was while he was away that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Denver sought the arrest warrant. ABC News said it was based on the fact that al-Awlaki had attended CSU on a foreign-student visa, claiming he was born in Yemen, not in New Mexico, where he was actually born."
• The AP article is "no longer available"; perhaps someone can check archive.org to see if it adds anything helpful for either this section or other parts of the article.
• The Highbeam link is, of course, subscription only; however, it might be worthwhile to try to get the original article from UWire, as it gives the specific dates of study at GWU, and also talks about AA being a student chaplain, in its opening (public view) paragraphs. It is possible there is more in this article.

• There is the question of AA's Islamic scholarship, and how he became an Imam. This is quite unclear from the reference sources currently in use; perhaps more information still can be found on this subject.

• The one significant reference for this comes from Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation, and it is probably worthwhile to have a discussion on how to treat documents from this association. On the surface, it appears that this report is pulled together by those who have an expertise in the subject matter (similar to the professor that was discussed earlier, although with a different perspective). It's difficult to assess the perspectives from which various "think tanks" and "research groups" put forward their reports, particularly for non-American readers, so some careful analysis would be helpful. Who uses them as a source for their information? When their reports are discussed in the media, are they characterised in a certain way? Do they do work on contract for any governments or government-like organizations, such as the UN?

• Finally, the last sentence of this section, while it is no doubt significant, gives every appearance of referring to AA's current activities, or at minimum those after he left the US in 2002. I suggest that this does not belong in the "early life" section, but instead should be moved elsewhere.

Comments? Risker (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This looks like an excellent start to work from. As a quick start, here is a full copy of the "High Beam" article and this appears to be a copy of the dead link AP article that you refer to above. --Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Forest-for-the-trees. My comments are here.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Involved admin

Quoting Wikidemon: An administrator should not continue when their involvement / judgment is reasonably disputed. They shouldn't be editing so as to create the impression of a conflict of interest. I don't think we need to go through an RfC to deal with that obvious point, simpler just to get it done and move on.

Risker, are you going to concede that you are an involved admin and, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, cede responsibility for another admin here? Yes or no? Greg L (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg L, there are other administrators participating here, and none of them seem to be agreeing with you, As far as I can tell, most of us hadn't seen this article until it was brought up at AN/I, so we are coming upon the topic with fresh eyes and identifying the problems here. That doesn't make me particularly involved; I would be very unlikely to have selected this article to edit, and it is not a topic area in which I normally work. I have no idea what conflict of interest you seem to think I have, unless it is to have NPOV, accurately sourced articles without original synthesis, which does seem to conflict with your interests; I'm not Muslim, I never heard of the subject of the article until he was mentioned on AN/I, and I'm about as apolitical as one can get. You asked for some guidance in what should be improved; I've given you a pretty thorough review of the issues for one section of the article, and you've not yet responded. How about everyone focus on the article as a whole, allowing it to develop organically, without getting hung up on adding one quote? I have already explained to you that it is the insistence in adding that one poorly sourced quote to the lead that is keeping this article protected; if you would undertake to *not* add that quote, and to work on the article as a whole, improving the problematic areas with solid sources and accurate contextual use of references (i.e., the references actually say what the edits say), then we might get somewhere. Risker (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I’ll take that as a “no”. Greg L (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok Greg L. Is there something in particular you want reviewed? Given that I am totally uninvolved? Prodego ^talk 03:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Pro. I would like you to review the appropriateness of opening up the page at this point, given that the only actionable abuses have been by Causa, and that subject has already been addressed. Jimbo says it is only to be used for a very short time. That has already passed. Risker has not answered my questions from days ago, or others' questions/comments that are more recent, and has instead kept the page locked in an unfortumate shape while she proposes "let's add 'education' to 'early life' in the header" suggestions. Which are way off base of what the concerns of the community are here, as is obvious from all the above. So first -- can you review the appropriateness of her unclenching her steely hands from the controls? And encourage her to respond directly to my and others' questions (once upon a time, there was a rule ... if I remember correctly). And show us that this page hasn't devolved into a sysops-band-together discussion? She appears to have lost the confidence of many on this page. Fresh eyes would be appreciated. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, Prodego. But Wikidemon seems intent on doing something about the current lockdown. I hope he is right. Count me agnostic on that one, for I think this place needs a continued lockdown given the passions.

I don’t know about you, Prodego. Tell me about yourself. Admin? Alliances? What is your relationship with Slp1 and Risker. How did this issue come to your attention?

Frankly, what I want is for admins who are making edits to this article and betraying bias (Slp1 and Risker respectively) to concede that their continued use of sysop powers here now carries the appearance of bias and cede all decision making to someone else. I propose xeno, who appears to be the only admin who has waded through this article with the patience of Job and seems to have no axe to grind one way or another.

I also don’t think I could have made myself any clearer on these talk pages. I’ve added a sandbox, above, to serve as a place for editors to resolve their differences and work towards consensus. I’ve seen a persistent, pervasive pattern of editors quoting blue-linked policies (like they know something), yet they can seldom quote a passage from these policies that says what they allege it says. A sandbox cuts to the chase so we can see what is on editors’ minds and bypass all the flowery oratory and posturing. Greg L (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

@Epeefleche It does look like this page should be moving out of protection fairly shortly - much of the original dispute is resolved and we would presume editors would be mature enough to discuss future changes on the talk page before adding new material. I think with a bit of assurance that if the page is unprotected we won't immediately see edits that have been (or should be) discussed but have not yet developed a full consensus added (and then no doubt reverted, etc), that could be done. I generally don't like overuse of the BLP policy, but much of the original content removed by Risker does appear to be material that could fall under BLP (and I would argue is not properly neutral - but that's a content question). Discussion amongst everyone about proposed changes, Risker included, will of course be welcome and important - I think discussion is something you can rarely have too much of, so long as there are real issues to discuss.

@Greg Several days ago I asked Risker for assistance with an unrelated article I was copyediting. She replied she was busy working on this article. At that point, I added it to my watchlist and noticed the "Involved admin" header when it was added. Jumping immediately to the theory that I am involved in some sort of alliance against you is not the proper attitude to have, and is unlikely to be a helpful way to approach the kind of consensus building discussion that this page will need. If I've met Slp1 before I do not remember it. Prodego ^talk 04:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

@Pro: Perfect. When Causa ultimately listed his five proposals, that (for the most part; it lowered the pace of the complained-about non-consensus changes) seemed to work -- it only fell apart when that approach was abandoned for controversial edits. So let's see if we can muster it up again, with a strong suggestion to all (including Risker) that it be followed. Any Risker suggestions that improve the article and attract consensus support are of course welcome. I think that as she becomes an involved editor, she should at the same time recognize the limitations placed upon her by wp:admin. I say this because even today I saw her threaten use of sysop tools here, on the same day as she is seeking to make a dozen edits to the article. And, as we've seen, this article for some reason can be the Bermuda Triangle for sensitivity to wp:admin obligations. BTW -- Risker's characterization of this as a sysops vs. non-sysops disagreement is unfortunate. There is enough questioning of cabal-like and support-each-other-no-matter-what activity among sysops for that to be an issue people would prefer is not the case; her notable failure at the AN/I to take a stand in favor of enforcing WP:involved, and her "other sysops agree with me" protestations above, do little to quell those unfortunate murmurs. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. I'm not seeking to make any edits to the article. Greg L asked me for suggestions on where the article needed to go, and I gave them. Discuss amongst yourselves, folks. I have never to my recollection made significant edits to articles I've protected in the past, and I'm not about to start now. Risker (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Prodego, we still have some admins directly editing the article to slyly include an outdated and non-factual opinion cited to an op-ed piece. As I wrote above, my position is as follows:

1. This op-ed piece was written by Johnsen, a student of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University who doesn’t yet have his Ph.D. Johnsen’s “opinion” that al-Awlaki’s connections to al-Qaeda are “more assumed” than concrete is hopelessly outdated and obsolete given the fact that al-Qaeda sent CNN a tape with al-Awlaki railing against the U.S. military. And,
2. WP:BLP has nothing in it that would suggest an op-ed piece—an article intended at the outset as a POV-pushing treatise—would be regarded as a suitable source to cite to in one of Wikipedia’s BLPs. It doesn’t matter how many credentials the individual has or if he has sheepskin lining his walls and coming out of his ears. Op-ed pieces are POV-pushing editorials by their very nature.

Can you imagine if George Tenet had an op-ed piece published in The Wall Street Journal wherein he tried to pitch a POV-pushing view that all al-Qaeda members and sympathizers constitute a clear and present danger to the stability of the Western World and that a $100,000 bounty should be placed on the heads of every single one of them? He is clearly a reliable source. And just as clearly, op-ed pieces have no place as citations in Wikipedia’s biographies on living persons. It never should have been included in the first place and was originally put there by an editor with a chronic history of POV-pushing in this vein.

This is one *detail* I expect to be addressed since we have two admins who simultaneously don’t like the wording in the above sandbox that cites to the BBC and The Wall Street Journal quoting unnamed government sources. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Those are the details. The greater problem is having highly involved admins using sysop powers to oh-so-conveniently bypass what is expected of the rest of us. Greg L (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That an editor has commented doesn't immediately make them involved - I would hesitate to say Risker is 'involved' in a way that would make it a problem for her to act administratively. However, I do think it is as important for her as for anyone else to ensure that actions relating to 'hard' policies (BLP, user conduct, etc) not get confused with actions relating to 'soft' policies regarding notability, etc, that are more open to judgement. These are separate things, and so long as they are not mixed (don't try to enforce content), one should be able to do both of them at the same time. Regarding the op-ed piece - an op-ed is a person talking - it would probably be considered at the same level of an interview with that person. I wouldn't want to say all op-eds are invalid sources, clearly an op-ed by an 'expert' (if we classify this person that way, that's a content issue) does convey more information than say some random website on the internet. What I'd like to see is Risker (and some of the other admins who have been more active here) lay out what's blocking unprotection at this point, so we can resolve any remaining issues before unprotecting it, hopefully within a day or so (maybe less, we would want to make sure everyone has time to comment). Prodego ^talk 05:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree, Prodego, that we can trust The Washington Post and the BBC to be considered reliable sources when they quote unnamed government sources (while simultaneously quoting a CIA spokesman by name on still other statements in the same article), when those government sources are explaining the basis for the government’s unprecedented targeting of an American citizen for direct military action or assassination. The quote (or something generally similar is fine too) goes like this in the above sandbox:

U.S. government officials cited how al‑Awlaki’s presents a “threat to the United States” and its allies and is “working actively to kill Americans” as the basis for the unprecedented step of militarily targeting one of its own citizens.

As it stands, the article explains how the U.S. wants to kill the guy, but no accompanying explanation for why. I think we can trust that the BBC and The Washington Post knew how to ensure they were talking to a real government official without volunteer wikipedians trying to get their way by suggesting they can second-guess these highly reliable secondary sources. I’m not all hung up on the exact wording; it can say “unnamed government officials” or “according to the BBC and The Washington Post quoting unnamed…” It’s the principle here that if a op-ed piece might belong, the BBC and The Washington Post can squeeze in there too. Greg L (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg L, the BBC article does not say that, and in fact refers to a different Washington Post article that also doesn't say that. That is why, to paraphrase myself from above, it is the insistence in adding that one poorly sourced quote to the lead that is keeping this article protected; if [all editors] would undertake to *not* add that "killing Americans" quote (from a single source, not mentioned in any others that have been identified), and to work on the article as a whole, improving the problematic areas with solid sources and accurate contextual use of references (i.e., the references actually say what the edits say), then it would be time to lift the protection. Risker (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You are asking me a question about content. Content issues are something where my opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's here, and at this point I'd rather not participate in content related discussions. Those are the sort of things that simply need to be discussed to see what consensus is. Prodego ^talk 12:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Spot-on. Well-said. That the view of each of us on that issue is equal, and consensus is what carries the day, is a point that we agree on but which Risker seems to not appreciate fully.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Risker -- I imagine what you meant to say was that you are requesting that such language not be added absent discussion and consensus. Correct?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no I don't. Dozens of times I have seen a tiny consensus of editors (say, under 10) decide that a flagrant BLP violation ought to be in an article. That is precisely why the BLP policy does not defer to consensus. There may be a proposal in the future that properly places that quote into context and does not assign it undue weight. That proposal has not been made, and in fact, every insertion and proposal that has been made has failed to do so. Even in the past few hours, it's been proposed that this quote *must* be added because it explains the US government's reason for other decisions. That's classic original research/synthesis, because the US government hasn't said that, only one unnamed official (quoted in only one source) said that, and he didn't say that was the reason for the US government's decision. Risker (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That's your content position - others differ. No matter how many times you repeat your contention that this content violates Wikipedia policy, others disagree, and in the end it is the community, not individual editors, who decide what is and is not a policy violation. If we want to talk about harm to living people, the guy is on America's hit list for goodness sake, and if America is right he's trying incite others to kill Americans. Nobody is going to be further harmed, and nobody is going to sue anyone, over just which sources we use to report on that. At this point the use of administrative tools to stonewall one particular interpretation of how policy dictates the content should look is doing more harm than help as far as improving the article. If we really are a few days away from lifting protection and letting editors do their thing here, a short delay is okay while we work out whether and exactly how to say that America has explained its kill order on this this person on grounds that it considers him an active terrorism threat. However, indefinite open-ended protection would not be okay. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Risker: I've found your exercise of your admin obligations wanting here.

First, though you appeared at his AN/I, you failed to support action against your fellow sysop Causa for his abuse of sysop tools. When I couple that with your above us-sysops-against-you-non-sysops language, I'm troubled.

Second, per WP:admin administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Your threat today to use your sysop tools here -- on the same day that you are suggesting a dozen editing changes to the page -- raises the possibility to me that you may not be as mindful as you might be to WP:INVOLVED.

Third, per wp:admin, admins "are expected to respond promptly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed". A full seven days ago I asked you a relevant, material question relating to this article. I asked it twice. Seven days have elapsed. And while you have been mulling whether to add "education" to "early life" in a header in the article, my material questions have gone ignored and unanswered. Perhaps you think that is "prompt". I don't. I view it as an abject failure on your part to comply with wp:admin's Accountability requirement. And the fact that I left you that question both on your talk page and on this page -- and both were ignored -- makes it difficult to believe that it was anything other than an unexcusable failure on your part to follow the guideline.

Fourth, to me it feels as though you are happily polishing the silverware, as the ship goes down. The issues you raise in your list are so impressively insignificant, compared to the serious ones that we are seeking to discuss, that I'm puzzled as to your steadfast focus on the picayune as you ignore us. That raises a forest-for-the-trees judgment issue. We need an admin here who exercises good judgment. One who knows when proof-reader-level skills are called for (not the urgent call here at the moment). And when thoughtful, sage, reasoning statutory-construction-type CEO-level skills are called for (the case here).

Fifth, a number of editors on this page have expressed similar sentiments (though others are perhaps rightly cowed by your threat to wield your powers).

Sixth, you have held this page locked-down for way longer than Jimbo has indicated is appropriate. And without good reason, as the only actionable editing that has taken place is by Causa -- who I believe has heard the community's reaction.

Seventh, to be frank, if you descended from the mountain with the tablets, I didn't get the memo. Your suggestion that only you can interpret Wikipedia guidelines properly here -- guidelines written by my fellow Wiki editors -- strikes me as not only arrogant and insulting. But also as decidedly suspect. Perhaps you have an advanced degree in jurisprudence, and decades of practice in law during which you fine-tuned your skills of statutory construction, and they make you uniquely capable of interpreting wikipedia guidelines in this discussion. Still, somehow, I doubt it.

I am raising these concerns to you directly as a Wikipedia user. I've not even touched on other concerns I shared with you today, such as your multiple mischaracterizations of the prior form of the article, and the reputational risk you introduce by suggesting that it is common for wp articles to be so 180-degrees-flawed.

Today you still failed to respond to my substantive queries. But at the same time came up with your "let's talk about revising the header" list. And today you also made a dozen editing suggestions, while at the same time threatening to use your sysop tools against an editor here in regard to this article. It appears to me that you have either a COI here, or such strong feelings that it interferes with dispassionate good judgment. You're clearly not allowed to play both roles here, and given your above mis-steps I for one have lost confidence in your ability to properly handle your admin roles on this page.

When you feel a pressing need to be the one editing the article, but at the same time threaten editors with use of your sysop tools, you are already clearly too heavily involved in the article, and your feelings about the article and the issues are already too strong, for you to play the multiple roles you are trying to play. There are many competent admins at Wikipedia. You might take a moment and consider whether the more appropriate thing might not be to step to the side and allow them to handle the matter. There's no shame in that. And per WP:ADMIN, given your strong feelings, you're clearly an involved admin, who should allow in another admin.

With all due respect.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I just have this question for Risker, and Slp1: If George Tenet had an op-ed piece published in The Wall Street Journal and later in Newsweek wherein he pitched a POV-pushing view that all al-Qaeda members and sympathizers “constituted a clear and present danger to the stability of the Western World and needed to be exterminated” and that “a $100,000 bounty should be placed on the heads of every single one of them”, would you have *allowed* those quotes in this article? Greg L (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Allowed" is the wrong word, but if you want my opinion then the answer is a definite "Maybe". On the plus side, Tenet is a notable named individual in a prominent position, and his public comments, attributed to him, likely would be relevant and significant enough for inclusion on WP, especially if they have been reported on elsewhere in the media (which your example surely would have been). On the negative side, in your hypothetical example Tenet makes no reference to Al-Awaki, so it would be original research to add it to this specific article. Inclusion in Tenet's own article would be a different matter, however. On the other hand, if Tenet had said that "Al-Awaki constitutes a clear and present danger to the stability of the Western World and needs to be exterminated", then, yes, I would support inclusion of his attributed opinion in the article. How much weight to give to it in the article (lead/body) would be determined by how much notice third-party sources had given to it. --Slp1 (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Issues blocking unprotection

So in the interest of accomplishing something rather than arguing in circles about meta issues, what remains that prevents unprotection at this point? Prodego ^talk 12:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that if the article were unprotected right now, an edit war will ensue over the still-disputed phrase “working actively to kill Americans”. We need to form a consensus on that issue, possibly by RFC, before we continue. Thundermaker (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd vastly prefer to unprotect the article and block anyone who edit wars than leave it protected. There is no reason to presume that editors lack the maturity to form consensus rather than edit war. Prodego ^talk 16:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am shortly going to unprotect this page. At that point, I'd warn everyone not to add disputed wording in to the article, to avoid realizing the concerns of Thundermaker. I'd propose that if material is added, and then removed, it should definitely not be readded without discussion. Furthermore, I think in the interest of avoiding any BLP issues that should an addition or removal be in dispute, that we should go back to the current version of the page (in that particular area of the article) while it is being discussed. Prodego ^talk 00:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I made an edit, but I am not sure how to make it "more clean"

I changed a link to "National Security Council", which is an entry about National Security Councils in general, to a link to "United States National Security Council", which is about the US's National Security council specifically; the problem is that I don't know how to make the text say "National Security Council" and the link still be to the US's specifically. So if someone can clean that up, that'd be good. Thank you. 67.161.244.193 (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We should listen to Anwar

Anwar al-Awlaki is a spiritual leader of the Muslim faith, which has the answers to which we seek. America can send it's rockets to the moon, but the Muslim religion teaches all we need to know and is all the truth we need. Look at this YouTube video: [21]. As the video states, "The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has been cleft asunder (the people of Makkah requested Prophet Muhammad to show them a miracle, so he showed them the splitting of the moon)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.243.240 (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Last week I tried to cleave the moon with my hand but my hand was too fat and I could only see the moon on one side or the other. So I had to settle for crushing it between my thumb and forefinger ("I'm crushing your head!"). But no, I don't seriously think the debate about whether the moon has actually been cleft asunder yet belongs in Anwar's article. Do you, Greg? Thundermaker (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• I’m only thinking that on a talk page on a terrorist-related matter with religious overtones, great latitude should be afforded to allowing views to be expressed so we don’t run the risk of having en.Wikipedia appear to be inhabited by a “majority rule” that decides what thought is legitimate and will be allowed to be voiced. Flat deleting that post could be construed as intolerant and judgmental. I’ve had others delete my posts or get on my case, and a phrase I’ve used in the past in defending myself is “Please don’t presume to tell me what I may think or how I may express my thoughts.” I thought that worldview of mine deserved being used to protect this I.P. editor’s view. It wasn’t uncivil and isn’t disruptive. I say, “Let it be.” Go ahead and delete the whole thread if you think doing so best serves the total interests of Wikipedia and its smooth operation. Greg L (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

One man's great latitude is another man's slippery slope. It's true that it doesn't violate civility guidelines, but since the comment is tangentially about the subject of the article and not at all about the article itself, it pretty clearly violates WP:NOTFORUM. And it's not the only SWA-related violation of the rule that I've seen. One more and it's a movement. Thundermaker (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Though I think the “slippery slope” argument is overused today (it is invariably used to when opponents concede that “this isn’t all that bad, but just look at what might happen if allowed to get out of hand”), I entirely agree with you, Thundermaker, that the I.P. editor’s post is quite tangential and is deserving of being hit with a phaser set on “Maximum” so it vanishes from existence. But let me try this one on you: Your 16:31, 11 May post, three posts above, suggests you find the I.P. editor’s post to be uncompelling and worthy of mild ridicule. If that’s how the I.P. editor’s post strikes you, why would you not want to keep it here? By the same token, it is apparently the sincerely held thoughts of someone who thinks Anwar has words the entire world should listen to. I doubt that sentiment is a rare one. I simply reverted your deletion of the post because it struck me that many with that particular worldview might perceive the deletion as heavy handed and judgmental and justifies their feeling that there is POV-pushing on these articles. (*sigh*)

  I fully well knew, when reverting you, that there are likely any number of guidelines justifying your deletion—you certainly have every right to do what you did. At the same time, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we are at liberty to use WP:Common sense to do the right thing. I certainly might be wrong and the best thing is to vaporize this thread. As I wrote above, go ahead and delete the whole thread if you think doing so best serves the total interests of Wikipedia and its smooth operation. I’m simply seeing that it looks like better form, in this case, to cut the I.P. editor some latitude and allow the expression of the sentiment to stand; that’s all. Please, just delete this thread if you feel it best; there is nothing more I could say that I haven’t already said. Greg L (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  P.S. I personally note the seeming cognitive dissonance created by the I.P. editor’s post where s/he seems rather unimpressed with ‘America’s rockets’ and then turns right around and uses movie footage from space to buttress a religious point. But… that’s my worldview, isn’t it? Greg L (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Assasination vs Targeted Killing

I have moved this from my IP talk page - the posters in it had originally posted it to my talk page. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Anwar al-Awlaki appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. The term you replaced was the term used by the RS; that is superior to its replacement with a term reflecting the editor's POV Epeefleche (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

TARGETED KILLING is a highly POV 'newspeak' phrase designed to sanitize it and confer some sort of legitimacy. The word in the ENGLISH LANGUAGE is Assasination. "Targeted Killing" is a phrase resurrected by members of the Bush administration and US media, or possibly borrowed from Israel, and it's use is highly POV. Calling it Targeted Killing is like calling Torture : Enhanced Interogation - a similar piece of newspeak the Bush administration and the Nazi's shared. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Anwar al-Awlaki. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. As explained before, we follow what the RSs say. The concept of NPOV applies to POV of editors. Not of RSs. You are seeking to substitute, for the phrase used by the RS, a phrase that you in your point of view prefer. That is not permissible. Please read wp:npov. Epeefleche (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

RS?

as·sas·si·nate (-ss-nt)

tr.v. as·sas·si·nat·ed, as·sas·si·nat·ing, as·sas·si·nates

1. To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.

2. To destroy or injure treacherously

Dear Epeefleche, please desist form spreading around you POV words on Wiki. For a reader on what a word means RS - Reliable Source is the DICTIONARY. Not Fox News, Not Obama, not Bush. If I am your president and put a hit on you, but don't want the blame so I call it a jam tart, not a termination order - is it now a Jam Tart, and I did not have you terminated? Sorry I'll go with the DICTIONARY as a VERY RELIABLE SOURCE. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion that he is a prominent person of the sort contemplated by the definition, and/or that his killing would be for a political reason, and/or that the act would be treacherous, or all reflections of your POV. That's not the word or the sense of what the RS says. What we do here is reflect RS. Not the POVs of IPs or other editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This article would not EXIST if he was not prominent, stop speading your POV here. THis is about COMMON SENSE - Not wiki lawyering.98.248.59.58 (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried reading Wiki's entry on Targeted killing? If so you'd know it redirects to Assassination. I wonder why? 98.248.59.58 (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Many people have bios on wikipedia. Few are prominent, in the way I expect that definition contemplates. Certainly, most of the people who have BLPs would not be "assassinated" within the meaning of the definition. I'm being straight with you. No wikilawyering at all. As to your last point -- great. Then you should have no problem with us reflecting the word that is used by the RSs, as you see them as the same. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course I have no problem with the article ALSO reflecting what the RS said, but the weight should be on the real word. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Targeted killing is the real word(s). Assassination is overbroad, as reflected on the wikipedia entry.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Targeted Killing is Newspeak, and is only used much in the US and Israel. It is not even understood by most - which of course is the PURPOSE of the phrase - to avoid the stigma associated with running Death Squads who go around assassinating people. Again - Targeted killing redirects to Assassination for good reason. It's a FRINGE phrase used for Assassination. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Does this warning not also apply to the guy who keeps reverting me? As I see he / she was not warned? This guy has Reverted me 3 times, twice today (and me twice today) . I even gave a very good example of why my edit should nto have been reverted but he/she is manufacturing arguments to suit a predetermined outcome. Obviously of course I'll be quiet now for a while. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• This edit of yours is impermissible because it amounts to editorializing. Wikipedia follows reliable sources and is not a venue for editors to editwar over as they endeavor to shape public opinion on a matter. This is done to best serve our readership and the policy also makes editing in a collaborative writing environment more harmonious. Your justification that the dictionary says that one phrase means another is without foundation; the English language is nuanced and it is this very fact that you are trying to exploit. Greg L (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So the Dictionary is not a reliable source of what something is? Is common sense not allowed. Where or not one rogue states government calls it something else is NOT a RS. If I kill someone, but decide it is called "enhanced removal" am I not still killing someone? Might I have a BIASED vested interest in ensuring people do not call it Killing, and instead call ing "targeted removal" or some other random construct? This article REQUIRES the word assassnation in it. Otherwise it is biased towards the protagonists (the US War of Terror). Of course it shoudl also mention what the US Gov. call it, but in the interests of the fact that this is the ENGLISH wikipedia, we should also use the commonly accepted words wuch as what the dictionary says. Completly removing the word assassination in all cases is biased. The US media is hardly a reliable source on it's own for what somethign is or isn't. when it comes to the US Gov's actions of late, it has an inherient bias of nationalism. I'll go with the dictionary any day versus the self-censorship Fox, and all the other US outlets engage in - As Do You. This edit will be back. There is no CONSENSUS on calling it only Targeted Killing. At a minimum it needs BOTH. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For now I would appreciate it if others weigh on on this. I have wiki linked Targeted killing though I see one editor already considered a wiki link POV pushing - and removed a mere wikilink on first instance - that proves what I have been saying - some people, undoubtably Americans, are determined to CENSOR and redefine basic english to santize what is obviously an order for an Assassination. Now that REALLY sounds like self-censorship to me, almost as if someone does not want readers to see a connection between what is happening with the death squads and the word assassination. I can not help think some people here consider what Others do to be Terrorism or Assasination, but what they support to be Targeted Killings and Self-Defence. This article, and all this Newspeak exhibits extreme US bias. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A dictionary is indeed a reliable source; just like a car can be a perfectly suitable and reliable mode of transportation—if it is not driven by a drunk into a river. You seem intent on using an argument of “The dictionary says this is equal to that” but, in the end, it is simple editorializing and POV-pushing, which isn’t allowed on Wikipedia. It is best to use the terminology used by reliable secondary sources in the citation(s) rather than attempt to use more inflammatory language. Personally, I have no problem with “assassination” and used it once right here in an earlier version of this article (or somewhere else where al‑Awlaki was being mentioned)—you know—to drive home the point of how the U.S. government fully well intends to exterminate someone who declared jihad (holy war) on America. I like the word you are advocating for I think it properly describes how to deal with someone who represents a clear and present danger to innocent lives. Alas, in the end, our personal feelings about this fine, fine gentleman matter not one twit. Now that the wording has become a bone of contention, the best solution is to adhere as closely as possible to the actual language used by the cited publication. Please take your rants about the U.S. government and the U.S. media and go elsewhere with it as that has nothing to do with adhering to Wikipedia’s requirements for biographies of living persons. Greg L (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who finds it curious that the IP rails against the U.S., but lives in California?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources - Assassination

The Dictionary, Common Sense, and

FOXNews.com - It's a Mistake to Assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki Apr 16, 2010 ... President Obama should rescind this assassination order for Anwar al-Awlaki and clarify publicly our country's position. ... http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/16/mohamed-elibiary-alawlaki-assassinate-muslims-war-terror-nsc/

Don't Assassinate the Dangerous Cleric al-Awlaki - Newsweek.com Apr 13, 2010 ... Obama wants to assassinate the radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Thing is, his murder would do more harm than good http://www.newsweek.com/id/236292

Barack Obama orders killing of US cleric Anwar al-Awlaki - Telegraph Apr 7, 2010 ... Barack Obama's administration has authorised the assassination of the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a rare move against an American ... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7564581/Barack-Obama-orders-killing-of-US-cleric-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html

Times Square Suspect Reportedly Inspired by Radical Cleric AOL News - 5 days ago ... was inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki's rhetoric in Web videos about violent ... took the rare step of authorizing al-Awlaki's assassination -- making him the ... http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/times-square-suspect-faisal-shahzad-reportedly-inspired-by-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki/19468609

It's pretty apparent here that the only people calling it Targeted Killing are Americans - and that might just possible indicate some agenda or bias.... 98.248.59.58 (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Good for you. Now seek consensus here to change the wording and to also ensure that the citation properly supports the verbiage. Again, I personally have no problems at all with “assassination.” And if Newsweek called it “exterminate like a insect with a can of Raid”, I wouldn’t oppose that either. So count me in for anything that A) has the majority consensus here, and B) is properly supported by the citations. Greg L (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That is my intention. Obviously there is no consensus to change it all to assassination so I am desisting form doing so again after 2 attempts today, so I am seeking concensus here on what to do about it. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The two are different, as already discussed, for the reasons already discussed. But if your book club is looking for a suggestion for next month, you might consider suggesting Thomas Hunter's 2009 thriller entitled Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism, with emphasis on the chapter entitled "Targeted Killing versus Assassination", beginning on page 5. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are confusing whether killing him is right or wrong, with whether targeted killing = assasination. It is. Which is why if you go to Targeted killing you will notice that wikipedia consensus seems to be that you will go to the same page as if you click Assassination. Sadly I will have to pass as I think reading a book authored by members of the US intelligence services or by those directly connected to it might just possibly exhibit some seriously biased view points. These are after all the same people who think Enhanced Interogation is not Torture (as one would tend to do if a war crimes tribunal was a future retirement possibility) 98.248.59.58 (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh. Look at that. And there I thought you were the one in the U.S., and he -- as he said -- wrote it in Scotland. Must have gotten those backwards. Apologies. (btw -- anyone should feel free to roll up this entire tortured meandering discussion whenever they feel appropriate, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you read the preface about the US-DIA? Actually don't feel free to delete and censor an active discussion seeking consensus and trying to reconcile an issue where someone said produce the sources, I did, and new excuses keep getting found... lets go book burning? Because we don't want people to know? 98.248.59.58 (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There are likely sources for each and, as the wikilink shows, a targeted killing is a sub-class or related thing to an assassination. I find the term "targeted killing" to be more apt for a number of reasons. First, it's more specific and to the point. Assassinations cover a lot of different things, they tend to be covert, and the word implies that the target is some kind of head of government. Not always, but those are some implications. A targeted killing is a much more specific thing - it is an act by a government to kill a specific person it deems an enemy or threat, by extrajudicial / extra-legal means, but not as part of a military skirmish. Something like that. Anyway, saying that the US approved a targeted killing is a lot more informative and to the point than saying they approved an assassination. People can form their own opinions about whether it is a kind of assasination or not, but that's not terribly relevant. The term is not a euphemism at all and does not carry the implication of approval or disapproval, in fact it is pretty straightforward. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikilink - Targeted killing

Why is someone removing a wikilink first instance - four harmless square brackets? That edit makes no other logical sense other than an attempt to prevent readers from learning what the phrase means. Given that I contend it is a deliberate Newspeak phrase designed to hide it's true meaning, I find it very worrying that you won't let me wikilink your word, Targeted killing 98.248.59.58 (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Probably because you are an I.P. editor who shouts and didn’t go about this properly. As I wrote above, “exterminate like a insect with a can of Raid” works for me too. But I doubt it works for the others here and Wikipedia is ruled by consensus. You may not agree with the consensus, but you will abide with it or be blocked. Greg L (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what concensus against using a wikilink first instance do you refer to? You are trying to obfuscate with edit summaries not related to your real edit. (that is a shout) 98.248.59.58 (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement to create a wikipedia account. And the caps were an accident which I can't reverse. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not about whether he should be killed with a can of Raid, or whether he should kill Americans with Sarin and get a medal for it (as would work for the far more people than their are Americans in this world) - that is not what talk is for at all - we are talking about wording - the merits of killing or not killing him are beyond the scope of this page and us. That is for others to decide - Governments, and the Rule of Law. Whether or not he should be killed. Wether or not he should kill someone else is just not relevant here. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Edits that removed wikilink: [22] [23]. Most Non-Americans (read: most of the planet), at least the ones that don't follow US media or governmental propaganda will not know what "Targeted killing" even means so the wiki link has significant reader value. Removing it is straight POV. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm… Your I.P. indicates you live in America (Mt Laurel, NJ). Yet you protest the (many) shortcomings (“government propaganda”, yadda yadda) of the country you choose to live in. Methinks thee doth protest too much; particularly since railing about such matters is irrelevant to the issue of editing against consensus. Your arguments seems to be based on the idea that you are coming here to redress the shortcomings in reality. Reality is what it is and Wikipedia is not your battleground to try to change it. I can see I am wasting my time with you. Get with the game plan, please, or others will deal with you accordingly. Greg L (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• My IP indicates that I have a relationship with comcast, nothing more. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Mt Laurel is Comcast's headquarters, nothing more or less. The link isn't hurting anything, and might be informative, so might as well keep it. Prodego ^talk 05:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah; San Jose. Epee was right. As for the link, yeah, that’s fine with me too. Greg L (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Err, you blanked the wikilink...? 98.248.59.58 (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Other article; Targeted Killing

• Since, as the description of targeted killing made clear (even as I came upon it), there is a substantial body of opinion that targeted killing is not assassination ("Pro:...They also oppose the use of the term assassination, as it denotes murder, where targeting such leaders is seen as self-defence, and thus killing, but not a crime.[33]"), I will seek to create a stand-alone page entitled Targeted Killing. I have so mentioned on the Assassination talk page here, and invite interested parties to comment at that page. (The Targeted Killing page can of course then be linked, in some manner, to the Assassination page).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - see talk there. There is a very well established, and stable concensus there that one is part of the other - as it is there. The Newspeak, Targeted killing is considered a subset of assassination. It is not parked. Are they any lengths you will not go to to dissociate targeted killing from Assassination? An editor you have collaborated with in historical edit wars (in a blanked posting you spoke to him of a wiki-jihad) even went so far as to blank an apparently objectionable wikilink on Targeted killing. Sorry, it is a word for a particular subset of Assasinatation - created purely to sterilize the negative connotatiosn with assassination and the extrapolation - State Terrorism. I know precisesly why you, and some (not all) other Americans do not want to use the word Assassination - it was the same dance with Enhanced Interogation - A word the US and Nazi Germany used to avoid saying Torture. Changing a word does not change the act. The US does not get to unilaterally change a word associated with bad things because it decides to revert to the dark ages and do it itself. If you do it, it is still Torture not something else. If you Asssassinate, you don't get to change the word - as you might have a bias... 98.248.59.58 (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Pray tell, in relation to Assassination as it was when you "came upon it" - You say as reflected in the article itself even as I came upon it, there is clearly a substantial body of thought that targeting killing is not the same thing as assassination, yet i can not find ANY SUCH DISAGREEMENT WHATSOEVER. I see strong disagreement as to whether the use of assassination : targeted killing is legitimate or not. I do not see one shred of dispute thatas you came upon it targeting killing is not a form of assassination. BIG DIFFERENCE. 98.248.59.58 (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) yes, the place to discuss it there. But deciding whether something should be a stand-alone article, or part of another, should never bee a question about POV. It's just a question of how best to organize information for the benefit of the reader. If you evaluate everything through the lens of what values it's communicating you miss the whole point, which is just to inform people of things and let them form their own opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

East London Mosque

The link is dead. According to the East London Mosque [24], it's because they disputed the allegations, particularly that AA gave a lecture there. Other Telegraph links of similar subject and vintage are still available, for example [25]. At this point I suggest that the ELM claims be removed from the article unless they are substantiated elsewhere. The current he-said/she-said is just gross (sorry, that's the best word I can think of at the moment). Thundermaker (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comparison to Jim Jones/Personality Cult

Kamran Pasha wrote an interesting piece comparing Anwar to Jim Jones, but I don't know if it's appropriate to put it here or on Pasha's article. Thoughts? [26]--Hourick (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's interesting. However, one blogger's thought is not enough for insertion into the subjects BLP. Maybe not even the blogger's BLP, unless others pick up the idea (i.e. the comparison becomes a notable idea). Thundermaker (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, normally I blow off blogs, but considering his background it was an interesting piece of insight. --Hourick (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

considering he was one of the first to write that somebody who knew him thought he was motivated by his brand of Islam, and that it's on his biography wp page, this would also be appropriate, certainly it's worth mention on his bio page.

Arrest Warrant - District of Colorado

The arrest warrant charged Anwar Nasser Aulaqi with one count violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1542, False statement in application for passport. It is a ten year felony. The warrant was actually issued by magistrate judge in the District of Colorado, (Denver) on June 17, 2002. The warrant was NOT issued in October 2002, as was reported in the Wikipedia article. The warrant was mysteriously rescinded through actions taken by the United States Attorney's Office, Denver on October 10, 2002. So, as you can see the warrant was active for a period of approximately five months. Aulaqi returned to the United States through JFK airport aboard a SaudiAir aircraft on October 10, 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.186.191 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The article cites ABC news as the source. That's where the mistake came from, if it is a mistake. To change it, we need a source that corroborates your date. I think a primary source might be OK in this case (court records). Thundermaker (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is voiceofsandiego.org ok for a RS? Thundermaker (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed split

As this article is becoming rather long, perhaps it would be appropriate to split a section it into an independent article. The individuals listed in the the "Other connections" section would, I think, make a good stand-alone article. A suggested title for this article is Individuals allegedly influenced by Anwar al-Awlaki or People linked to Anwar al-Awlaki.--Supertouch (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)  Done

That definitely helps the size. It might be appropriate to keep a simple list on this page, with the details on the new page. Thundermaker (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you redirected People linked to Anwar al-Awlaki back here "per discussion", but I missed the discussion (not here, not there). I have one more for the list, Zachary Adam Chesser. Thundermaker (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The reversion of the split was done at the request of User:Epeefleche and you can find the relevant discussions here, here and here.

As I stated then, I think the split should be reinstated, but a proper summary section needs to be written, which was not done the first time round. If the section is to remain in this article, then it cannot be an ever expanding list, and needs to be pared down to a manageable size by giving brief summaries of how each has been linked to Awlaki rather than an in depth analysis. It currently goes into far too much detail, especially in the cases of Hasan & Abdulmutallab, where there are full articles on each. _wjemather^bigissue 14:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As I discussed w/the splitter, and he was agreeable to, I don't think a split is necessary at this time. When a split does take place as the article increases in size, splitting out the material that is less likely to be what people are looking for as they come to his page would be more appropriate. Those might well include, for example, his early background info and/or his works (some of which are hidden, but add to the size count).--Epeefleche (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As I asserted before, the article is about Awlaki and not the people he has been linked to, so this section is a prime candidate for a split, especially given its ever expanding nature. A well written summary would more than suffice in the context of a biography about Awlaki. _wjemather^bigissue 16:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My proposed addition (above) is an example of something that would belong in a list of people linked to AA but not about AA himself. AA's connection to ZAC is of relatively low importance for AA's bio but quite significant to ZAC's. For that and other reasons, I still support the split.

Discussing a split of this article on a user page, after this thread already exists, is forum-shopping IMHO. This is the place to build a consensus. Thundermaker (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not at all. An editor made a change. I discussed it with the editor. The discussion has been linked to here. His view and mine are clear to see. The most notable material people will seek on the bio page should be on the bio page. That is fairly basic stuff. Nor is this page so large that it demands splitting at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I truly think the Anwar article is getting too lengthy and would truly benefit from splitting to “People linked to Anwar al-Awlaki.” I would suggest that we not delete the “Other connections” section, but have succinct stubs with a {main} tag at top directing readers to the new fork. Greg L (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have resurrected the People linked to Anwar al-Awlaki article and added my new bit. We still need to form a consensus on how much can and should be removed from the "Other connections" section here. Abdulmutallab's section seems excruciatingly detailed for this page considering that his attempt was unsuccessful. Hasan's section is also very long and goes into the red-flag issue -- that the US military should have known something bad could happen -- which may be more of a subject for Hasan's article than AA's. Although I do find it interesting that since the Fort Hood incident, every terrorism investigation includes a mention of e-mail to AA so maybe it does belong here. Thundermaker (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

ADL does not appear to be a reliable source as cited

Vis-a-vis this edit[27] I do not believe ADL is either a neutral party, nor a terribly authoritative secondary source, on this particular kind of claim. To say something "reportedly" happened, one should say who did the reporting. If it's a legitimate, true statement (and I think it probably is) then other sources will say the same thing. Are they there? Let's find and add those sources. Do they report it as fact or do they just report that ADL claims this, in which event it would need an inline citation: "according to the ADL...". - Wikidemon ([[User talk:|talk]]) 05:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon; ADL is nowhere close to being a neutral and objective source. If the content is accurate and notable, it should not be difficult to find a more objective and neutral source to use for reference. And if they report that a claim originated from the ADL, an inline citation is appropriate. Wildbear (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ADL does not state it as fact. They say "according to some reports". So even "ADL claims that..." would not be weak enough, it should be "ADL reported that some sources claimed...". Thundermaker (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Where are his websites?

In the first paragraph of the introduction it reads "With a blog, a Facebook page, and many YouTube videos, he has been described as the 'bin Laden of the internet.'" Why doesn't the article provide links to these pages? __meco (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream news articles don't seem to mention. They probably don't want to promote terrorism. I wonder how being on the specially-designated terrorist list affects the web. I'm sure he can't use a US hosting company, or a US domain registry. He may have something in the .ye domain (Yemen). Does US law or a National Security Letter require Google to filter such results? Thundermaker (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to find him on Facebook but was unsuccessful. __meco (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that some of his web pages were pulled down after his more recent activities ... the article used to mention this, at least as to his home page. The facebook page is available in archived format.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the sources should be disclosed ( blog and facebook page ) or better not even say there are ( or should be ?) blog or facebook page . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.90.168 (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Self-pub source

Is Harry Helms' "40 Lingering Questions About The 9/11 Attacks", a self-published source, reliable? Not according to WP:SELFPUBLISH, unless he's an expert in the area.VR _talk 20:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead is the government brief in its 'case against al-Awlaki'

So, I added the POV tag. The lead is too long, but also needs to have at least a little balance toward the defense version of 'who Anwar al-Awlaki' is. I suggest, for example, using portions of [28], in which the govt of Yemen indicates that al-Awlaki is not a member of al Qaeda. In addition, the lead should reference the current lawsuit (against governments having the right to kill a citizen without providing any due process).Haberstr (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. The lead reflects what the RSs have supported. Much of it, most in fact, AA has not disputed, and much he has confirmed. And of course AA has appeared on AQ-logoed video. I agree as to the point vis a vis mentioning the lawsuit in the lede, however.

The Yemeni government didn't say he wasn't a member of Al Qaeda; they said they had received no evidence. The fact that the US has not shared intel is not surprising. The FM's comment that the Yemeni government would continue to treat him as a preacher (as opposed to arresting him) came in response to threats from his clan (al-Awalik or Awlaq). I think the article could use more details about the tribe. Is his father the tribe leader? Thundermaker (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Haberstr. The article is biased, unacceptable for a BLP, and takes US government sources - who have a history of unreliability concerning national security accusations - at face value. The worst thing is its lack of questioning of the (imho preposterous) idea, blithely unopposed in the lead, that the president, the United States National Security Council, or any organ of the US government has the legal authority to order the killing one of its own citizens, against which it has produced no evidence of and not charged with committing a crime, and that such action would itself be anything other than a prosecutable crime. There are plenty of RS's that argue on the side of sanity. Glenn Greenwald springs to mind. Yes, I know, sofixit. Unfortunately I have had very little time recently to assemble them and add them.John Z (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

yes some links to ( for example ) http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations and http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/25/secrecy could be needed . . . the main reason why this guy is famous is beacause he is on a list of american citizens you can kill without trial . . . hum perhaps a link to the US constitution could be useful too ?

His latest http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/02/assassinations/index.html on this has links to others who are coming to the similar conclusions [29][30]. And following Andrew Sullivan's suggestion in an article responding to Greenwald to "go to Wiki" - Greenwald says

This is what we're reduced to in America: trial by Wikipedia. Apparently, as long as there are enough links on your Wikipedia page to other accused Terrorists, then the President can wave his imperial wand and impose the death penalty on you. Aside from the fact that most of what is on "Wiki" comes from unproven government accusations, and aside from the fact that it's almost all rank guilt by association...

John Z (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Except ... he is wrong. But that's fine. His job is to take positions and sell "papers", not to report facts. Clearly, he misrepresents the article. It does a fine job of doing what wiki sets out to do -- reporting what the RSs have reported, faithfully. His comment is notably shy on details. I do think, however, that the first-above comments are good ones -- the Yemen govt position, if in an RS, should be reflected, and the lawsuit reflected in the lede.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Pentagon

This is the guy that was invited to the Pentagon month after 9/11 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/21/national/main6978200.shtml --24.94.251.190 (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why this hasn't yet being added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.151.201 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Because it will destroy his boogeyman status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.31.57 (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It is now in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Change in Weight?

Someone changed the weight of this person from 160 to 320 pounds. Not sure that this is correct, just looking at his photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timshuwy (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've undone the change. Doubling his weight exactly is probably vandalism. – anna 07:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Guilt by association

I am concerned about adding the category Islamic terrorism to BLP's of individuals who have never been charged nor convicted of any terrorism charges. The article has already the category American Islamists what should be enough. There is a problem with WP:BLP as "associations" are not enough to justify this category. IQinn (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree w/the sysop who most recently reverted your deletion. The RS sourcing/listing of him on terrorism lists is sufficient. There is simply no requirement along the lines that you suggest. Would you have suggested a month ago that Bin Laden not be in that cat? This isn't a close call, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you add the category "American murderers" to a BLP of someone who is strongly "assosiated" with a murder and listed on the FBI most wanted list but has never been charged with the murder nor concicted? Why do we have exceptional rules for BLP's of people "assosiated" with terrorism? Should't WP:BLP apply equality to all BLP's? IQinn (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I would add the category (if it existed ) "American murder" to a BLP of someone who is has urged American murder, called for the murder of Americans "without hesitation", said that murder of Americans was incumbent on people, is on various national and international murder lists, is robustly referred to in RSs as a supporter and engager in American murder, etc. Then again, I would also add the cat to a professor who was an expert in the field.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:American murderers no need to speak about fiction. IQinn (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note the difference in the name of the category I referred to. It is important. All manner of people related to this subject, who are by no means terrorists, are included.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That's is noted and does not answer my questions. IQinn (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You are not understanding. The cat is not "terrorist". It is terrorism. All manner of non-terrorists are in it--including those who encourage it and those who study it and those who are against it.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is your personal definition and why does George W. Bush does not have the category Islamic terrorism? IQinn (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Osama bin Laden was never charged with any crime, either. Google "FBI Admits No Evidence against bin Laden". Same goes for "Al Qaeda." Zbigniew Brzezinski testified before Congress that "Al Qaeda" was a "mythical historical narrative." And Brezinski should know, since he hired the mujahadin, and Tim Osman to play "OBL".. FWIW. Stan Battles (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Battles is of course correct. Which is the point here. It is not a requirement.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Epeefleche. Still, I find that position, the willingness to use WP as a tool to promulgate and sustain unfounded allegations and outright fabrications -- even against those Americans of Arab descent such as Mr. Awlaki -- to be biased and "morally offensive." Stan Battles (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sbattles -- your battle is with what the RS sources say. You are disputing them, because of your personal POV which you have reflected above. But the article reflects them fairly and accurately, which is what WP's remit is. If you believe that the RSs are replete with unfounded allegations and outright fabrications, as I pointed out above the mantra of wp is verifiability -- not truth. Editors will not engage here in an argument as to whether the RSs are -- as you charge -- replete with unfounded allegations and outright fabrications. that would be fine in a blog-like forum, but wp is not a forum. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right: I do see that, in vetting a couple of your "reliable sources" (e.g., FOX News, et.al.), it's fairly obvious that they are injecting a lot of weasel words, exaggerations, and conjectural feldecarb, but they do state these things as 'fact,' much in the manner that the 'facts' about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were originally promulgated on WP. 98.174.198.66 (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual leader

Why is this guy considered a "spiritual leader" when he advocates the killing of Christians and Jews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.227 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(I've created this subsection and moved IP user's comment into it.) I think what IP user is asking is why do we have this "spiritual leader" description in the intro? The term is certainly vague, and I wonder if the sources use the term.--S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

He is commonly referred to as such ... see here.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The truth is we don't really KNOW that Al-Awlaki advocates killing anyone; this is very likely US propaganda. Moreover, it is an affrontry that the article quotes a US agency's uncorroborated claims and laughable opinions about Al-Awlaki, e.g., his being "the world's most dangerous man." IMO, the entire introduction is rife with conjecture, and should be deleted and rewritten.

WP's mantra is verifiability, not truth. Claims/views by notable persons and organizations are notable, and have been appropriately attributed.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the information was labeled as such, as "claims" and not, e.g., "warnings", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbattles (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP's approach is to limit the phrase "claim" to matters such as a claim in a court case. Otherwise, we run the risk of an editor calling a "claim" any statement by a notable person or institution that he dislikes. A more neutral phrase tends to introduce less editor POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The definition of "claim" (v.) is as in "allege." Moreover, what good is served by allowing a WP editor to concoct a work of fiction about a person based upon hearsay from 'reliable sources' and offer it up as if were the truth? - My god, shouldn't WP:HOAX apply here..?! -- How about applying the WP guidelines re unsubstantiated claims within Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP)? -- "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered..." At the very least, pull this article until it can be rewritten and an NPOV is achieved. ...Stan Battles (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Said" is almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. To write that someone "claimed" something can call their statement's credibility into question (and improperly advance the POV of an editor seeking to do that), by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. That's why it is a word that we generally avoid on wp, unless used in a specialized sense, as in a court case "claim".--Epeefleche (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I see your point, and I agree, care is necessary. Shouldn't care be brought to bear against unsubstantiated assertions, especially those rendered by bureaucrats and politicians, particularly when people's lives are at stake?, e.g., "George W Bush says there are WMDs in Iraq" - stated as if factual - vs. "Pres. Bush claims there are WMDs in Iraq." The former smacks of advocacy, while the latter encourages reader discretion. FWIW. Stan Battles (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Crime

Has Al-Awlaki ever been officially accused of any crime (capital or not) or served with a warrant? He does not lead, and has never led, a terrorist organization, so why the statement about 'number one terrorist' and the many statements from US officials implying that he deserves to be killed because he is some sort of criminal? 96.26.213.146 (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

^^^I completely concur. AFAIK, Al-Awlaki "warranted" an illegal death sentence, for (a) knowing too much about Sept 11th, and (b) having a bully pulpit to disseminate details about DoD, CIA and Mossad complicity in the operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbattles (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Claims/views by notable persons and organizations are notable, and have been appropriately attributed.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And likely "appropriately attributed" to an inaccurate source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbattles (talk • contribs) 15:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP's mantra is verifiability, not truth.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please point me to the WP Policy which advocates that mantra. ... Stan Battles (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)3

-Never mind; I found it. Stan Battles (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If the claim by such a "notable person" happens to be untrue, such as the one which asserts Anwar that Al-Awlaki is the "number one terrorist" when he is not accused of terrorism, shouldn't it at least be removed from the lede? The lede does not make it clear that this is a lie, and that Anwar al-Awlaki is not on the most wanted list for terrorists, nor is he even being accused of terrorism. To include such a dubious claim in the first paragraph of this article without clarification seems very amateurish. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

POV tag-bombing

It is requested that Battles stop battling, and tag-bombing the article. He has made his personal POV clear here. But that is not reason to tag-bomb an article that fairly reflects the RSs -- even if it does not match his personal point of view. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I request you stop removing the tag and tries to solve your problems with him here on the talk page. IQinn (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• This article has undergone extensive collaborative writing by a number of experienced editors over the last two years and, on the whole, is the product of a balanced compromise buttressed with many citations to RSs. I am not seeing a problem with POV-pushing one way or another and agree there is no need for such a tag.

  There will always be editors who believe Anwar is a “controversial Muslim scholar” (yes, we really had editors trying to push that as the most accurate way to describe him), and there will always be editors who want to paint him as the devil reincarnated. There is no way to make everyone happy.

  All that can be done is to look towards the secondary RSs for guidance on what is notable about the individual to ensure undo weight is not placed on any one aspect of the man so a neutral point of view is maintained. Tag deleted. Greg L (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Greg, I am not asking that WP "try to please everyone"; I'm simply suggesting that someone rewrite the introduction to bring it into alignment with WP policies. Stan Battles (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sbattles, the lede of the article is the product of protracted give & take. The compromise that was crafted—and which is reflected in the current lede—was to adhere closely to how the major, most-reliable, secondary English-language RSs that are geared to a general-interest readership characterize al‑Awlaki. By following how these RSs characterize what is notable about the man, the lede appears to be largely devoid of biases such as how al‑Awlaki kisses puppies as well as how he routinely fails to use Old Spice deodorant each morning. I don’t see that there are any significant shortcomings in the lede what warrant a tag. You are more than welcome to participate in improving the lede. I encourage you to be specific here on the talk page about what precisely does not please you about the lede in its current form and seek consensus with others on how to improve it. Greg L (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche: The violations of Wikipedia policies WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, et.al., in the introduction are clear, even to those who are not seasoned editors. -- Said violations, which are disputed, are hardly a "personal point of view." Since no action has been taken to correct the deficiencies in this section, what is one left to assume about this? That there is an agenda contrary to WP that is being followed. Stan Battles (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sbattles -- your battle is with what the RS sources say. You are disputing them, because of your personal POV which you have reflected above. But the article reflects them fairly and accurately, which is what WP's remit is.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but once again, my "personal POV" is not the issue; the article is obviously lacks integrity and not in compliance with WP policies. Stan Battles (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not obvious to me and apparently not to Epeefleche. So please be specific. Greg L (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have concerns regarding, among other thigs, the misuse of reliable sources, i.a.: For example, "In August 2010, al-Awlaki's father sued the U.S. government... challenging its order to kill al-Awlaki, but a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit..." In reality the case was dismissed because of a procedural problem; unfortunately this concoction is a non sequitur that leaves the reader with the impression that a federal judge condoned the assassination of al-Awlaki. This is only one example. There are so many.

Other attributions in the intro may technically be of "reliable sources" but unfortunately, the sources themselves are quoting undisclosed or unidentified sources, using weasel words, such as, "US officials say"(-which US officials...?), or, "It is believed that Awlaki..." (who believes that...?). I should think that this would fail for being "poorly sourced." One could easily suspect that, with this kind of sloppy attribution, the article is being used to help bolster a case against Awlaki, rather than present a neutral view of him. FWIW. Stan Battles (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• As to your first point, (that the lawsuit was dismissed), as I vaguely recalled, the lawsuit was dismissed because the judge found that al-Awlaki's father lacked legal standing to file suit. If that point is missing from the article, it would be good to add it.

  As for “reliable (government) sources” (that are anonymous), that is a common reality in the war on terror; government officials often state certain matters of fact off the record. As wikipedians, we consider how germane and topical the issue is and whether the secondary RS is exceedingly reliable. In many cases in this particular article, the same government sources told multiple highly reliable RSs: The New York Times and Newsweek.

  As to your final point (a neutral view of him): it depends on what you mean by “neutral”. If you mean that Wikipedia’s article should leave the reader with an overall neutral impression of al‑Awlaki, that is not possible because most-reliable, English-language secondary RSs portray him as a very bad man. It would be a different matter if the English-language version of Wikipedia considered Jihad Gazette an RS. But we don’t. Mere wikipedians do not act as gray-beard, cigar-chewing chief editors of The New York Times and decide on our own what is “fair and neutral”; we must try to follow the lead of most-reliable RSs in deciding what is notable about the man. Most English-language RSs picked up on his declaring jihad on America and dwell on that point, as well as how America designated him for targeted killing. Greg L (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What about non-English language sources? No one is requesting "Jihad Gazette", just a neutral depiction of the man which does not paint him as a satanic terrorist or somehow evil person. Just because English language sources describe him in a certain way or reflect a point of view about him doesn't mean that his Wikipedia biography needs to do that. There is immense bias in the US media, and some material published in news sources from the Anglosphere is one-sided. This doesn't mean Wikipedia has to echo the slant of Western publications; we can (and do) indeed decide on our own what is "neutral" and what is not. An objectively-written portrait of al-Awlaki should include different perspectives rather than just that of Western media. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Quoting the I.P.: No one is requesting "Jihad Gazette", just a neutral depiction of the man which does not paint him as a satanic terrorist or somehow evil person. Wikipedia looks to the totality of the RSs for guidance as to what is notable about the individual to ensure undo weight is not placed on less notable aspects of the individual.

  Further quoting the I.P.: Just because English language sources describe him in a certain way or reflect a point of view about him doesn't mean that his Wikipedia biography needs to do that. Yes it does. Since al‑Awlaki is a living individual—even though one of headlining infamy—Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is a useful guide as to the governing policies here.

  As to the I.P.’s last point: An objectively-written portrait of al-Awlaki should include different perspectives rather than just that of Western media, note that Osama bin Laden (another notable terrorist) received a “nuclear fatwa” from a Saudi cleric who divined that God’s will is that it would be OK to use weapons of mass destruction to kill up to ten million Americans. I’m certain there are plenty of non-Western publications that Wikipedia could look towards that consider such a prospect to be cool beans; the English-language version of Wikipedia is not obligated to try to seek *balance* to accommodate the view that God might truly get a big belly laugh whenever tens of millions of people are incinerated with a nuclear bomb. Greg L (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Usama bin Ladin, Anwar al-Awlaki is not a terrorist (do you even know what you are talking about?). And no, just because there is shallow, gossip journalism about the subject of a Wikipedia article, does not mean that WP article must echo its point of view or even make mention of it (unless the piece of yellow journalism is notable itself). For the Wikipedia article to simply copy the narrative of "headlining infamy" is unencyclopedic and not neutral. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I know what I’m talking about. Anwar has been designated by a respected Western democracy as being a planner and trainer for al-Qaeda and all of its franchises. He is on video personally declaring holy war on America. Proof enough that he makes *poor choices*. The Executive branch of the U.S. feels that he is a sufficient threat to the lives of its citizens to have targeted him for the same treatment that Osama received. All the preceding are facts which makes him a terrorist. Period. I won’t be baited by an I.P./Stan Battles, nor do I see further discussion with you as benefiting the English-language version of Wikipedia. We’ll just have to disagree about what a misunderstood *splendid* individual Anwar is. You actually might be Right®™©. Unfortunately, the consensus here is not in alignment with your wishes and is to instead follow the lead of most-reliable RSs with regard to how to characterize Anwar and focus on those topics considered most notable about the individual.

  The consensus, Stan Battles, is that this article is in no need of being tagged-bombed to please someone who doesn’t even accept that Anwar is a terrorist and therefore wants this article rewritten so it doesn’t follow what Newsweek and The New York Times write (shallow, gossip journalism as you say) so Wikipedia can strike off and do its own thing to make the article more “neutral”. That’s not how Wikipedia works. You will just have to accept that. I am quite done here because it is a simple fact that there are individuals who don’t respond to reason. Goodbye and have a swell day. Greg L (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

@Greg L, Sorry, but the I.P. you were so presumptuously addressing is certainly not my own.Italic text -Stan. This is my I.P. -> 98.174.198.66 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is clearly in dispute. I've only begun to enumerate its many flaws. I've already demonstrated that the editorsa are abusing reliable sources, above. Is there anyone here who is capable of addressing that issue? Also, I've brought up the tabloid-ism in the "lede", e.g., "the Bin Laden of the Internet," the "world's most wanted terrorist," etc. It's rather incredible that "two years of consensus building" resulted in an article so biased. And yes, I will be happy to point out where the article deviates from WP policy.

Greg L's statement above re bin Laden receiving a "nuclear fatwa" (!) is irrelevant to the bio of Anwar Awlaki, (not to mention that weapons of mass destrcution are completely against Islam). OBL was never charged with any act of terrorism, simply for lack of any evidence. (Google "FBI Admits Bin Laden No Hard Evidence"); "OBL" was connected to 9/11 on a lark, by the speculations of then-CIA director George Tenet. Shortly after 9/11 OBL publicly denied any involvement in the attacks. One wonders what "terrorist" would deny attacks of that magnitude. AFAIK, Mr. Awlaki has yet to be charged with anything more than what amounts to "thought crimes" yet rogue elements in the highest levels of US Gov't have stepped above the law to violate his human right to life without warrant or due process. Awlaki was wanted for questioning by the Feds in Denver, but the order was dropped by the prosecutor there, and Mr. Awlaki was allowed to depart the US for Yemen, despite being on a "no-fly" list. -Stan 98.174.198.66 (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have not seen this "jihad declaration" video from Anwar al-Awlaki, or any of his videos for that matter, but if that is the extent to which he has been involved in terror-related activities, then it certainly does not make him a terrorist. Personally, I consider it criminal for my country's government to attempt the assassination of one of its own citizens, who is not himself a known criminal (nor is he on any most wanted list, unlike Usama bin Ladin; nor has he led a terrorist organization or launched any attacks, unlike bin Ladin). For someone to say something in a video does not make them a terrorist. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• @Battles--I'm not sure I understand your use of the phrase non-sequitur. A lawsuit is brought. It is dismissed. The RSs report that sequence as such. Non-sequitur? That is the precise sequence. And the second could not have taken place had it not followed the first, in that sequence. If you would like further discussion about the lawsuit, we can discuss that. But certainly it is not a non-sequitur. I've turned that phrase over, and really have no idea how you can seriously characterize it as that. As far as your second complaint goes, you seem to again be confusing what we do here. We reflect what the RSs say. As you indicate, we are doing that here. I understand that because of your POV, you dislike what the RSs are reporting, and what they people they report on are saying. I understand that you would like to "bolster a case" for Awlaki. But this isn't the right forum for you to do that. Here, we reflect what the RSs say.

@Epeefetcher, If I understand the concept of 'reliable sources' correctly, quoting a RS in order to make a derivative point is abuse of the reliable source, as is quoting a RS that is not an authority in that particular domain, such as, employees of the US Treasury regarding the nature and effects of "terrorism." IOW, a source is not reliable when speaking outside of his/her domain and should not be promoted as a RS in that particular instance (c.f., abuse of reliable sources). -Stan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.198.66 (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@Mr. IP -- Are you saying that your concerns are the same as those of Battles? Or are you saying something less (e.g., lets add more procedural detail on the dismissal of the dismissed case)? As top your other points, I concur with GL's observations. But please let me know if you are agreeing with Battles, or presenting a different view. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I feel that my concerns are generally the same as Sbattles' concerns about this article, re: bias, etc. However, I don't agree with Sbattles on the specifics Anwar al-Awlaki's case, above he asserted something about a Mossad/Zionist plot being involved behind the scenes, which I have a hard time believing. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

@Mr. I.P: -- I stated this, above: "AFAIK, Al-Awlaki "warranted" an illegal death sentence for (a) knowing too much about Sept 11th, and (b) having a bully pulpit to disseminate details about DoD, CIA and Mossad complicity in the operation." These were claims made by Mr. Awlaki in one of his YouTube videos. He divulged information about the 9/11 plot, credible since, according to a federal whistleblower, Mr. Awlaki was a "moderate Muslim American" working closely with the Pentagon at around that time. Awlaki allegedly has other ties to US Gov't. entities, which might also be addressed in this article, if they haven't been already.

Re Mossad/CIA complicity in 9/11, this was divulged by former GLADIO operative and former President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga. Google "Cossiga 9/11" for his statements. -Stan 98.174.198.66 (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)