Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki

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

Original comments

• • • Attention Everyone. For the Last time. Anwar Al-Awlaki did NOT write that stuff on his website. It was DEFINITELY someone else. The website, which myself and many others were subscribed to, had another author claiming that Anwar was not available, and that he would be responsible for posting. The website was deleted the next day. Hmmm. Anwar also stated in one of his early lecture that "Muslims in the west should not be on the offensive". On top of all that, the language on the blog was not Anwar's typical language. Again, stop blaming this Muslim for something he did NOT do. One more time, he did NOT type that blog. Thank you.***

Don't delete this page as I am working on increasing information available on this person. He is very famous and has created various audio lectures, which I have listed.

There is no information here on why he was arrested although presumably it is for links to outlawed organisations and acts of terror. The article is exceedingly partisan and references are highly contentious. 100man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.110.202 (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This whole article is just propaganda written by some of al-Awlaki's fans in Londonistan. 209.121.88.198 (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is also written in strict muslimese (mix of English and Arabic terms) and not easily understandable by non-Muslims and non-Arabs.

I think that it should be reduced in size, and some other material (i.e. not only from Islamist websites) should be sought.Giordaano (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any objective information on Awlaki's Islamic education? YuriGuri (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok then.... Please Provide a Counterpoint

It is one thing to claim that that article suffers from bias, and another thing to prove it. Please provide some legitimate counterpoint or alternate information if you are so intent on smearing the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.41.91 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved the 'he is on record...' sentence down to the critical section, where it belongs.Jamal (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to smear the guy, but he issues lectures promoting violent jihad against the US and non-Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.98.19 (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

He was born in New Mexico. There's not a reason in the world to think he was born in Yemen.Verypedantic (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verypedantic (talk • contribs) 22:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. The Sperry source is inadmissible here under WP:RS, but even Sperry indicates he agrees Awlaki was born in New Mexico. ~YellowFives 07:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ft Hood shootings

• Does anyone have a VALID link to confirm his reported statement confirming his support for Hasan? The ones I have seen all seem to be invalid. ::::71.59.183.156 (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The two recent additions to the page - 'Connections to 9/11' and 'Connection to Nidal Malik Hasan' - come from a US military IP address 207.132.184.130 and User:Walterego, a user who consistently minimizes 'Enhanced interrogation techniques' and claims that these techniques are 'not considered torture except by a few left-leaning human-rights activist organizations'. - KappaD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

His opinions do not matter, nor does his IP address. Furthermore, the subject's connections to and support of terrorism is well documented and should be expanded upon, as he was even mentioned in the 9/11 commission report. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop deleting the reference to Awlaki praising the Ft. Hood shootings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.25.210 (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes this article's subject's public statements on worldwide events are not "irrelevant" as stated by the editor who keeps removing the statement. 64.216.106.138 (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the person who keeps removing that reference is connected with Awlaki's blog, and given the current media backlash they seem to be in the process of self-censoring since the blog is offline now and the post praising Hasan is no longer indexed in Google's results.Burhanb1 (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wahhabism

I believe it makes sense to label him a Wahhabi rather than a made up term such as 'qutbi'. Qutbi isn't even a word and more like a term coined by Salafi's trying to differentiate from their radical roots. Using it would confuse lay people who don't have an extended knowledge in extremist groups and the like. Wahhabism on the other hand is widely recognised as a sect therefore it is justifiable to replace Qutbi with Wahhabi. --Huss4in (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wahabism is a made-up derogatory term. Al-Wahhab is one of the glorious names of Allah. Making a perjorative title out of it is insulting and definitely non-neutral POV term. The name of the revivor of Islam is Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, not Wahhab. There is nothing in his teachings that contradict fundamental Islam of Qur'an, Sunnah of the Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam and practice of first 3 righteous generations. -- contributor.

I agree with the "contributor". wahabism is a made up word in itself created by the british. The information given here about Anwar Al awlaki is absolutely biased. There are interviews he's given, where are they? There's a lot of information that's missing also. We need to edit a few places here and there. I am not the one to do that but I hope there's someone out there who can clear this mess of a so called bio. contributor2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billow (talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sources linking Awlaqi to either? Supertouch (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you there. One only needs to look up the term 'Wahhabi' against the term 'Qutbi' in the Oxford English Dictionary to see which word is more established (you'll find that 'Qutbism' is altogether absent). Merriam-Webster's Dictionary yields the same result. As for sources linking him to them, currently his website is down so it will be difficult obtaining credible sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.47.130 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point at least the article simply reflects what the sources say, rather than characterize AAS itself. Hence, "Al-Awlaki is an adherent of the Wahhabi fundamentalist sect of Islam".--Epeefleche (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Works

Does it make sense to list his unpublished writings? Even some of his other works may not be significant, we don't always list the entire bibliography of people. Rich Farmbrough, 02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

11k hits per day?

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

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

another source - this guy is wanted now

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_fort_hood_imam US imam wanted in Yemen over al-Qaida suspicions

Extremist sources

WorldNetDaily is an extremist source and can not be cited here. That goes for their publishing house WND Books, and their Washington bureau chief Paul Sperry. ~YellowFives 09:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

In any case the Sperry book is being misunderstood. Sperry indicates that he does not think there is any doubt that Awlaki was born in New Mexico. His claim is that Awlaki just told US officials he was born in Yemen so that he could get a visa. But I know of no reliable sources that back up this claim. ~YellowFives 09:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are new to Wikipedia, and we have a policy of not biting the newbies. But I see no evidence that the publisher is considered an extremist source. Or that the fact that one of the publishers is conservative makes it a non reliable source. Or any consideration of the other publisher. Or any consideration of what the source is being used for.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you not familiar with WorldNetDaily? Openly partisan sources require special scrutiny, but WND is not merely partisan. They certainly are not "conservative" in any sense that the late William F. Buckley, Jr. would recognize. They are conspiracy theorists, the fringiest of the fringe. It is like citing the John Birch Society. They are Birthers.[1][2] ~YellowFives 10:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

First, they are connected to the publisher. Not the author. And no, I'm not aware that anything by that publisher is non-RS. And there's nothing fringe in the comment that they are quoted for. And again--you seem to be ignoring this--you keep on ignoring the second publisher. There's nothing at all wrong with them. Nor is there anything fringe in what they are cited for -- they are just cited as to what was said in the book.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

His family was in New Mexico when Anwar was born. There is not any dispute about this fact. Is this like how Barack Obama's mother flew from Hawaii to Kenya at the last minute to give birth in a village? ~YellowFives 10:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't you have to get ready for work soon?  :) Seriously, though, I read the book differently. And my other points stand. You still haven't even mentioned why you've twice deleted the ref to the book by the other publisher.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sperry does not believe that Awlaki was born in Yemen. You have misunderstood him. On his website he says that the US is Awlaki's real birthplace.[3] His claim is that Awlaki misrepresented his own birthplace in order to get a visa as a Yemeni national. ~YellowFives 11:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Dave Gaubatz claims that he personally found Saddam's WMDs, but the Bush administration engineered a massive conspiracy to cover up this fact.[4]
• Dave Gaubatz claims that Obama is a Muslim and a self-admitted crackhead.[5]
• Dave Gaubatz claims that the US military has a secret ray gun.[6]
• Dave Gaubatz claims that "a vote for Hussein Obama is a vote for Sharia Law."[7] ~YellowFives 12:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WND has consistantly been determined to be an unreliable source on WP:RSN. If it is the sole source for a questionable fact, that fact should be removed. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Hipocrite. If you have more time, could you please also have a look at the source from Paul Sperry (a WND writer) which Epeefleche is interpreting to mean that Awlaki was born in Yemen, in context of this detail from Sperry's own website where he says that the US is Awlaki's real birthplace. ~YellowFives 14:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Sperry to comment, but if his book is a reliable source of fact for the biography, so is his website. If the book and the website disagree as to statements of fact (which is not clear at all, from what's provided on this talk page), perhaps the best solution is not to mention the disputed fact at all. Hipocrite (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. It is my contention that Sperry is not a reliable source in any case, but we'll see if anyone else comments. ~YellowFives 15:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing from WorldNet Daily can be used as a reliable source in this way. As Hipocrite says, we've discussed this before. Sperry's website isn't a reliable source either. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That does not mirror the responses at the noticeboard, which (for the first time, best I can tell) discussed the book publisher (though the magazine had been discussed before, without consensus). In any event, the facts asserted have now been confirmed.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington

Are we discussing whether Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington (Thomas Nelson, 2005. ISBN 1595550038 ) meets WP:RS ?

1. Book has plenty of reviews:

• Review from the Middle East Quarterly.
• Review from the Center for the Study of Intelligence by its current curator Hayden B. Peake.
• Review from the Atlas Society

2. Book has ISBN and can be found in lots of academic libraries. See here.

3. Thomas Nelson meets WP:RS.

What is it that overrides these 3 facts? --Firefly322 (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We are discussing, I think, Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America -By P. Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry published by WorldNet Daily. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just created an article stub for Muslim Mafia.--Firefly322 (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We were discussing both, as Yellow kept on deleting both.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely RS. The problem here clearly is people who think WP can't publish material which conflicts with their POV. WP is for ALL sides, Jihadists and terrorist conspiracy theories as long as they can be verified by RS. This is getting very good whoever tracked down the Awlawki interview that said he didn't tell Hasan to shoot anybody in particular (even though he's told everybody that every good muslim should shoot US soldiers, he wasn't meaning to suggest to Hasan that he really meant it, though since he did such a thing, it was a good thing anyway) Fortunately for Awlawki, it looks like the FBI (and everybody else) still hasn't come to the conclusion that there could have been any way AW could have possibly induced Hasan to attack based on the intercepts they read. Bachcell (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

There must be something in the water. This issue has now spawned this and this.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Unclassified Thesis

Check this out:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22497764/TO-OUR-GREAT-DETRIMENT-IGNORING-WHAT-EXTREMISTS-SAY-ABOUT-JIHAD

Hopefully a thesis at the National Defence Intelligence College is a reliable source, it's been noted by many websites.Bachcell (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify a bit: It is as you say a thesis "at" the National Defense Intelligence College, not from them. It is a thesis submitted from and by Stephen Collins Coughlin to be precise and "the views expressed in this paper are those of the author...". So the question is, how to establish weight about his opinion, (which could be found out if you would provide the sources/websites that noted this thesis). Don't stop short.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: And it's from 2007. Doesn't really matter.The Magnificent Clean-keeper(talk) 23:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Polemical essay or biography?

Honestly now, does anyone think that "While the western media downplayed links to terrorism and pointed to PTSD and harassment as possible motives," is even remotely appropriate for a biography of a living person? This article is turning more and more into a polemical essay. Stop it. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The important thing is that while Awlawki would never call it a "terrorist" act, he certainly agrees with those who would call it a terrorist act, based on the motivation, which is to kill US troops in defence of Islamic fighters against threats to Islam or Jihad. You would agree with that? The media's standard explanations are insanity, PTSD, and harassment, and don't you even think of calling it terrorism or you're guilty of racism/Islamaphobia. I'll tone it down, I see your point. Bachcell (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a wikipedia article about a person. Your statements about the media and whatever are totally irrelevent to this article about a person. Don't talk about things that have nothing to do with the person. Hipocrite (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Did Awlawki believe Hasan acted against soldiers bound to kill Muslims?

..fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims..

This edit was reverted as irrelevant. But it is very important to contrast the media explanations - PTSD, harassment, mental state, lone shooter, with what Awlawki very clearly outlines what he believes the motivation was - Jihad against the non-muslim enemy about to "kill muslims". So why isn't it allowed to simply state "Awlawki clearly justified the killings in military terms of killing soldiers just before they were being deployed" rather that just leaving the raw text for people to puzzle over what it means? How and where can this edit be changed/put where it works better? The FBI's failure to call it a terrorist act, or even mention it on their web page, or put Awalawki is also very curious. That would only be consistent with the entire pattern since the beginning of this case of officials consistently deciding to NOT handle this as Isalamic terrorism if at all possible, though that precedes the present administration. Bachcell (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• • disputed edit ** Many accounts in the western media and statements by US officials such as President Obama discounted or were critical of attempts or "jumps to conclusions" linking the Fort Hood shooting to Islam, or characterising it prematurely as terrorism. But shortly after the shooting al-Awlaki's now defunct website appeared to state that the action was entirely in accordance with his viewpoint of Islam which justifies a military action, rather than a reaction to Islamaphobic harassment or PTSD. As "a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people" Hasan's actions were justified as "Muslims today have the right -rather the duty- to fight against American tyranny." Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done?

His entire statement reflected the following praise for Nidal Malik Hasan's actions:

Your edit was OR by SYNTH. No one else compared the two different statements. Hipocrite (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a coatrack

Simply plastering a coatrack template is easy enough to do, but I would like to see some defense of that position. Having read what's written about the fellow, and what he is notable for, and having now reread the policy on coatrack, I think that it doesn't apply. The examples of what a coatrack is are illuminating. I don't see this fitting.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Shortly after the shooting, the FBI's initial conclusion by Nov 10 was "at this point, there is no information to indicate Major Malik Nidal Hasan had any co-conspirators or was part of a broader terrorist plot. The investigation to date has not identified a motive". The media did note it left open the possibility that the suspect was a lone actor in a terrorist act." - nothing to do with the subject of this article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Read today's NY Times article. This is totally appropriate, and totally reflective of the RSs reporting on the man. To attach such templates or delete such RS material is innappropriate POV censorship.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

POV

Obviously this article is inherently POV. Attempts at finding a balance are desperately needed. This is most likely possible by reducing the amount of negative POV currently found, ie cutting back sections that aren't needed or repetitive. Grsz¹¹ 18:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This article reflects, fairly, the information that exists in RSs that are accessible. It is innappropriate to say it is POV if much of that information casts a negative light on the man. As an example, if you look at the NY Times and Washington Post articles added today, you will see that the light is not any more positive in those articles than it is here. Feel free to add other RS material that has a different "V" if you like and if you find it. Putting a POV tag on this article is the same as putting one on the Bin Laden or Al Quaeda articles. As long as the Wiki article fairly reflects the RS information, it is IMHO innappropriate to affix the POV tag.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this isn't going to help: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/major-hasans-mail-wait-join-afterlife/story?id=9130339 People with access to emails says he looked forward to meeting in the afterlife, and gave money to charities thought to be terrorist fronts. I think we'll need some help in balancing that from Grsz11. I wonder what Grsz11's point of view is, given the growing amount of evidence of what this was really about. Bachcell (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to remove the POV tag at this point. The article fairly reflcts what has been reported on Awlaki.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: What the heck are all personal messages you sent me at my IP are about? For example:

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Unsourced edits such as these are vandalism.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

where "these" refer to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace". --98.204.201.79 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.201.79 (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Forum posts

Forum uploads are not reliable sources for calling someone a member of a terrorist organization. This seems like pretty basic wikipedia 101. Hipocrite (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

wp:rs indicates that a scholar's statements of opinion is an acceptable source. It was directly attributed to the scholar in the main text of the article, so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Author?

Al-Awlaqi is identified as being an author, however it seems, looking through the works section, that most, if not all, of his works are lectures. Unless we consider his blogging efforts sufficient enough to deem him an author, should we not then refer to him as a speaker, lecturer, preacher or orator? Supertouch (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have changed it to scholar, as that's more reflective of teachings, lecturing, and the like. Grsz¹¹ 03:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good catch.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't he have needed to study the topic he lectures on in a formal academic setting to be considered a scholar? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The best treatment of this I've seen is the NEFA article I added to this article yesterday. It's a fair question. Apparently, though he doesn't have that formal training, he is viewed as such by many of his followers. I've no clear notion how we should treat him in this regard. Also, btw, he wrote at least one essay, which was mentioned in the article but which I've now added to his works.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The NEFA article is good in that regard. His studying was mostly buffed up and exaggerated. "Early Islamic education in Yemen" means the same Koran stories all Muslims grow up with. And between his MA and PhD study in America, the amount of time he could have spent studying in Yemen (all with teachers whom his fans in the West have never heard of) is negligible. I think public speaker might be a more accurate term, as scholar is really an academic one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to Muslim speaker and former imam earlier, scholar definitely is out of the question as that implies having studied which it seems clear this individual did not do. Supertouch (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of my education here--I gather that while in some other religions (e.g., at least I think, usually w/minister, priest, rabbi) it is a title that once the person has it is not dependent upon them having a congregation, that's not the case w/imams. And, I guess another related difference, to become a priest/minister/rabbi, I think one normally gets that credential from a credential-giving school, not just from stepping in and leading a congregation. Am I right about that difference? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, there are two common uses of the word imam. The first, is the prayer leader who stands in front of the congregation to do so (the word imam is derived from the same word meaning in front of). This could be either situational, the person leading others in a prayer for a given prayer usually the one most well versed in Quranic recitation or someone who is actually appointed to be the official imam of a particular mosque or Islamic center as al-Awlaqi was. The second usage, which does not apply at all here, is in deference to an individual scholar who has surpassed all others in a particular era or discipline. The first usage is more static, in a sense, than the latter - a person either leads others in prayer and is therefore an imam, or doesn't and isn't. In the case of the second usage, there are individuals who most would not debate their being an imam - for example, Bukhari. However, it can also be a somewhat political term, loosely applied to any person achieving some marginal prominence - for example, the followers of a splinter group would refer to their leader as imam. Supertouch (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To add to what Supertouch mentioned, the Muslim communities in the world in general seem to be pretty bad about that last point (I'm Muslim myself, that falls under the big book of politically correct rules right?). Anybody who stands up to speak becomes "alim" (scholar), "imam" (most knowledgeable leader of the time), "habeeb" (our beloved), and so forth. Given that, it's good to be cautious about the amount of respect we give to many prominent Muslim motivational speakers - especially the fundamentalists, who often have no formal education in Islamic thought. MezzoMezzo (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Plans on an Islamic extremist website to hijack this article

Recently, a friend emailed me a link to one of the more well-known Islamic extremist websites in the English language. Apparently, they are upset that this article is spreading "lies" against Anwar al-Awlaki and they are trying to organize an effort to change it. I would rather not post the link to give this site any more attention, but this is the message about which I am speaking:

Abu Abdallah al-Bulghari Abu Abdallah al-Bulghari is offline
Senior Member
Muslim Male

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: US
Age: 43
Posts: 3,211
Rep Power: 12
Default Re: Shaykh 'Ubayd al-Jaabiree Warns Against Anwar al-Awlaki
I strongly encourage brothers to participate in editing a Wikipedia page of the Sheikh. I know it's an uphill battle, because editors of Wikipedia are know for their anti-Islamic bias, but this page is number one source right now on-line about the Sheikh, and we can try to use it to remove lies.

Guidelines:

1. Check the references and if the references do not support the claim in the preceding sentence, replace the reference by "citation needed" in square brackets.

2. Remove any POV (point of view) statements that are not explicitly referred as words of a public known figure.

3. Add the facts from his biography illustrating his work that is more acceptable by Westerners.

The name of this website is "Islamic Awakening." I know them well, as I was once the subject (for various reasons) of a few of their rants on that page. They are rather quick to call people infidels and openly support terrorism in many countries. Obviously, one may edit Wikipedia regardless of their political opinions. However, this does seem like a concerted effort beginning to press a specific point of view. It's something to watch out for. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My friend pointed out that to show it straight from the horse's mouth, I post the link. Just let it be known that I don't want to give these people any undue attention. The discussion may be found here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

without making a political issue out of it, I do note that their suggestions are in line with our editing principles. if people do only that, they will be helpful. The concern, of course, is that they may not so limit what they do, so your alert is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If (if) they show up and cause problems it's easily taken care of. If there are'nt, then no harm done. Grsz¹¹ 05:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Here's what else we now know, after over a week of experience. First--the above exhortation was made (at least on that website) about a week prior to its posting here. A glance at the last 25 IP edits (12.5% of all edits made during that time period) indicates that each one of them was reverted as, at minimum, inappropriate/unhelpful while some of them were manifestly vandalism.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Works section

I made this edit to note that the statement is by NEFA, as we can't claim that sort of statement as a fact, as it's clearly their opinion. Grsz¹¹ 05:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tx for mentioning that here. I don't have a major problem if you find that statement controversial, other than your use of the word "claims". I would suggest "says". At the same time, I imagine some might not find the statement controversial as it was, as it is consistent with what Awlaki himself says, which immediately follows, and I could see that point of view as well. In any event, as far as my views go, I'm ok as long as the phrase claims is replaced.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Death?

Based upon the reference provided by the user adding the subjects death date, it seems premature to definitively state that he has died. The exact wording of the BBC article cited is:

Reuters news agency cited a security official saying that a radical Muslim preacher linked to the US army psychiatrist charged over the fatal shooting of 13 people at a US army base was suspected to be among those killed.

I saw we hold off on adding anything to the info boxes until we get a definite. Supertouch (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Other sources are similarly hedged.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Imam Linked to Ft. Hood Rampage Believed to Be AliveGeo8rge (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible CIA connection

Can someone put a possible portion on CIA connection. Some reports and literature seem to suggest a clandestine connection with intelligence services, pointing, among many others, to Awlaki's connection with George Washington University, possibly where he was recruited. His self-imposed exile in 2002 after 9-11 despite the fact that he was pinpointed to have communicated with hijackers. Carmenphilby (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)