Talk:Killing of Nawar al-Awlaki

An anonymous user repeatedly “removes bias” from the article, but all they’re doing is reverting edits with relating facts and information.

The anonymous user “2600:1700:C3D1:28A0:E1C2:D13A:CA93:1CFC” continuously removes relevant information about President Trump and the Trump administration in this article, keeps falsely calling it “bias.” Is there a way to have the user prohibited or protect the page from this? TheXuitts (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone keeps replacing Trump with Obama. Can someone protect or semi-protect the page? Thanks. TheXuitts (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 21:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Nawar al-Awlaki → death of Nawar al-Awlaki – Given that 95% of the prose in this article is only concerned with the death of the subject, it's not a biography. IAW WP:BIO1E, shouldn't this article reside at death of Nawar al-Awlaki? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:BLP1E. Only the death is notable. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion of Robert Gibbs Quote

I would like to ask whether other users feel it is relevant and appropriate to include Press Secretary Robert Gibbs's quote about Abdurahman Al-Awlaki: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.". Here are several points to consider that may not make it relevant:

1. The killing of Nawar al-Awlaki was a result of a foreign policy decision that took place under a different presidential administration, and so Mr. Gibb's justifications on behalf of the Obama administration would not be relevant here. It would be more appropriate to replace it with a statement from someone representing the Trump administration.

2. Abdurahaman Al-Awlaki spent the majority of his life with his father Anwar Al-Awlaki, while Nawar al-Awlaki spent the majority of her life without Anwar. The Gibb's quote therefore does not apply in the same way as it does to Abdurahman due to the different family relationships.

Please share your thoughts. @Louis Waweru

Thank you. Djrun (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Djrun, the Gibbs quote offers an explanation of how Abdurahaman, and this child, became victims of the War on Terror–an ongoing campaign that exists outside of presidential administrations, spanning beyond Obama and Trump both backwards and forward in time–by stating parents who become jihadi terrorists place their children's well-being at risk. In this family's case, the kids' deaths stem from their father being labeled such a terrorist in the War on Terror, which is the point Gibbs makes.

Regarding relevance and appropriateness, I'll point out that this killing was covered by the media because of her familial relations. There are thousands of children who have been incidentally killed in similar missile strikes and raids that will never covered on Wikipedia or in the media. The killing of the al-Awlaki children is different exactly because of their shared father.

Removing the quote by isolating Nawar's death from the context of her family's would be in the disinterest of readers. Likewise, placing her death in a bubble of things related to the Trump administration, as opposed to the greater context (both in relevance and appropriateness, as well as what Gibbs implies is truly relevant) of her family, the War on Terror, children killed by U.S. forces during the war, would also be a disservice to readers.

The quote does a good job of tying her death together with her family's, the Terror campaign which transcends presidencies, and offers a reason to why children are killed as part of the campaign.

I haven't been able to see how deleting the quote would improve the article, or why it would be worthwhile to strip context away from the article. Would you please let me know what benefit will come from removing the quote?

Many thanks, Louis Waweru  Talk  22:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This quote doesn’t make much sense for this page, we don’t even know if Nawar and Abdulrahman knew each other. This quote would be more appropriate on his page rather than the one about Nawar, since it is completely unrelated to her killing. TheXuitts (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Gibbs is talking about how the U.S. views extrajudicial killings with American children as collateral damage. It would be appropriate on any of their pages. I listed several reasons why it is related to her killing, without addressing them and just saying it is "completely unrelated" shouldn't satisfy removal. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 08:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

In this article, there are four listed citations for the Gibbs commentary and block quote about Abdulrahman being killed in a drone strike. Assuming they are all reliable secondary sources (I haven't read them), do any of them make a connection in any way from Gibbs' statements to Nawar al-Awalki and her fatal shooting during a commando raid? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Gibbs makes the general case for why the United States will kill American children many years before her shooting. Gibbs' generalization is just as valid for her killing given it applies to an endless, continuous war. That it was the death of both siblings shouldn't make want for deletion. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 23:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The quote is the only link to the actions of Americans to her death. Remove it and we shot her in the neck because of what exactly? Please add it if you cant link to a line in the Wiki.

Leave the quote and her death has some sense of causality. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 13:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The subject of the text regarding Gibbs is why we, Americans, kill American children using the executive branch via the CIA. In other words, how the CIA kills Americans lawfully by manipulating our institutions. The quote applies to Americans in general and the deaths in this family are all American casualties. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 13:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

So instead of reliable secondary sources making these connections and inferences about the killing of 8 year old Nawar (that the United States feels it is justified in killing children, as stated by a former White House press secretary making unprepared remarks that might suggest that, in an endless continuous war wherein the CIA seeks to kill Americans lawfully by manipulating institutions), the content has been inserted and arranged this way by a Wikipedia editor in order to make that inference for the reader? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I admit assuming that affected readers will have read the Constitution and understand the novelty of how to legally kill a family protected by it.

If you want to support or counter that recap, I don't mind. But you can't discount support of those facts by restating them. If unprepared remarks on planned killings don't satisfy, just add the scripted version, but don't remove the candid remarks. There is a much earlier example of when we are allowed to kill children. We say it go from triggerman, up the chain of command, and into the little bodies in the Collateral Murder video that Julian Assange is currently being persecuted for. There are examples of the same story from any given year. Why is this concept dubious? Talk⁄Louis Waweru 02:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

What's dubious is adding and arranging content to make this connection (Gibb's earlier off the cuff remark about Abdulrahman's death, to Nawar's killing in a commando raid), for point of view purposes to subtly editorialize, when that connection isn't actually being made in secondary reliable sources. Had it been done by even a single 2RS here, it would be fine, but what we've got right now is a form of POV pushing that is not supported by any sourcing making that connection. What's needed here is the removal of the Gibbs quote (deleted for cause previously by two other editors here and here), and perhaps the addition of 2RS content that expands on the news reporting about the raid having been authorized without sufficient intelligence, ground support, or adequate backup preparations beforehand. Or other 2RS content from reputable sources providing editorial insights and connections (including criticism) specifically about this child's death. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this argument, not to discount Louis' point of viewing the incident in the greater historical context (which I believe is an astute observation), but on the grounds that the reliable sources pertaining to the Nawar incident do not invoke the Gibbs quote. By adding it to this article, I agree that there is a POV issue at play. I vote for removing the quote as well. Would it be fair to give it a few weeks for others to chime in and make a call based on a majority decision? @User:Louis Waweru @User:AzureCitizen Thank you --Djrun (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)