Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

conflicting news information

Some sources say that bin Laden was killed in airstrike; others say he was shot. How do we know which is true? --Ixfd64 (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Which ones say it was an "airstrike"? I don't see that at ANY of the major news outlets... 132.3.65.68 (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Me, either. While anything the POTUS says should be treated with suspicion, the leaders of the military are a different matter, and they have confirmed to the press that the official report is correct. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Pre-POTUS speculation included air-strike. I haven't seen any sources after the POTUS' speech that maintained it was an air-strike. Rklawton (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden

An article related to this topic, Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit location request (this is a photo recon confirmed google maps location)

This matches military photos: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=34.169293,73.24261&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=37.136668,72.509766&ie=UTF8&ll=34.168707,73.243339&spn=0.009481,0.017703&t=h&z=16

Photo source ABC news: http://abcnews.go.com/International/slideshow/photos-inside-osama-bin-laden-kill-zone-13508190

Location listed in artical is incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.89.128.5 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious The Telegraph Google Maps location of Bin Ladens' compound

The Thelegraphs' location of Bin Ladens' compound seems to be bogus, because the Google Maps / Earth images of the area are from 2001 according to Google Earth, and the compound was built in 2005 "at the end of a dirt road". So, it can't be visible on Google Maps / Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.131.84 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

6.3 Obama administration

On 02 May 2011 (03:30 UTC), Obama released a statement saying that his soldiers had killed bin Laden. This should read: On 02 May 2011 (03:30 UTC), Obama released a statement saying that American soldiers had killed bin Laden.

as the solders, while under the command of the US military and thus under the commander in chief, belong to no indivdual American citizen and the pronoun "his" implies direct ownership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.8.81 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done: Changed, it did read as if Obama personally owns our troops... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Assassinated?

Should this go in assassination categories? Many of the foreign press, including CNN International, the Jerusalem Post, the New Zealand Herald, are calling this an assassination.24.61.213.154 (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not until, or if, a preponderance of reliable sources start using that term. Keep in mind this guy had declared war on us, so this could be considered an act of war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, since the US isn't at war with Pakistan and Osama Bin Laden hold no elected office, then I don't think any of the definitions for casualty of war/execution/assassination fit. I wonder if we should just go with "Bin Laden was murdered"? Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Murdered? lol. Need I remind you that he fired at the military troops rather than give himself up.

Technically, it qualifies as an assassination due to the fact that bin Laden was "hold-up" as a political fugitive. He was not able to actively involve himself in any "wars" in recent years as a trade-off for being in seclusion/hiding. This comment is somewhat off the cuff, as I am not a bin Laden expert. Nevertheless, by definition it seems more like an assassination than a casualty of war. Dijcks | ^InOut 18:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

He had the choice to surrender. He chose to be killed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Murdered" strikes me as a non-starter suggestion. Without even getting into what the word means and the legal connotation, we can just take a look at the RSs -- it is certainly not a term of choice of the RSs to describe what happened. Wikipedia doesn't engage in POV and OR and insert a term that one or more editors think might be a nice one to use, when the RSs don't share that view.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda had declared war on us, one way or another. He was effectively a "king" who ordered the "assassination" of 3,000 Americans. Just because they don't play by conventional warfare "rules" doesn't mean that somehow it's not a war. And until, or if, a preponderances of reliable sources call it "assassination" or "murder", it's not wikipedia's place to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can call 911 an assassination, nor an act of war, and he was not a king in any sense of the word. His death was obviously a successful political assassination performed by us (regardless of whether he fought back or not before he was shot in the head), but, yes, this is irrelevant WP has to stick with the official party line, as echoed by the press. Ketil (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with BB. Well said. From what we now know at least, I don't see this ending up anything other than what it is now called by the preponderance of RSs -- killed.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a call could be made for using the word "assassination" but, personally I like "killed" better. Assassination has a certain negative connotation of the persons who were involved, hence our military. No thanks on that one. Also the word suggests that the person being killed was possibly worth protecting. bin Laden was not. Also, those 3,000 Americans?, They WERE Murdered, NOT assassinated. Regardless of political or religious motive, he orchestrated the murder of innocent people. Let's stick with the word "killed". The word "murdered" is an insult to those (and their families) who were actually murdered by this man. Dijcks | ^InOut 19:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll presume "sleeps with the fishes" is a non-starter. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama was assassinated. To quote wikipedia, assassination is "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons." This describes exactly what happened. Osama was a very prominent person, he was suddenly and sneakily attacked by a team of soldiers (probably the only way they could have got to him), and as the attack was from a foreign nation, it was political. B. Fairbairn (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Assassination implies he wasn't given the choice to surrender, and assassination is carried out with only one goal which is to kill, the current reporting is that he was given the option to surrender. ^Khukri 12:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The current reporting comes from one side only, and apparently Osama had previously declared that he would never be taken alive. If this is the case any option to surrender is irrelevant. B. Fairbairn (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately that one side does come into reliable sources, until you have attributable RS from the other side (which is highly unlikely considering they're dead) that say he wasn't given the chance of surrender, then we can only go by the sources that meet the guidelines. ^Khukri 12:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Help me understand this date thing.. Observe:

I think it's safe to assume that bin Laden was killed on either May 1st or 2nd, UNLESS conspiracy theories come to prove otherwise yes?

BUT, if the president stated in his national address that, "earlier this morning", and given the president's physical/geographical location, AND the time in which he made the speech (started approximately 12:15am (GMT-4) East coast on May 2nd) , it is safe to assume that he was talking about earlier, on May 1st yes? So, even if the time in Pakistan is 9 hours ahead (GMT+5) of President Obama's geographic location (GMT-4), does it not make sense that the killing took place on May 1st? NOTE: ANY time in the "morning" of a given day (hence May 1st) in the U.S.A. Eastern time, would still also be that day in Pakistan, (hence May 1st).

Consider the TIMELINE: May 02, 2011 at 12:30 am,(GMT-4) President makes announcement. He states that "earlier that morning" (Obviously May 01.) (for him, which was in the USA East coast time). At the very latest possible time in the morning, 11:59am on May 1st (at his location), it would still be May 1st in Pakistan (9 hours later). AND remember that the president held up on making the speech that day as well.

It seems that his "impressions" and "perceptions" of time would be where he currently is, geographically.

What am I missing? thanks all. Dijcks | ^InOut 19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.118.88.177, 2 May 2011

The article says Osama Bin Laden's death date was May second, when it was May first,

98.118.88.177 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done See FAQ. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Correction of date of death

He died on 04/30/11 not on 5/2/11. Same date as Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.204.187 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And you know this - how? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Hitler-Bin Laden death date connection has been made in the NY Daily News.[1]--Epeefleche (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Death Date

according to http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862171-barack-obama-watched-osama-bin-laden-attack-from-the-white-house Osama Bin Laden was killed at 12:55am local time on SUNDAY MAY 1st NOT ON MAY 2nd like it says now. Someone should fix this

 Not done See FAQ. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, please do not shout. Thanks. doomgaze (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change the image of Obama administration officials from File:Osama mission.jpg to File:Obama and Biden await updates on bin Laden.jpg. The latter is identical in content and from the same source but of higher resolution. 184.56.92.166 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone did it. 184.56.92.166 (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Location Update

This site matches the photos in the press exactly.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Osama+Bin+Laden's+Hideout+Compound&aq=&sll=34.169959,73.24261&sspn=0.00498,0.01134&ie=UTF8&hq=Osama+Bin+Laden's+Hideout+Compound&hnear=&t=h&z=17

Dog Food Danny (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The correct spot confirmed: http://abcnews.go.com/International/osama-bin-laden-living-high-hog/story?id=13512167 Dog Food Danny (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mgsko, 2 May 2011

Regarding the section titled "Variations of Osama bin Laden's name", there is no further citation or evidence to support the alternate spelling of 'Osama' as 'Usama'. There is also no citation as to why the name may be abbreviated as 'UBL'.

Mgsko (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: request not answered before talk page archival. Please open a new request on the current talk page. — Bility (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we delete the article Christian fundamentalism from the "See also" section as irrelevant?

I mean, Osama bin Laden and Christian fundamentalism are only very distantly and indirectly related. it is proper to put it as "See also" under the article Muslim fundamentalism but not here. Thoughts?....24.228.127.187 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I have been bold and removed it. Thanks for pointing that out. doomgaze (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree as well.V7-sport (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

They don't have anything to do with each other, so yeah they should be taken out. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding...

From 2001 to 2011, bin Laden and his organization had been major targets of the War on Terror.

Now that he's dead, anyone who currently is a major target of the war?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Some RSs point to Anwar al-Awlaki.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Page and name change to USAMA BIN LADEN from OSAMA BIN LADEN

I've seened on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted page that they have his first initial U instead of O. I believe this should be change to the correct way as it is spelled by the government. USA!69.123.40.153 (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONAME Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 23:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Tbhotch.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Does Arabic have a character similar to the Hebrew vav (ו)? Vav can be transliterated to O or U depending on sound (and sometimes V), so that's probably why. It's usually just a mistake some people make when learning English (odd for the US gov to make such a mistake), but the sound is an O afaik. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

US propaganda leaflet

I'm not sure how that picture is related to the article's context. And it is really quite rare that I see such a personal target in an article on wiki. We should remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.146.118 (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia content does not advocate for the views of its sources, or the point of view of its images; it merely presents them as reliable sources have. This image is not our opinion of bin Laden, although some individual editors may feel that it does a decent job. Rather, the image is actual propaganda disseminated by the U.S. military in Afghanistan to try and sway people away from him. That's why it's notable and included, not because we think it makes OBL look like the monster many thought he was. Ocaasi ^c 02:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds right.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It’s not rare at all in fact our great president himself who’s responsible for bringing and end to Osama’s reign of terror had the same done to him as seen here--ChubsterII (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

May 1 or May 2

The death date at the top of the article reads May 1 but the info box reads May 2, which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

He died early on May 2 in Pakistan, maybe some American editors seem to prefer that the date was quoted in US time, so they are choosing May 1 instead. Not sure exactly. Ansell 00:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason this is happening, is because there is confusion as to the time of announcement, and the geographic location of that announcement, AND the LOCAL time of death in Pakistan. There has been a certain amount of "consensus" regarding the date of death, but this debate may persist until an "official" date/time of death is reported by a reliable source. Currently, May 2, 2011 is the agreed-upon date of death, and editing it to a different date will currently find that edit quickly reverted. Official data will eventually come in , that will eliminate this confusion. Dijcks | ^InOut 01:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Using a non-free picture (now that he's dead)

So the deed was done and Osama bin Laden is no more. I understand that Wikipedia has rules governing the use of non-free photographs of people, but I also recall that we stretch the rules for situations where it would not be possible to obtain a freely licensed picture (such as with the deceased). For such a major topic, this pixelated, low-resolution picture of Osama could seriously afford to be replaced with something better. I recommend using the picture used by the FBI; while it is non-free, the ramifications of copyright infringement would be lesser than if we were to use, say, a picture from Getty or the AP. For the purposes of better illustrating the article, this is something that should be seriously considered. harej 00:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. His elusiveness and now his death contribute to a very persuasive rationale for a non-free image. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

But also, one must ascertain the source for Getty/AP/whatever images. Most if not ALL were issued by bin Laden's own organization so it can hardly be creditable that Getty or anyone else owns the copyright. Seriously, ask yourself, which images of Osama were not issued by Osama? Of course he is not available to ask for permission... 76.22.32.86 (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For non-free images justified under Fair Use, Wikipedia policy does not require asking permission. Furthermore, the fact that the available images were released by Obama's organization essentially makes them "publicity photos", which are allowed under Wikipedia policy when no non-free alternative exists. See WP:NONFREE and ((Template:Non-free promotional)). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The death was Sunday 1st May 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bantard (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the article. It is a different time (and sometimes date) in Pakistan than it is where you live. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There are about 10 different topics dealing with the date. How did it get here? Lol. Though it was nice of him to die on Yom haShoah (Rememberance day for the Jewish portion of the Holocaust). I agree on the publicity photo point. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST - Osama died in 2001

Osama died in December of 2001 and is buried in tora bora

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

Yes, yes, we know. George Bush dropped the Twin towers as an excuse to anex Iraq... Right... 76.22.32.86 (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't a reference to it still be included somewhere to indicate that his death had been reported previously, even if erroneously? Cmbaker82 (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point, considering Fox News is a "reputable" source. The fact there were so many false reports of his death - and I remember seeing one suggesting around 2005 that he was dying of some disease - that this is notable. It would serve as a counterpoint to the inevitable claims that he's still alive, showing there's misinformation/claims being made on both sides. 68.146.78.43 (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I heared of a 'kidney disease' report in 2006 and 2005.Wipsenade (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of Death

Bin Laden was killed on May 1st, 2011. How the hell did they get this wrong??? It only happened yesterday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.20.137 (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

See FAQ. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 02:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else see anything wrong with the info beneath his picture?

Why does it say under allegiances "HAMAS, Hezbollah, Fatah, and Muslim Brotherhood?" He had nothing to do with any of those organizations. They are all either Palestinian or Lebanese, or in the case of the Brotherhood, region-wide, and Hezbollah is a Shia organization, and Fatah is secular. This is grossly inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.240.87.115 (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian nationalist organisations are also at odds with his whole new world Caliphate idea so it doesn't make much sense to put them together. I don't think they actually had anything to do with him. The larger Muslim Brotherhood organisation, maybe. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of death

I was about to add those no-show tags in the article so people stop changing it. I see someone already did it. I wonder how long that'll be effective? DavidSSabb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC).

Osama is Not Dead

website removed has announced that he is not killed and they will release his video tomorrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.176.7.226 (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hes dead. We really dont have any reason to lie about it, and several jihadist websites got in touch with their buddies, confirmed it, and vowed revenge on the u.s. You can always gauge how well the U.S. is doing it's job by how angry the jihadists are.

Pakistan involvement

CNN reports Pakistan officials may have created a safe haven for this evil terrorist. Important information to the article when relieable sources become available.--ChubsterII (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan has recieved billions of dollars in aid for counter-terrorism assistance from the United States.--ChubsterII (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This may or not become a big thing in the coming days and weeks. How should we handle it in relation to this article? I see there is already a section added. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that the entire section is full of predictions and speculations which violates the rule that wikipedia should not function as a crystal ball.

1) This issue is expected to worsen US ties with Pakistan. 2) The bin Laden was killed in what most feel was his residence for at least three years. 3) It was an expensive compound,less than 100 kilometres' drive from the capital probably built for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.130.230 (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, you have not only hearsay, but weasel words as well. Wait for the information to be concrete. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Jlorz (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC) There is a typo in the line "The bin Laden was killed in" and "The" should be replaced with "That"

Edit request from Cbadawi, 3 May 2011

I believe it would be prudent to mention former president Bush's statement about the death of bin Laden. He played a large part in contributing to bin Laden's infamy, and likewise, bin Laden played a hugely significant role in his administration.

Cbadawi (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)cbadawi

Can anyone answer this question? It sounds like an urban myth to me, but stranger things have happened: that OBL was a member of White's. --Cato the Younger (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: request not answered before talk page archival. Please open a new request on the current talk page. — Bility (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Fathers death in plane crash

Is this article about Osama Bin Laden or his fathers death? It is a little weird to talk about that in this article which seems more informative than his own fathers page. But why is his fathers death even in this article? For the record, Muhammed was the first Saudi to own a private plane in SA. (A Beechcraft 18 at that) He hired his own American pilot and had it serviced by TWA because you wouldn't find a Saudi pilot let alone Saudi maintenance company at that time. The reason they crashed was not simply "misjudging" a landing as stated in this article. His father had a landing strip carved out of mountain terrain in Usran so he could come and inspect one of his construction sites by plane. It was a "rough" temporary air strip only needed through the duration of the project. The reason they *crashed* was because the landing strip was dangerous and temporary, not because anybody misjudged anything. The only other option would have been *never* to land there and instead take a car up to the site. And the reason he was headed to Usran that night was to marry his 23rd wife.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/famous1960s.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.125.85 (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The strip Mohammed crashed on was a difficult strip to land on as it ran up a hill and was only about a thousand yards in length. According to an investigation the plane was hit by a strong cross wind as it approached the landing strip, and the plane stalled when the American former fighter pilot (Jim Harrington) tried to pull out of the landing by ascending at full power. Jim knew the strip was dangerous. He was told by Mohammed's first pilot (Gerald Auerbach) that he should refuse to land on the strip, and that he should ask for a safer strip to be built in the area. Jim refused to listen, saying "Oh I can do it, I can do it." Obviously in the circumstances encountered he could not. B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Mansion

The building is being referred in Wikipedia as a 'Mansion' which is misleading. It's obviously not a 'mansion' by any standards. Please edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.113.8.138 (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

'Mansion' was a typical media ploy: Try to blow everything out of proportion in order to make it more interesting to readers/viewers. B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It was 3 stories high, had separate quarters underneath it, and had a 1 acre fence around it that was fairly high. Sounds pretty mansion-like to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.215.96 (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's only 3,000 sqf and considerable smaller than most so called McMansions in the United States. Also looking at external and internal images of the building, it's obviously not even a mansion by Pakistani or Afghan standards. The fence around the one acre lot is common place in Afghanistan and Pakistan and does not define it as a mansion. I would suggest changing 'mansion' to 'compound' which would be a more appropriate term in this case.

We follow what the RSs say. Rather than draw our own conclusions, based on the evidence. If the RSs engage in a "media ploy" as Fairbairn says, we dutifully mirror their description, rather than allow our own POV to alter it.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Balkan Wars"

Could someone with an account please changed this to read "Yugoslav Wars"? The Balkan Wars were prior to WWI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.142 (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Yugoslav Wars is the WP:COMMONNAME. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No mention of his role in the Afghanistan vs. USSR conflict in the lede?

The role he played in Afghanistan in helping to bring about the end of the USSR occupation of the country is what catapulted him to notoriety at least in the Muslim world and particularly in Saudi Arabia. His compatriots described him as a hero afterwards. This role was fairly key to his arriving on the world stage as a force to be reckoned with. 85.170.164.102 (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair point.Wipsenade (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, as you say, it's where he got his start. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is just a legend Robert Fisk and Bin Laden's other supporters in the press have manufactured. Even Afghan specialists never heard of Bin Laden during the Soviet Afghan War. He was still a complete unknown when he returned to Saudi shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. The first time he got significant public attention was when he campaigned against the Saudi decision to invite U.S. troops. Kauffner (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have RSs to prove this? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources would be required for inclusion not to disprove it's inclusion. ^Khukri 19:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.12.84.28, 3 May 2011

I request that the line "ROT IN HELL YOU BASTARD!" be removed. Yes there is a reference given by a number, but it is not framed in the form of a quotation from a respected source, and is unnecessarily inflammatory language.

72.12.84.28 (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have already been removed. --Kslotte (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request by VonBismarck

The Lead has a sentence which reads, "The operation was successfully carried out by United States Navy SEALs, with intelligence support from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and Pakistani intelligence". The Pakistani intelligence input was zero and I request that the, "and Pakistani intelligence" be removed.-VonBismarck (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

osama shot dead

osama bin laden had been shot dead by 40 commando team sent by us . the team is seal. so please change it in osama bin laden section. 1.38.14.4 (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The information already exists in much detail. --Kslotte (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Image looks too Christ-like

From what Christians grow up with we see images of Christ and often he is depicted in a robe of white. I plea to my fellow wikipedians that an image of Osama bin Laden wearing his militant attire be chosen since he was militant in his deeds. I ask, "Do not show him looking good and kind as some photos show but rather show his militant side as he declared against America on 9/11 -- an image without his danged-mocking "smiley face". Thank you,

 – Brother Officer^Talk 15:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, this is one of the only free or free-enough images of Osama available so we unfortunately don't really have much choice. doomgaze (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We have to maintain an NPOV when we are editing an article, regardless of the subject, I'm sorry, and yes that includes Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Small request to the administrators

Please add pms: Osama Bin Laden to the list GreetingsFranjklogos (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully the article had some content before adding. --Kslotte (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggest move of first section

I suggest that the first section -- about his name -- be moved to the end of the article. It is the least significant/interesting thing in the entire article, and yet it uses up sentences of text at the very outset, making the reader wait for what he likely wants to read about.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from GnomeCoach, 3 May 2011

The place of death coordinates are not presently accurate. Please refer to the coordinates shown on Wikipedia article titled 'Osama bin Laden's hideout compound.' I increased the accuracy based on a visual siting of the center of the three-story building where his death took place, using Google Earth.

GnomeCoach (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: request not answered before talk page archival. Please open a new request on the current talk page. — Bility (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of death

Shouldn't Osama's date of death be listed as May 1 as he was actually killed that date? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Wikipedia wants YOU! 21:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

See the FAQs. BurtAlert (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

See the FAQ's above. He was killed early May 2 Pakistan time (which corresponds to late May 1 US time). doomgaze (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request - Neutral POV

The intro to the article, "Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden (Arabic: أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن‎, ʾUsāmah bin Muḥammad bin ʿAwaḍ bin Lādin; March 10, 1957 – May 2, 2011)[1][2][3] was the founder of the al-Qaeda organization, responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States..." should be changed to "Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden (Arabic: أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن‎, ʾUsāmah bin Muḥammad bin ʿAwaḍ bin Lādin; March 10, 1957 – May 2, 2011)[1][2][3] was the founder of the al-Qaeda organization, allegedlyresponsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States" as there is no concrete evidence that al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I personally believe al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11 and feel this edit would provide a more neutral point of view. 216.183.143.66 (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to go into conspiracy theory territory, but they claimed responsibility iirc, so idk, would saying they claimed responsibility make you happier? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

This article deliberately ignores the abundance of reports of Obama's illness, treatment and death between December 2001 and early 2002. Quote Musharraf and others as well as Egyptian and other Arab newspapers. http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/funeral/

Obama's death? --Cato the Younger (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama article is not neutral but has heavy bias

This article deliberately ignores the abundance of reports of Obama's illness, treatment and death between December 2001 and early 2002. Quote Musharraf and others as well as Egyptian and other Arab newspapers. http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/funeral/funeral.jpg http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/funeral/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.174.56 (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Welfarestate.com? Is that even an RS? It looks like a conspiracy theory site. Errr, also, I don't want to edit your post, so I'll just point it out here, you said "Obama's illness". Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Burninhellosama, 4 May 2011

In the first sentence, it states that he died on May 1 but he died on May 2. Burninhellosama (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done You are correct - he died on the 2nd. Rklawton (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

His body "was taken into custody"

This part of the lead stood out to me as being unusual and bizarre phrasing. I think it should be changed because it appears this phrase is not the best and certainly not the most common English language wording.

It is almost unique in a google search [2][3] to bin Laden except for 1 reference to another death in Pakistan. I think it may be a translation thing because, in addition to its only other web usage being that other death in Pakistan, it seems to have originated(in regards to bin Laden) with reports by the associated press of Pakistan (APP)[4] and is now being repeated verbatim by many RSs as well as US congressmen [5].

But I don't think it is suitable for an encyclopedia; I think its just a translation goof. Maybe police and funeral directors will be taking a dead body "into custody", but for now, its usually just "take" or "took". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I did a little fix in the lead; I leftb the detailed section alone. It reads ok I think because it say's the body "was recovered by the U.S. military and was in its custody" which is more common phrasing, although "custody" is still maybe not the best word even there, perhaps.Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I may have missed your point, but the phrase (which was, "took custody of his body"), unusual though it may be, is not the result of a mis-translation; it was used, by the President, during his announcement at the White House. Regards, --Cato the Younger (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Reminiscent of normalcy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

President's speech

Verbatim excerpt: "And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targetted operation against that compound in Abbotabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a fire fight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body." Rklawton (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This makes it clear that OBL's death date was May 1st. Rklawton (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This also makes it clear that this was an American operation. Rklawton (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Adding this as a reference, as I haven't seen it mentioned yet. Official transcript of Obama's speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/02/remarks-president-osama-bin-laden nerdqueen (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Speech cannot be all that accurate. If he was killed today, how the hell were they able to extract DNA and have the results analyzed in a laboratory so quickly, as has been reported?

Maybe it can be done quicker than shown in movies and on TV? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What can be agreed, is that he died on the first of may (the death was even announced in Obama's speech on the 1st of may at around 11.55pm) DNA can be checked very very quickly if the resources are available, and the news agencies all announced Bin Laden's death as the first of may And the Seattle Times has this to say: And Reuters agrees: J 4 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.209.237 (talk)

It's been said so many times (and people have been pointed to the FAQ many times as well) that I'll have to put it like this. We have different timezones on this planet. Please note that Osama bin Laden was not killed in the continental United States, but met his end in Pakistan which uses Pakistan Standard Time. Typically when someone dies at a certain time in a certain place, we regard the time and date in that place as their time of death. The rest of what you said is perfectly fine and logical. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Burial

According to several scholars, the sea burial of Osama bin Laden broke sharia law.[[6]][[7]][[8]] Wipsenade (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure it did -- you don't have to be a scholar to know that! 89.0.189.147 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources (especially the last two) pass muster. The info could be included here an should definitely be included in the reactions article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Fake" death photo in the media

In the hours after Osama's death, TV and print media throughout the Middle East published a photo purporting to be of his corpse. However as of today (May 3), the White House has yet to actually release any images and the description of one on CNN.com here doesn't seem to jive with the photo that was circulated. Is this notable enough to be mentioned here? 68.146.78.43 (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The images

The image is here [[9]][[10]][[11]][[12]].Wipsenade (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Most have said that the image is faked ie photoshopped --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 21:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we tell anything at all from them? His eyes are shot out, so it could be a local tramp, for all we know. I just though it would be a good link to make and a topical point. I agree it's dodgy.Wipsenade (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

CNN has done a story on the fake photo here: [13]. I think that satisfies notability for inclusion in this article and the separate death article (they even had a photo expert confirm the fake). 68.146.78.43 (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Silver prices

There was a small price correction on May 1st as the death of Bin Laden was announced. [[14]]Wipsenade (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not very notable, sorry Wipsenade. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's O.K., agree it's not very notable overall. Cher-ching! $$$ :-)Wipsenade (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Martyr?

Regarding [15] and noting the fact that bin Laden did die at gunpoint, I think it would be well worth noting that he died as a martyr according to his one set of beliefs. What kind of source would we need for that? As long as Hamas refuses to accept he actually died, we have no authoritative religious source, or [16]. What kind of wording do we need? Is there an example of another martyr on WP? -- eiland (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

By definition, a martyr is: a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion; a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause; a person who undergoes severe or constant suffering. Osama bin Laden suffered only death and was not killed due to any belief, principle or cause. He was killed because he admitted to orchestrating the mass murder of thousands of his killer's countrymen. Whatever his belief or religion - it doesn't matter - that one simple fact eliminates any possibility of martyrdom. (What's more, he didn't 'willingly' suffer death - he ran and hid like a coward for over a decade.) So, unless the definition of martyr is rewritten solely for him, the topic of martyrdom is not even at issue. 71.215.128.233 (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, you're examining this from the perspective of an American. To millions of [misinformed] Muslims he actually was a hero for one reason or another (either because of his war against the West or his expressed desire to refound the Caliphate, and casting himself as the heir to Sallah-al-din) and so many will consider him a martyr for one of those causes (it is very unwise to look at these things just from our POV as Americans, especially when we are talking about the views of people in completely different cultures, who let's face it, aren't our biggest fans). This should be addressed by sources that will undoubtedly talk about reactions in the Muslim world to his death. In fact, I think there were some stories out about that. Also Hamas "condemned" our killing of him and said we had killed a holy warrior, etc. How have they not accepted the fact that he is fishfood? You can find plenty of examples of people called martyrs, but the sources need to make the comparison. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that he could become a martyr to some Islamic zealots, because he was killed in combat (they say 'murdered') by US SEALs (they say 'Christian-Jewish-American' thugs) in the war on terror (they say the 'War on Islam'). The Arab-Islamic view is very different to our own in the West!Wipsenade (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

WP should include the information that he is considered a martyr, and by whom, as long as it can be properly sourced. Is that contentious in any way? Ketil (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid writing in such a way, that you openly show you're dislike for Islam. This is WP not islamwatch.com 89.243.197.185 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Who is that for? The problem is trying to convey a thought without seeming like you're condemning followers of an entire faith. If you were talking to me, then I am saying that the Muslims (and people from other groups in some cases) that were taken in by his propaganda are typically the misinformed (and usually uneducated) who hate the US or dislike us, and who see/saw him as the next Sallah-al-Din, not all of the 1.6-1.7 billion Muslims in the world, lol. You see how even that is dangerous? Regardless of how you put it, people will think that you are talking about all of them as a group. I agree with Ketil and don't think that could contentious on any grounds relating to policy, someone might have an objection to it based on 71's thing I guess, but it has nothing to do with policy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This can be adequately covered in the Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden article; once the treatment there is settled on (after a bit more time has passed), it may be appropriate to reflect that coverage briefly in parent articles. What's being talked about here is more or less OR. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why we're saying we need sources. =p Though you are right, that is the best place to put most of it and then a main article link in the Death section of this article (and Death of Osama bin Laden ofc). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"Human shields" in the compound

This is a standard propaganda term used to justify civilian deaths anywhere, anytime. The article should just identify them as civilians. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We go by what the source say, not our own opinions or original research. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is still policy isn't it? There's no obligation to use every word that the sources do. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey-hoe!  :-/ Wipsenade (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the policy more closely, 24.22. Maintaining NPOV is basically following as close to what the sources say as possible. This is the specific bit of policy right here: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality. As is being discussed on the Policy board, truth is usually a matter of someone's personal interpretation of what happened. As neither of us were there, neither of us are in any position to actually say whether or not they were using human shields or not. That's why we have to use sources who, while they might not have been present at the shootout, at least got some sort of story. We will probably never get both sides of the story, so we just have to convey the info we do have as best we can. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I also say about WP:NPOV on "Human shields".09:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That too, though oddly enough, I think the relevant section is only in WP:V. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're mistaken. All policies apply. I do not accept an interpretation of policy requires the article to pass on self-serving US claims as fact, particularly when emerging reports cast doubt on this particular claim. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? When did I say that other policies do not apply? I was just pointing to the most relevant bit of policy. O_O Yes, I see in the CNN one, and (briefly) in the Seattle Times (which has apparently won eight Pulitzer Prizes) one, that they are retracting the human shields thing. If you have conflicting reports coming in, by all means put them in (if info is superseded by the RSs it should be replaced). If the majority of RSs start saying something else then that is what you put in. You can give some attention to other interpretations (from RSs ofc) as long as they are given the appropriate amount of WP:WEIGHT. In this case the human shields claim should be put in, but you say that initially the Obama administration claimed there had been use of human shields, but they later said that this was in fact not the case, etc. We already have a nice discussion going btw (in the Policy Pump) about truth and facts versus verifiability. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hamid Gul protected Osama

It is highly likely that Hamid Gul and his associates were providing protection to Osama. They have a long history as friends, and both are anti-Americans. We need to highlight this in the article because it's very important. What kind of intelligence agency America has that didn't know this easy fact? This Rajput Hamid Gul is not only anti-America, he is also anti-India and anti-Afghanistan. The leaders in America claimed that Osama was the head of the snake, but I believe that Hamid Gul is the head of the snake (ISI) even though he is is retired.--Hkrclu (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have some sources for these statements? Not doubting you, but we do need sources. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to something like this I don't think sources are needed, although I'll try to find something, not everything has to be sourced as long as wiki links are provided and the information makes perfect sense and is too obvious. Just doing a little reading about Gul's relation with Osama is a lead, he provided the protection for Osama as a last thing, Gul is widely accused in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Osama was used as a tool by these people, although Osama was anti-west... that made him the tool. Ultra-nationalists, they consider themselves as the ultimate protection of the state of Pakistan or God's chosen protectors of Pakistan. They are responsible for the destruction of Afghanistan in the 1990s, bomb blastings in India and Afghanistan in the last decade, and of course they even tried America on 9-11. They (Hamid Gul and his followers) calculated that after 9-11 the USA and others would ok it for Pakistan to go and take possesion of the entire southeastern half of Afghanistan, and Iran and Tajikistan would take the rest. The reason forces from Pakistan are fighting in Afghanistan until today is because this dream turned into a nightmare for them and they are showing their anger by sending Afghans to kill other Afghans and US-NATO forces. It's a win win situation for them as long as this continues. The only way to kill a snake is to cut it's head. The following is just an idea of what Gul and his followers feel about America[17]:

"the Muslim world must stand united to confront the U.S. in its so-called War on Terrorism, which is in reality a war against Muslims. Let's destroy America wherever its troops are trapped."--Hamid Gul, August 2003

Since then suicide bombings began in Afghanistan and Taliban found the strength but instead of America being destroyed Pakistan began getting destroyed beginning with the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, political crises after late 2007 when Mrs. Bhutto was assassinated, power outages throughout the country, devestating floods in 2010, losing cricket match to India in 2011, now global humiliation and so on. It's all because Pakistan is seeking God's attention more and more. I'm not anti-Pakistan, I feel that Pakistanis are riders in a bus which is driven by someone like Freddy Krueger. Hamid Gul and his followers should be arrested and brought to America on terrorism charges.--Hkrclu (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, haha, you had me going there for a bit. Nicely done sir. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 10:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for rumors or original research. This discussion page is not a forum for opinions. Having said that, I don't think it is reasonable to try someone for having an opinion in favor of terrorists. It certainly doesn't belong on the Bin Laden article. Poyani (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Gul was pushed out soon after 9/11, so Bin Laden protector's was presumably Musharraf. They used to say it couldn't be Musharraf because Al-Qaeda staged so many assassination attempts on him. That seemed like a convincing argument at the time, but now you have to consider whether the assassination attempts were for show. Kauffner (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Kindly take this speculation somewhere else please. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

PDF in External Links

The PDF from the Sandia National Laboratories does not work properly. It freezed my browser and I had to reboot the computer. Maybe a properly working version could be found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.72.130.229 (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The pdf is over 20M, which is probably why your browser froze; otherwise the link is fine. I suggest you right-click the link and choose "save link as" in FF or "save target as" in IE and download it to your computer. Pericles899 (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Heading picture

I wonder why it was changed to a lower resolution image which includes another man? TheWilliamson (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly due to image copyright issues. Meph. 15:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The photo should be cropped to show just Osama bin Laden.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No post-mortem photos

Got this in one of those idiotic CNN emails: "The president has decided not to release death photos of Osama bin Laden, an administration official briefed by the White House tells CNN." Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of Death

Is there a reason why Bin Laden's death date is listed as May 2 in the heading? All the sources listed say May 1. Poyani (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. Poyani (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Naseembinusman, 4 May 2011

Kindly remove the word Wahhabism from Service/branch: Sunni Islam (Wahhabism). He is not a Wahhabi but a follower of Muslim Brotherhood.

Naseembinusman (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed this entirely - it is grossly inappropriate and offensive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait what? Since when is Muslim Brotherhood a sect of Islam? O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggest ~ Removing sub-section ~ "DOUBTS"

It seems that this paragraph represents a more "editorial" standpoint than encyclopedic fact. There will ALWAYS be sensationalized conspiracy theories.

Suggest we remove it. Here is the text as it currently is posted..

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury of the United States questioned whether the death even occurred. He suggested the possibility that the operation was staged, and that bin Laden was already dead. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mojahed said that "Obama has not got any strong evidence that can prove his claim over killing of the Sheikh Osama bin Laden," and that no "close sources" to bin Laden confirmed the death. Residents of Abbottabad cast doubt on whether bin Laden even resided in the compound.

The president's quote can be integrated to another section, or removed as well.. I may move the quote to an area in the main section "Death".

Thoughts? Dijcks | ^InOut 23:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the section should go. We already have a Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories article (though this is currently AfD]]), and a 'conspiracy theories' section in the Death of Osama bin Laden article. - duplicating this here is entirely unjustified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, this conspiracy garbage shouldn't be here (or anywhere on Wiki) in the first place. This ain't a conspiracy site, last I checked. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Keep it to Death of Osama bin Laden or Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories. The latter was created specifically for the purpose. --Rogington2 (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree also. Alright then, let's dump it. Whoever gets to it, else I will soon.. Dijcks | ^InOut 01:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree specific viewpoints should be removed but the subject is worthy of the article.

AKA

Osama can also be spelled Usama. I saw it on the news. I don't see it anywhere in the article. Should we add it? Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 03:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Say if it should be added to the article or not. Thanks

I don't think so. I mean Arabic and Hebrew have the same alphabetic root and, from what I can see in Arabic_alphabet#Table_of_basic_letters, Arabic also has the character vav (ו in Hebrew, they spell it with w's even though the sound is definitely a V), and it is used in the exact same way. So Usama is just a poor mistransliteration I guess. It is like how some Israelis will sometimes mess up proper use of O and U in their transliteration. The proper sound though appears to be an O and that is all that matters. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect date of death

I watched CNN on May 1st 2011 when they announced he died but on the site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden that he was killed on May 2nd

Read the FAQ atop this page. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

death toll

not true unverified the death toll in iraq and afghanistan stretches well into the 10's of millions during the war. the 1.2 million estimate are those bodies that have been personally identified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.154.152 (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Promoting slang?

Does anyone else see a problem with using the phrase "body was taken into custody" ? For 1 thing, the words "into custody" are unnecessary law enforcement jargon and add nothing at all from the words "body was taken" except for maybe some kind of subliminal pov(emphasizing that Osama was a criminal). I don't know what you call this kind of phrase, but it seems to have taken off in usage with this event. A google search shows [18] almost all of the articles that use this phrase are about Osama's body. I think it is an important example of how weird and inaccurate representations can go viral on the internet and become quickly entrenched without any media or Editors here taking much notice. Apparently U.S. Senators were giving interviews claiming to have seen real photos of a dead Osama when in reality the photos were bogus internet creations. I know it may not be too important, but otoh, is there any compelling reason to use that phrase? outside of a direct quote? I have reduced the phrase from "his body was taken into custody and biometric.." to "his body was taken and biometric.." [19] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Biometric isn't a verb, but I think they mean fingerprinted in this case. That is wayyyyy too jargony though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not fingerprinted and not jargon. They used biometric facial recognition software and I believe that is the correct term for it. Wayne (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Then just say that used facial recognition software, and yes, biometric is somewhat jargony if you don't have the facial recognition or something after it. It is one of those things that prompts a reader to stop, reread the word and say "what the hell is that?" I have only heard the word biometric used in relation to those little fingerprint readers you can have installed on your laptop. Remember that a lot of people probably will not know the meaning of biometric. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The horror of it all. Perish the thought that someone might actually be introduced by WP to a concept, word or phrase about which they're unfamiliar. WP isn't an exercise in dumbing down (or laundering) well-sourced content but simply presenting it. As to this "taken into custody" hoo-ha, this level of hypersensitive hand-wringing about a commonly used (and, in this case, well-sourced) euphemism for "control via possession" is, IMHO, simply absurd.JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

First, please try to remain WP:CIVIL (it's a must-read). I am just saying put the word in context so people will actually know what it means when they first see it. They will see something like biometric facial scan and then say "Ooooh I know what facial scanning is, but biometric? I know what a facial scan is, but what's this biometric business *clicks link with some idea of what it contains*?", rather than reading just biometric itself and being completely lost. =p Wikipedia is an exercise in conveying knowledge as best as possible to the reader as all encyclopedias are. They won't thank us for putting in stuff that isn't in some context they can understand, and we don't accomplish anything by doing so. You can take custody of someone's body, that's a common term. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

U.S was likely to invade Pakistan on April 30 than May 2

We should add this as well..should we not? http://karachimetrological.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/bad-weather-caused-osama-to-live-for-24-hours/ HunterZone (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, blogs are not reliable sources. —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggest deletion

'On April 16, 2011, a leaked Al Jazeera report claimed that bin Laden had been captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan.[151]' The source: http://rmc2011.net/2011/04/16/al-jazeera-leak-osama-bin-laden-captured/ does not provide adequate evidence for the claim. In fact, looks like it is a fabrication in the form of a blog post, certainly not a news article. Suggest removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.167.74 (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. I see no mention of this in any mainstream news sources either, so. --Rogington2 (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Retitling

it should be called operation Neptune Spear as that was the actual operation name. The killing of Osama bin laden should redirect to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misko15 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the biography of a person and not an article about a military operation. Rklawton (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I think you might have put this in the wrong place. The article about us giving him a third eye (I'm not going to celebrate his death, but I'm not going to show him respect either) is Death of Osama bin Laden. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Formatting help needed

I would suggest that someone re-format the bit about his children. As it has been set up, it creates a great deal of distracting white space, simply to provide a list of names, and does so at the beginning of a long article.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory that Pakistan Gov. hid bin Laden

Bring out the tin foil hats for anyone who is buying this classic conspiracy theory (that a cabal of Pakistani government conspirators supported bin Laden over the past 5 years). This one is extremely far fetched, given the 50 million dollar reward that has been on the table all these years. It defies belief that a group of Pakistani officials would all be so altruistic as to pass up 50 million dollars they could have gotten simply by making a phone call to U.S. authorities. I have added some of the Pakistani's governments rebuttal to this far fetched conspiracy theory. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Have you ever heard of the Pakistani ISI, before you THINK you know the awnser make sure you know all the facts P.S It's called double dipping.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.40.48 (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really a very convincing argument. A lot big figure bounties have been offered, and not usually with any result. But there is another reason to discount the theory. CIA had been monitoring the house for some time. They would still be monitoring away if it wasn't for Wikileaks. If the ISI knew of the house earlier and did nothing, it would just mean their policy conformed with that of the CIA. If the ISI was in cahoots with Bin Laden, they would have advised him to change location. Kauffner (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Transcription

Can we add add a transcription key, similar to that on Gaddafi's, to Osama's page?

In short, the alternative spellings for each part of his name are shown in brackets:

${\color {OliveGreen}M{\begin{cases}u\\o\end{cases}}{\begin{cases}\varnothing \\'\end{cases}}a{\begin{cases}mm\\m\end{cases}}{\begin{cases}a\\e\end{cases}}r}~~~~{\color {MidnightBlue}{\begin{cases}al\\el\\Al\\El\\\varnothing \end{cases}}{\begin{cases}-\\\mathrm {\textvisiblespace} \\\varnothing \end{cases}}}{\color {RedViolet}{\begin{cases}Q\\G\\Gh\\K\\Kh\end{cases}}{\begin{cases}a\\e\\u\end{cases}}{\begin{cases}d\\dh\\dd\\ddh\\dhdh\\dth\\th\\zz\end{cases}}a{\begin{cases}f\\f\!f\end{cases}}{\begin{cases}i\\y\end{cases}}}$

However, not all are possible, as some alternatives are most probably combined with others, or even impossible with others (for example, simplification of geminated [m:] usually implies simplification of [a:]).

How many people will actually be able to understand it? Also, I don't think pronunciation of his name is as hard as Gadaffi's. The U is just an uncommon screw up in the transliteration of vav. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"according to U.S. Government" in lede

I have removed the above qualification from the lead because it is inaccurate. Numerous other sources have corroborated bin Laden's death, including the Pakistani government who have interviewed his wife and other survivors of the raid. Leaving it in gives undue weight to various conspiracy theories. Ronnotel (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Name signed to last will

I just read an article about bin Laden's final message to his wives and children. The article states that this will dated December, 2001 is signed "Your brother Abu Abdullah Osama Muhammad Bin Laden." Does anyone have any more information about this name? --Brendanmccabe (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 134.139.94.66, 6 May 2011

His death date should not be preceded by the word "allegedly".

"Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden (play /oʊˈsɑːmə bɪn ˈlɑːdən/; Arabic: أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن‎, ʾUsāmah bin Muḥammad bin ʿAwaḍ bin Lādin; March 10, 1957 – allegedly May 2, 2011)note a[3][4][5]" should read "Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden (play /oʊˈsɑːmə bɪn ˈlɑːdən/; Arabic: أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن‎, ʾUsāmah bin Muḥammad bin ʿAwaḍ bin Lādin; March 10, 1957 – May 2, 2011)note a[3][4][5].

134.139.94.66 (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, allegedly in that context doesn't make sense, and if you were going to use anything, believed would make more sense. There is no reason for it to be there at all though as most everyone says that he is in fact in a cold dark place in the Ocean. It should be removed post-haste. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Wowiki23, 7 May 2011

Please change: "On May 2, 2011, bin Laden was shot and killed inside a secured private residential compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, by U.S. Navy SEALs in a covert operation orchestrated and authorized by U.S. President Barack Obama. Al-Qaeda confirmed the death of bin Laden on militants' websites on May 6, 2011, and the terrorist group vowed to avenge his death." to "On May 2, 2011, bin Laden was shot and killed inside a secured private residential compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, by U.S. Navy SEALs in a covert operation orchestrated and authorized by U.S. President Barack Obama. Some question why this highest-value unarmed al Qaeda leader was summarily executed, rather than being arrested and interrogated about his network as so many less-informed underlings have been. Al-Qaeda confirmed the death of bin Laden on militants' websites on May 6, 2011, and the terrorist group vowed to avenge his death." Wowiki23 (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Idk, seems a bit POV to me in the wording, but if it is sourced, the questioning maakes sense to have there. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The current wording of this request seems strongly POV to me as well. Kevin (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Any way we can fix it? The question about why the.y didn't arrest seems good, if it gets enough weight in the RSs Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom!

Real quick

it says "... War on Terror, which has resulted in a total of between 80,000 and 1.2 million civilian deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia between 2001 and 2007."

that's the range? imagine if I was going to get somewhere between 8 gallons of gas or 120 for a trip i was planning. I guess wittgenstein would say that sentence has very little sense. it's gramatical. it's meaning is conveyed clearly. but it's value or significance can't be put into a proper context. S*K*A*K*K 10:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Aren't we talking mainly about victims of terrorist attacks? This seems like a misleading way to frame the issue. Kauffner (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It does read a little odd, the range sounds silly. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's now technically being to refered to as the Overseas Contingency Operation by the current administration and not the War on Terror as with the last, but to say either brings up the scattered reports of collaboration by Framing (social sciences) of both sides in conjuction of with the media as comes and goes like the wind in any one of the 50 different artiles just like this one.

Main articles: Death of Osama bin Laden and Osama bin Laden's hideout compound

Ljettinger (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OBL admission to 9/11 attack very weak

If OBL was responsible for 9/11, then who is Khalid Sheik Mohammed?

OBL is a scapegoat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danarothrock (talk • contribs) 02:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

From Khalid Sheik Mohammed "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a member of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization, although he lived in Kuwait rather than Afghanistan, heading al-Qaeda's propaganda operations from sometime around 1999. The 9/11 Commission Report alleges that he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks." He is also alleged to have confessed to a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Operation Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the murder of Daniel Pearl." -- A lieutenant under Osama. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In 2006, an online publication called "Muckraker Report," contacted the FBI, according to a report on the Muckraker website by Ed Haas. Haas reported in the June 18, 2006 article that Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, explained that 9/11 was not mentioned because "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

"First and foremost," wrote Haas, "if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to 'smoke him out of his cave'? The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to 'root out' Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/7386-why-was-911-not-mentioned-on-osama-wanted-poster Danarothrock (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't I put something here asking if this site was reliable? Or did I accidentally not click Save the second time? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidence in support if this claim?

"Osama bin Laden was the founder of al-Qaeda, the organization responsible for the September 11 attacks."

Says who? There has never been any evidence linking Osama bin Laden with the 9-11 attacks. He was not wanted in connection with these attacks by either the police or the FBI. No indictment was ever issued for his arrest in connection with these attacks, and in fact the FBI publicly ad explicitly stated that it had never been able to find evidence implicating bin Laden in 9-11. Nor was there ever any evidence linking Al Qaeda to the 9-11 attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.6.137.156 (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The quotation you cite does not say that bin Laden has been directly linked to the 9-11 attacks. Regarding links between al Qaeda and the attacks, we rely on reliable sources for information, not fringe conspiracy theorists. In any case, without sources, your comments are of no relevance. This is not a forum for general debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft should be changed to aircrafts

aircraft should be changed to aircrafts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.133.3.212 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. "Noun ... aircraft (plural aircraft)". [20] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of death after announcement of death

The President of the United States went on TV to announce the death of Osama Bin Laden on May 1, 2011.

Article pegs date of death as May 2, 2011.

At no time is the actual date of death given. On May 1 US President Obama announced the death, by then at least the 20 hours from death to burial at sea had already happened.

Further, at least a preliminary DNA had been run. The date of death much at least be May 1, 2011 this side of the Greenwich line, and maybe April 30, 2011 in Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SemiramisofBabylon (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

From the FAQ at the top of this page:

Q: Why does the article say he died on May 2, 2011?

A: Independent verification affirms that a raid took place on the compound where bin Laden was killed in the early hours of the morning of May 2nd, Pakistan Standard Time. Per the Manual of Style, we describe his death as taking place on the 2nd, even though President Barack Obama made his announcement in the evening of May 1st, Eastern Daylight Time.

You are also misinformed regarding timezones. It cannot be April 30 in Pakistan if it is May 1 in the US. Furthermore, this is not a forum for general speculation, and unless you have reliable sources of relevance to the article, your speculation is irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That notice I put up should be moved back to the top. We did that in the Libyan Civil War talk and no one brought up new name threads, etc or griped about the map after. The same thing happened here and no one asked this. Then someone decided to put it in one of those orange boxes down below that no one reads (mostly because they figure they already know anything covered in the orange boxes or they are civility notices), and voila, someone asks the question about May 2nd. It might be above the header, but there's a reason it said Stop with that hand and was placed up top. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Did President Obama really "orchestrate" the operation?

The term "orchestrate" means "to plan and direct". (See, for example, Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary for more a more detailed definition along these lines.) Using this term implies that President Obama was personally in charge of the tactical planning for the operation's execution. No official sources are cited in the article to substantiate such a claimed involvement for the President.

The main article "Death of Osama bin Laden" credits President Obama only with authorizing the operation, not with "orchestrating" it. That article reports that the operation was carried out by "a team of US Navy SEAL operators from the Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU; informally referred to by its former name, SEAL Team Six), under the command of the Joint Special Operations Command, in conjunction with U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives." From this chain of command, it would appear that DEVGRU and/or the Joint Special Operations Command and/or the CIA would have "orchestrated" the operation, not the President.

Either insert a reliable and objective reference to substantiate that President Obama personally "orchestrated" the operation in a meaningful fashion (specifically how? in what manner? with details), or delete this claim from this article. --Moshe95 (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

{The suggested edit appears to have been done} --Moshe95 (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There have been reports - I have no idea how credible - that rather than orchestrating the assassination, Obama tried to stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

In the lede, please change the last sentence from "Not surprisingly, the organization vowed to avenge his death, the comments of which have kept the U.S. Government's terrorism awareness very high." to "The organization vowed to avenge his death, the comments of which have kept the U.S. Government's terrorism awareness very high." (Remove "Not surprisingly"). That phrase is unnecessary in an encyclopedia article, and seems somewhat POV. 98.245.42.127 (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done I agree. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jzemla, 7 May 2011

Under Obama administration it says bin Laden was killed on May 1. This should say "May 2" to agree with the date on the top of the page.

Jzemla (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Awkward

"On May 6, 2011, al-Qaeda confirmed and acknowledged his death and vowed to avenge his death, the comments of which have kept the U.S. Government's terrorism awareness very high." This is extremely awkward wording. Can someone rewrite it? 98.66.150.135 (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think they may have left something out, like saying that it was on a forum or something, etc. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I made a mistake in how I pared that down. It's fixed now. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, I think the removal of the "citation needed" tag was in error. There is nothing in that article that says al-Qaeda's comments have affected the terror alert level. While there has been plenty of mention of heightened security after bin Laden's death, I haven't seen any discussion of greater security specifically due to al-Qaeda's comments, as that sentence implies. 98.245.42.127 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Extreme POV

This articles - like most on bin Laden on the American-dominated internet - shows extreme bias towards an American interpretation of events. I am not referring to bin Laden as a freedom fighter or any such nonsense, merely that the assassination is being represented as a military operation. The official American lie is that he was killed by fatal gunshot wounds during a firefight. Not so. We all know he was unarmed, there was no shooting in his house, apart from the trigger-happy Americans, and that he was deliberately shot dead - because there was never any intention of taking him alive. Even apologists for the Obama regime say that there would have been terrorist outrages and hostage taking if he had been captured. Probably true (although there will be retribution anyway). But that is as close to admitting that he was not meant to be taken alive as they dare go. So why not describe this as an assassination, and avoid the euphemisms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that would be an anti-Osama bin Laden POV now wouldn't it? After all he clearly regarded himself as a combatant in a war against the US and thus killing him would be a standard millitry action.©Geni 04:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question: WP:COMMONNAME. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Standardized name

Shouldn't Osama bin Laden be referred to consistently as Osama? The following are a few instances where he is called "bin Laden."

• 2nd paragraph of Name:

  According to bin Laden's son in 2nd paragraph

  but bin Laden's father Mohammed bin Laden in same sentence.

• 4th paragraph of Childhood, education and personal life:

  Through these women bin Laden fathered between 20 and 26 children ....

  Many of bin Laden's children fled ....

• 5th paragraph of Childhood, education and personal life:

  Bin Laden's father Mohammed was killed

• 6th paragraph of Childhood, education and personal life:

  Bin Laden was described as soft-spoken

• 2nd paragraph of Beliefs and ideology:

  ideology classes of bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization.

• 3rd paragraph of Beliefs and ideology:

  Bin Laden opposed music on religious grounds

• 1st paragraph Militant activity:

  After leaving college in 1979, bin Laden arrived

  Bin Laden met and built relations

• 2nd paragraph Militant activity:

  By 1984, bin Laden and Azzam established

  Through al-Khadamat, bin Laden's inherited family fortune

  Bin Laden established camps inside

• 3rd paragraph Militant activity:

  By 1988, bin Laden had split from

  bin Laden wanted a more military

  Notes of a meeting of bin Laden and others

• 4th paragraph Militant activity:

  of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Abdullah Azzam, and bin Laden, where it was agreed to join bin Laden's money

• 5th paragraph Militant activity:

  Bin Laden met with King Fahd, and

  Bin Laden's offer was rebuffed

  Bin Laden's criticism of the Saudi monarchy

• 6th paragraph Militant activity:

  bin Laden turned his attention to attacks on the West

• 7th paragraph Militant activity:

  Bin Laden continued to speak publicly

Myshortpencil (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is probably a result of people hearing him called bin Laden so often they did it subconsciously. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is normally to refer to people by their family name, rather than by their given name. E.g. 'Palin' rather than 'Sarah' etc, but the article suggests this is not the convention within Arabic societies. The question is, should we follow the sources we use, which tend to follow the western convention, or instead follow the more-correct Arabic convention. I'm not really sure about this - at least the article points out the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

While calling him "Osama" follows Arabic convention, English-language and Western media uses "bin Laden" more commonly,[21] so I have adjusted most of the article to this. The section on his childhood and early life specifically uses "Osama" instead "bin Laden" to distinguish him from his family members, so I have left this section alone. — the Man in Question (in question) 05:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Balkan Wars?

The section title is still called Balkan Wars when it means the Yugoslav Wars. These are two wholly separate wars that are 80 years apart. The section name should match the name of the subject's article. The Yugoslav Wars is also how everyone knows them, and so it should be the common name as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know I agree that that's "how everyone knows them" (I've never heard the term, for example), but you are factually correct, and I have changed the section title accordingly. — the Man in Question (in question) 05:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I grew up reading about them in the NY Times a lot and then reading about them in history books (and here on Wiki ofc) as the Yugoslav Wars so I just had that impression. You're right though, some people might say Balkan conflict (at least when they were still going on) or the specific war (Kosovo War, the one I remember best, etc), but Yugoslav Wars is to encompass that specific period of wars (let's face it, there was a lot of war there!) Thank you for fixing it. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Issues with the Death section

There are many problems with the Death section of the article. Much of the information is repeated twice and unorganized. The concept of a "terrorist shrine" seems to violate WP:LABEL. There is Original Research included (such as the section about the house not being on Google Maps). There are POV and UNDUE issues (particularly in the section about women being used as human shields - which are controversial and disputed). Statements by the US government officials should be attributed to them and not reported as facts. Glenn Greenwald wrote a great article on Salon about this. It can be found here. In order to make the article sound encyclopedic we should avoid labeling US government claims as facts and only state that that is what they claimed. Poyani (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As the article says he was buried in accord with Islamic traditions shouldn't it be mentioned that burial at sea has been criticised as it violates Sharia law? Wayne (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That should indeed be put in. User:Wipsenade found three sources for that claim and put them in this sub-topic. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oooops, didn't notice that subsection. Wayne (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some reference to his alleged will ? (article at the guardian)--Adom2000 (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is statement that "Subsequent genetic testing reportedly supported the preliminary identification" of bin Laden's body. This clearly requires citation, has none, and if this can't be provided the statement should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.186.13.227 (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The DNA statement is rather suspect as it was made within 24 hours of death. I suspect officials have jumped the gun (or the media has indulged in WP:OR) as this is not CSI: Miami and it takes at least 72 hours to get a match if the test is given priority. As the only mention in the article is Subsequent genetic testing reportedly supported the preliminary identification, this gives the claim due weight and is accurate until official results are released. Wayne (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

We can't add our own opinions based on our own research - and that's what adding "reportedly" would do. Rklawton (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As well, I suspect that you might be basing that idea off of police DNA testing (and those labs at X uni usually have DNA from other cases etc) as seen on other TV shows, etc. As Osama was a special case, it is logical they had it done much more quickly in whatever advanced military facilties they had access to. Still though, all of this is speculation and speculation has no place in the article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Infact "reportedly" isn't individual research and unless you can directly confirm the verification of genetic testing supporting the claim it is therefore reported, furthermore supported is not equivalent to confirmed even if taken at face value.98.207.190.11 (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article about it in the LA Times. [22] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame the Times didn't say how long it takes. Standard police criminal case testing takes around seven days which is why there is usually a backlog. High-priority expedited testing takes 72 hours for a positive match, a negative match can be determined in around 24 hours. As they are matching with a relative rather than OBL's own DNA it probably needs less time. Crime shows give people unrealistic expectations. They should have the results now so we can expect a verified report anytime. Wayne (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is one recently built machine with a 2 hour throughput on DNA analysis. http://www.kpho.com/news/25550382/detail.html 72.187.99.79 (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Death is disputed

His death has not been proven by independent experts and sources yet. So far the only sources we have are official ones, as the President of the United States of America. These sources cannot be seen as independent or neutral, since U.S. military is/was an enemy of Osama bin Laden. Furthermore the information published by agencies is not enough for us to call bin Laden dead, because we then infringe against our own neutrality rules. --217.5.199.242 (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is reflecting what the reliable sources are saying, nothing to do with it's neutrality or independence. If bin laden isn't dead he would score an immense coup by getting his face on the front page of the papers holding up a news paper from after his death, X says he's dead burden of proof now lies with Y to prove otherwise. So until such time we have to go with what the reliable sources are saying. ^Khukri 08:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I highly disagree, the sources cannot be considered reliable with no proof.98.207.190.11 (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

He could have been dead before this event. The fact is there is no picture, there is simply the United States of Americas claims'. WIkipedia is bending its own rules to spread US propaganda, how ironic.

Oh what is all this? This is not a forum for discussing whether or not we believe he is actually worm/krill food. We are simply putting in the info conveyed by most of the reliable sources. Please take this stuff elsewhere. Please also remember that "Wikipedia" is just random editors going by those rules. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to you, 217.5, but you're wrong. His death has actually been confirmed by Al Qaeda themselves. They're pretty much of the polar opposites of the US government, so... yeah. --Rogington2 (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is no proof from that "reliable source". There is proof from unreliable sources according to the western society that Bin Laden died in 2001 and even Beznahir Butto claimed (there is a video) that Bin Laden was dead. Shortly afterwards, Butto was assassinated. That happened in 2007. Where is the proof from the US Military? No photographs, no body... there is no proof and Wikipedia should reflect that. 95.18.152.65 (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

We report what the sources say. I don't mean this to sound uncivil, but some of the sites you have been reading these stories about lack of evidence are most likely written in a way that is meant to persuade people (just like History Channel specials) and often leave out details that contradict what they are saying a they figure you won't do further research. Also, the sources you call unreliable are considered RSs by WP:RS. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it true that the sources that communicate that Osama Bin Laden deaded at beginning of May also have zero evidence? e.g. "spoken or written word" is not evidence. hint: spoken or written word referring to dna proof is not evidence." Actual verifiable dna proof is evidence. Also, proof that the dna sample was obtained recently as opposed to obtained a decade ago needs to have proof also. 184.58.154.131 (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well there is no verifiable proof he is alive either. =p I don't think the nature one's DNA changes except for their epigenome, but that's irrelevant here. As the reliable sources are not saying he might be alive either, that's not the focus. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Al Qaeda is pretty much a reliable source on this matter when it's posted on their site. Why would they say he's dead when he's not? It would a perfect opportunity to point out "propaganda" efforts by proving on their site he's still alive. I mean think about it, it would be to their advantage to offer proof he's alive if he were still alive to portray the American Government as liars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.161.21 (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am very concerned that American government and CIA claims are inserted to Wikipedia as "facts". Would the you also insert claims by the Chinese government and their intelligence agency into articles as facts? Probably not (because Wikipedia has an American and not Chinese bias). Instead of "Bin Laden is dead", we should write "The American government claims Bin Laden is dead." Nanobear (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You've got the right string but the wrong yo-yo. The major western Reliable Sources, which most of us Editors use, can arguably be seen, at times, and by some, as propaganda spouts; and if the Editors of this article (or other articles) rely solely upon those particular reliable sources, then the article can be as you suggest. But here's the rub. Even if that were the case, Wikipedia would not be the cause of it. Wikipedia is a venue(imagine a theatre) ; the Editors manage the content(imagine a Director). Now, Wikipedia policy goes to great lengths to encourage neutrality and unbiasedness in articles, but Editors like you have the job of finding less biased Reliable Sources which might offer different content from what the sources which you feel are biased are spouting. So, the buck stops...where? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The buck stops where the sources used contain content that is verifiable and not speculated or claimed and unprovable, as is the case for the issue of Osama Bin Laden's death. e.g. taking worth from reputable or famous sources, without factual or verifiable proof. One's spoken or written word does as referenced in one or more (e.g. 10,000+) sources does not constitute as reputable source, even if the source is widely renowned. 184.58.154.131 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Find some Reliable Sources which have content which you feel is notable and lets have a look. If things are as clear as you think, there should be some Reliable Sourced articles which say something similar to what you are saying, i.e. "show us the proof", or something like that. Editors here are not investigators looking for proof and we rely on Reliable Sources to provide a buffet of content from which we pick out, by consensus, stuff for the plate. If you are not happy with what's on the plate, then what you might do is put more of a selection for us on the buffet table. I am confident there are some Reliable Sources, maybe they are in China or Russia, which would have something you would support. There is more work to do with every article; the question is, who is going to do it? I do hear what you guys are saying about Wikipedia:Verifiability but that technical/policy/rules aspect is over my head so if you have that kind of issue I suppose you can take it to a noticeboard. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede image

Now I understand that some might have felt that the lede image made him look too friendly. The new image however, is just a low quality close-up, and the edit appears to be based solely on someone's POV that the original made him look to "Christlike" iirc. Thoughts? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

By original, do you mean? File:Osama bin Laden portrait.jpg? If so, I actually think the new one is better. The original is also low quality, and the current image is a better representation of his face (which I imagine is of greater interest in an article about a person). I think both images are neutral representations, so I don't have any qualms about using either one. Is there any Wikipedia policy governing the use of images in articles like this? WP:MUG obviously doesn't apply (even if it did, I don't think either image would be a problem), and I didn't see anything in WP:IUP that would help here. That said, I imagine there's going to be some dispute over the current image being on the Commons, as the copyright info is quite obviously wrong (the image was not produced by the Federal government, despite its use in a Pentagon Channel video). 98.245.42.127 (talk)

Yeah, that's the one, though upon seeing it again, I see that the quality is not what I thought it was, though it's not as bad as what we have now. This one is just... in your face kind of. I mean do we really want the first thing the reader sees to be this big face hit them? Let's look at the images used for other similar people who are widely regarded as d-bags (to say the least). Adolf Hitler (very clear), Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein. The Mao one is a bit more zoomed out, and is of course a painting. The previous one was better, even if it did show him as nicer (which is not really that much of a concern if it is a better image). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I just spent 10 minutes looking around at other biographies and old edits of this article, and I've come to agree with you. I had thought the original image was of lower quality than it is, but looking at edit, I think it makes for a better lede image. I had thought that shrinking the image to fit in the infobox would make him unrecognizable, but it doesn't require much resizing and it's a more interesting image anyway. So I'd agree to reverting it. 98.245.42.127 (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks for fixing the wikilink btw, I really should have used preview that time around. xD (and reviewed what I wrote). Anyone have other thoughts? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

My take is that as articles should be nuetral, then that applies to images. There is always a bun-fight here when the media use an image that makes someone look evil. For example, the image of Martin Bryant originally published by the media was widely condemned because it made him look deranged, which he in fact was. Because there were no clear contemporary images of him the media now use one taken 10 years before he killed 35 people. Wayne (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Predictive?

This sentence sounds predictive -- as in, "they thought so, but time proved them to be incorrect"... The SEALs gathered further intelligence at the site which at the time was believed to have prevented/hampered current/future al Qaeda activities. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This was reported in news outlets, and was cited at one point. We know that they found several computer based storage devices, and we know there has been efforts to put that information to use in a way that protects against possible future attacks. Dijcks | ^InOut 20:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

The word firefight implies both sides shooting. But Osama was unarmed. Nobody was shooting at the SEALs when they shot Osama. The lede should be rephrased to avoid this word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.53.62 (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Todays newspaper carried four stories totalling five pages on the assassination of Bin Laden. The military sources reported that Bin Laden had no guards and that the Seals met with no resistance in the compound (ie: all were shot before they could arm themselves). Firefight is inappropriate in the lead and article body. Wayne (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

DONE: Changed to word to "encounter". Dijcks | ^InOut 20:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Alpha-piping for Osama bin Laden category

The current alpha-piping for this article in its eponymous category is this: [[Category:Osama bin Laden|Osama bin Laden]]. Is there a reason it is not alpha-piped to sort at the top of that category, like this: [[Category:Osama bin Laden| ]] ? If so, please share the rationale, otherwise I would like to change it. KConWiki (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I am going to make this edit. KConWiki (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Birth data?

What is the source for the birth data quoted? Does anyone know? This date should not be listed without being sourced, surely? whitestarlion (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree - I'd very surprised if he was really only 54. Smurfmeister (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Novelistic"

I reverted again on the "death" part of Osama bin Laden lead. Novelistic writing? UNDUE? I don't agree with the "WP:UNDUE" you are claiming on the death aspect of the article. We NEED to move from writing it as a "news event" and get it to encyclopedic now. It's been reported on enough, and there also enough facts to make the statements that were made as I've currently left it.

I realize you compromised somewhat but it "read" really badly in the previous version!

Note: Everything written in that section is either fully referenced, or public knowledge.

We can go for a WP:3O on this, or Request for comment by other editors, but facts are, it is changing a lot in the wake of new news. That said, the facts surrounding his death are pretty definitive at this point.

In short this is what I stated, all of which if factual and can be referenced:

• He was in hiding through 2 administrations, and found in the 3rd. (true)
• He was named a Terrorist by several governments, including the U.S. (true)
• He was in the FBI List of wanted terrorists. (true)
• It took nearly 12 years to bring him to justice.
• al Queda vowed revenge.

FACT: Bin Laden is/was a terrorist, but even so, my original text did NOT include that word other than how it is referenced by the FBI I don't see any WP:UNDUE there. Help me out on this, as NONE of it is disputable! Dijcks | ^InOut 01:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL INFO: Note, I made some follow-up edits, that I hope work in favor of compromise on the "lead" edits! Let's see where it goes! Dijcks | ^InOut 02:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, an international project. Your first three 'facts' are US-perspective based, and regardless of whether they are 'novelistic' or not, are skewing the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I rather liked that gentleman's edits. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The version I am espousing (which combines elements of Dijcks's version with the former lede) and Dijcks is objecting to (and what started this debate): — the Man in Question (in question) 04:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden was on the American Federal Bureau of Investigation's lists of Ten Most Wanted Fugitives and Most Wanted Terrorists for his involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings. From 2001 to 2011 bin Laden was a major target of the War on Terror, which has resulted in a total of between 80,000 and 1.2 million civilian deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia between 2001 and 2007.

After being put on the FBI's Most-Wanted list, bin Laden managed to remain in hiding during three U.S. presidential administrations. On May 2, 2011, bin Laden was shot and killed inside a secured private residential compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, by U.S. Navy SEALs in a covert operation authorized by U.S. President Barack Obama. Al-Qaeda confirmed the death of bin Laden on militants' websites on May 6, 2011, vowing to retaliate.

As Dijcks would prefer it (and its current form):

Bin Laden was on the American Federal Bureau of Investigation's lists of Ten Most Wanted Fugitives and Most Wanted Terrorists for his involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings. From 2001 to 2011 bin Laden was a major target of the War on Terror, which has resulted in a total of between 80,000 and 1.2 million civilian deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia between 2001 and 2007.

Bin Laden managed to remain in hiding during 3 U.S. presidential administrations. In April of 2011, United States President Barack Obama's was given intelligence about his seclusion at a private residential compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. On April 29, 2011, the president authorized a raid that was ultimately carried out by members of the U.S. Navy SEALs in the early morning of May 2, 2011. The firefight that ensued resulted in fatal gunshot wounds to bin Laden's head and chest. Information found during the SEALs' intelligence sweeps of the compound is believed to have provided further intelligence about al-Qaeda. Shortly after his death, bin Laden's body was transported out to sea for burial, thus ending a manhunt that lasted nearly 12 years.

On May 6, 2011, al-Qaeda acknowledged his death and concurrently vowed to retaliate.

The undue weight to which I refer has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE, which is about neutrality; but to WP:LEDE: "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Currently, the summary of bin Laden's death forms the largest paragraph of the introduction; but bin Laden's death is hardly the most notable part of his life. Details such as "that was ultimately carried out by members of the U.S. Navy SEALs", "in the early morning", and "fatal gunshot wounds to bin Laden's head and chest" are the sort of information that belongs in the body of the article, not its lede; "Information found during the SEALs' intelligence sweeps of the compound is believed to have provided further intelligence about al-Qaeda" is not even about bin Laden, but about the raid on the compound, which has its own article; and the phrase "thus ending a manhunt that lasted nearly 12 years" is novelistic. I do not understand what you mean by "We NEED to move from writing it as a 'news event' and get it to encyclopedic now" and "Wrote it to be more 'encyclopedic' hence removing the 'news coverage' aspect of the text", Dijcks, because the undue (inappropriate) weight that has been given to bin Laden's death is characteristic of news coverage, whereas the concision of the version I support is characteristic of an encyclopedia. Also, I was not saying that calling him a terrorist was POV, I was saying the tone of the paragraphs and the overemphasis of the United States (which deserves strong emphasis, just not that strong) is POV. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the other version is somewhat more dramatic. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we can easily remove the last line of text, and not degrade the article, so I will (unless someone else does).

I'd point out:

The difficulty here when writing is: If the U.S. is responsible for the bulk of the events that took place, then writing about those events neutrally, is not WP:UNDUE, but might appear so, when a U.S. user contributes the content. As a "U.S." user myself, I haven't written it from a place of "pride" for instance (at least, not intentionally).

Dijcks | ^InOut 15:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC

My greatest concern, as I've said every time, is the inappropriate weight given to his death in the lede. — the Man in Question (in question) 17:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well, that it should not be the "highlight" of the article, but, given the events surrounding his life, certainly his death is very high in its level of reader interest. How does it look to you at this point? I removed the "manhunt" part, that IMO, gave some "impact", but removed it nevertheless. Dijcks | ^InOut 17:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• I trimmed the lede just now prior to reading this, and I apologize for that. Recentism is completely understandable on an article like this, but we need to remember that the lede should summarize the whole article. There's another article for a more detailed account of his death. Perhaps some of the material I trimmed would work better there. --John (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the trimmed edit reads as well as the one before it, but that said, I suspect it will continue to change given the large audience of editors here. At the very least, it appears to "weigh" in properly as part of the lead/synopsis of the entire article.. Dijcks | ^InOut 14:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

raid needs work

The description of the raid could use a few more details that are relatively important. For example, the vehicles they used to enter without slipping into radar detection (a heavily modified version of the UH-60 black hawk). --82.31.164.172 (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have sources and content you'd like to see? Bring it here, and I'm sure an editor will combine it with the current content. It might also be placed at the alternative "death of bin laden" article. Dijcks | ^InOut 13:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A source for the stealthcopter claim: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13297846 --82.31.164.172 (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternative theories on death and 9/11

Hi there, I just read this article and was appalled to see the lack of alternative theories regarding Osama bin Laden's death. Not to mention the fact that it doesn't bother questioning the US government's official position on 9/11. Neutral point of view requires that we give my version events just as much time as we give the official stories on 9/11 and the alleged raid on the Pakistan compound. Iknowthetruthandyoudont (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does no such thing; specifically, see WP:VALID. Acroterion (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP is playing a joke. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

let's run with it, and see how long it lasts!72.37.244.108 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 206.125.73.52, 9 May 2011

ADD: In November 2007, one month after a failed assassination attempt on her life, Benazir Bhutto gave an interview to David Frost, in which she stated "Omar Sheikh; the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden". One month later, on December 27, 2007, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ 206.125.73.52 (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you are trying to imply something that would fail WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

KIA symbols

I changed these from the little Christian crosses to the alternate symbol, as the crosses seemed inappropriate here. I would be in favor of just getting rid of them; what do they actually add? --John (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Prior to your edit, I made the same determination and changed the Christian crosses to "K.I.A." symbols. It seems rather gratuitous to use an overtly religious symbol where it is so obviously unneeded and unhelpful. Not sure why it was reverted. Hopefully User:PassaMethod will stop by here and discuss before reverting their edit. Ronnotel (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly agree that if we are to use symbols, the KIA are more appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Christian crosses"? "overtly religious symbol"? I suggest you cut and paste the symbol into the Wikipedia searchbox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger (typography) 79.79.34.165 (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What they are actually called and supposed to be does not matter, it matters what people think they are. The dagger (except when you put it in 72 font) looks exactly like a Christian cross, which is the form that many grave markers as we all know. KIA is preferable. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

OK - so I examined Dagger (typography) as suggested and it contained the (referenced, slightly abridged) explanation: "(I)t also represents the Christian cross...The mark is used in a text[...]as in a Christian grave headstone." Er, doesn't this exactly prove that the symbol is, in fact, overtly religious? Ronnotel (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That pretty much clinches it, I would say.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OBL's death conflicting information

There are several different sources that say Osama bin Laden died a week prior to Obama's announcement. This was reported by Fox News and Russian Television. I do not see any mention of this. To accept the U.S. government's word is a fallacy. I think the article should be edited to mention that there are conflicting reports on the date he actually died. 67.61.185.73 (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no conflict. Maybe sources were too quick to publish and got their facts wrong. If you'd like to list these sources here, maybe we can help you sort them out. Other than that, we're not very big on conspiracy theories around here, and you'll do better publishing your ideas in a blog or something. Rklawton (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't say these are conspiracy theories. It was actually reported by news sources that he died a week prior to Obama's announcement. Here are reports of them saying he died one week prior to Obama's announcement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp8rJVWC2a0

http://www.daybreakingnews.com/post/Terrorist-Osama-bin-laden-is-dead-by-CIA-operation-He-had-been-Killed-one-week-ago.aspx

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/high-alert-globally-at-us_b_856096.html

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/may/05/revisiting-the-very-first-very-wrong-reports-on/

http://www.videogamingpros.com/osama-bin-laden-dead-killed-by-us-military-action-one-week-ago/222992/

So my question is why would you only put in certain sources and completely leave out others that report conflicting information? I think this should be added into the article. How can you say that these sources are wrong and yours are right? Where is your proof? If you don't have any proof, then shouldn't both sides be added? 67.61.185.73 (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's true...there are some people out there who actually believe there is conflicting theories surrounding Bin Laden's death...Also, some people think Ashlee Simpson is an accomplished musician, some people think the capital of Canada is Milwaukee, and some people like to drink other people’s urine. Good night! Games Junn (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There will always conspiracy theories about any major news event. There is sufficient evidence to ignore them in most cases, including this one. Dijcks | ^InOut 14:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are not reliable news sources. Pass a Method talk 20:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)In the immediate aftermath, there were a lot of reporters on deadline to produce copy on scant details. Undoubtably, some reports were filed that, in retrospect, exceeded the facts that eventually came out. The basic timeline is now known with relative certainty. I see little encyclopedic value in discussing what might or might have been published during the "fog of war" period. However, if your point is that there is a grand conspiracy afoot (which conspiracy, dunno, pick one) and you wish to prove this by cherry-picking your Google cache, then perhaps you want a different page. Ronnotel (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

More sources

I found an editorial which argued that there wasn't a continuity between Bush and Obama policies regarding AQ

• Serwer, Adam. "No, killing of Bin Laden does not represent `continuity’ with Bush." The Washington Post. May 9, 2011. (Excerpt at The Root)

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama's Will

What about his will? The Guardian and others seem to be saying its real:[23]. Are we going to provide a link to a transcript of it in this main article? It does seem to contain an admission of sorts to the 9/11 attack which might make it somewhat notable, but there seems few RSs printing the full transcript. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In that document:

"The four-page document, written on a computer and signed by "your brother Abu Abdullah Osama Muhammad Bin Laden," predicts that he would die by the "treachery" of those around him. Al-Anbaa does not reveal how or when it obtained the will or whether it was able to authenticate it. Al-Majallah, a Saudi-owned Arabic magazine, published a similar document in 2002 but it was dismissed as a fraud by a pro-jihadi website."

Until there is proof that it is/was authentic, I don't think it will find its way into the article. Dijcks | ^InOut 21:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The majority of the sources should say it is authentic. Though my opinion on the matter doesn't mean much, it's electronic. Anyone could have written it and signed it as Osama as it is an electronic document, as opposed to a paper will signed by him with a verifiable signature. I am against including it until it can somehow be better authenticated by a trustworthy and reliable source. His Majesty the King of Norway, Harald V | ^{Commoners' petition space} 05:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC) - _{Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)}

My point exactly. Needs reliable sources that have authenticated it. Dijcks | ^InOut 22:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There will never been proof for its authenticity. It isn't a will made with a legal counsel, but a document that has been running around the net for quite some time now. All news sources I've seen claimed it to be a reasonably credible document. You can't get much better than that with a document written by a fugitive. It is relevant to the article, as it portrays light to his image and the way he was perceived. this article, for example, , explains the difference between what was published about the document, and whats actually in the document. if consensus is that it has no room in the main article, maybe another sub-article "Osamma Bin Laden's last will" should be created. What do you think ? Adom2000 (talk)

Consider Deleting Section Regarding Pakistan's "Alleged" Role In Hiding Osama bin Laden.

Editors, I didn't want to be so bold as to simply remove it without consensus, but consider:

Until it becomes encyclopedic FACT, (not "alleged") it really does not belong in this article. It reads like a news article or a "speculation" type journalistic piece.

Link Here: [24]

Any thoughts? Dijcks | ^InOut 02:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is a purely speculative conspiracy theory (about an alleged conspiracy of silence) and adds nothing of substance. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have just started an AFD for the main article on this nonsense so I suppose we might need to keep a small section here for those who think it has some little bit of notability. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The notable fact may be construed in this way: some believe that bin Laden was hidden by institutional elements in Pakistan. Personally, I think the belief is significant, apart from the truth of the claim. It is fine to say that some believe, e.g., Shakespeare's plays were not written by Shakespeare, even though the fact of the matter is in dispute. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to look more closely at the citations, which might clarify one way or another, whether the section has sufficient merit to stay. Let's see if any other editors weigh-in on this... Dijcks | ^InOut 21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What would be clarified? My point is that the fact of the matter is not the basis for the notability. I see today that a US Senator will hold hearings on Pakistani institutional involvement. It's not a marginal issue either way if it is capable of altering international relationships. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

GONE! Fails under WIKI:VALID. I'm deleting this nonsense. There are also several sources that claim that Elvis never died. Yeah, we should put THOSE in as well, ridiculous.lolGames Junn (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Is your argument that it's true or that it's false? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In answer to User:Ring Cinema's message @ 21:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant "clarify" whether the sources were reasonably reliable, and if so, whether the content was sufficient to warrant keeping the section. Note, this is the Osama bin Laden Article, regarding the FACTS surrounding his life and death, not minority held conspiracy theories or WP:FRINGE that don't have WP:RS. Dijcks | ^InOut 02:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You are focused solely on the question of whether or not bin Laden received institutional support. However, it is notable that many believe that he did or at least can't rule out that he didn't; for that reason it deserves inclusion. We will probably never know either way certainly, which means that international relations will likely be affected by this belief -- apart from the fact of the matter. For that reason, it would be incomplete to exclude the fact that some believe it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Allegations covered robustly in RSs (as this one is) are notable, and proper for coverage therefore in WP articles. This is especially true when, as here, the allegations are made by -- among others -- notable persons. I note that that is the overwhelming view of those who have commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden, and wholly consistent with WP:SPECULATION.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep : it is a verifiable fact that numerous allegations were made against Pakistan by some very notable people. On WP we are interested in verifiability not WP:TRUTH. that these allegations may be proven false at a future date in no way diminishes their notability. not to mention that these allegations have taken US-Pakistan relations to a new low.--Wikireader41 (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked the AfD in re "Allegations...". There appears to be weak support for the actual article itself which might give it some extra breathing room as events continue to unfold in the news. In this article, I still feel it has a limited (or no) place. We can bring enough of it back, and then in a way that links to the more vigorously addressed article (for as long as it lasts). If it lasts there, then by virtue of its persistence, it will prevail here too I'd think. Dijcks | ^InOut 04:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are joking, and I missed the smiley face? 12 !voters have !voted keep at that AFD. Only 1 has !voted delete. The support for its notability at that AFD is overwhelming.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No smiley. Maybe you are confusing the AfD over there with that content's relevance, to this article. This article is not up for AfD. That article will likely remain for now, but have you read some of the comments in the "keep" !votes? Many "keep" votes were conditional in a way that suggests it could have problems later on. I'm not disputing the possibility of the "theory" mind you. In fact, I'd question Pakistan's "competence" or "complicity". Which is it? Neither is good. I'm simply saying, maybe wait until it's clear, in this article. Dijcks | ^InOut 06:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You wrote "There appears to be weak support for the actual article itself". But the !vote is 12-1 in support of "the actual article itself". I'm completely puzzled by your series of comments.

And the one delete !voter? He supported the existing mention of the issue in this article!--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't read the remarks on the other AfD as expressing conditional support. Strong Keep outnumbers Weak about two to one. My cursory count is 9 to 4. One contributor mentioned as an aside that we can revise later. Apart from the straw poll, I don't see the purpose in deleting material that will likely affect relations between Pakistan and the rest of the world for the foreseeable future. Even if it turns out to be iron clad false that Pakistan hid bin Laden, it is impossible to understand the daily news right now without realizing that the epistemological status of the belief is indefinitely indeterminate (i.e. we won't know for sure either way for quite some time). Understanding daily news is quite a bit above the minimal standard for inclusion, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we have our answer. My OP was not about the AfD but it is holding its own nevertheless. At the time of this OP, I felt that there wasn't much support for the allegations. The section was of course reinserted and so it can evolve as we get more news either way. Thanks for the input. Dijcks | ^InOut 15:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

More sources

• McGirk, Tim. "Big Love in Abbottabad: How Osama bin Laden Kept Three Wives Under One Roof." TIME. Thursday May 12, 2011.
• "Osama Bin Laden Kept Avena Sativa Syrup, 'Natural Viagra,' At Pakistan Compound." Huffington Post. May 9, 2011.
• Lister, Tim. "Osama bin Laden's escape: A tale of subterfuge and hard cash." CNN. April 28, 2011.
• Hoffman, Bruce. "Why Osama bin Laden mattered." CNN. May 13, 2011.
• Hoffman, Bruce. "The Myth of Grass-Roots Terrorism." Foreign Affairs. May/June 2008.
• Schwandt, Kimberley. "President Obama says Usama bin Laden's Death Doesn't Guarantee him Another Term." Fox News. May 13, 2011.
• "Kill Obama: Bin Laden plotted to assassinate President before 2012 election." The Daily Mail. 13 May 2011.
• Rowley, Dorothy. "Obama’s Grandmother Threatened." The Washington Informer. Friday May 13, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

UBL is anti-semitic?

how is osama bin laden anti-semetic, semetic refers to people who speak semetic languages, such as hebrew and arabic... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.253.248 (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic is confined to Jews and Judaism. — the Man in Question (in question) 08:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's something that always annoys me (as you said, Semites refers to a much larger group of people than just us), but it's common use that it's just confined to us Jews, and I'm not sure people would get anti-Jewish as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'ts not it's "common use" it's the intended use as described by the guy who coined the term —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.153.151 (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I was using "it's" as a contraction of it is (as opposed to its, which is the possessive). I was saying it is common use to use it that way even though using that term would technically be correct if you used it to describe a phobia of all Semetic peoples, rather than just us. Few would get what you mean though if you did as they only associate it with hatred of Jews (which comes up a lot of course). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from David2me, 13 May 2011

osama could not have died may 2 because obama annouced is deathe before then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David2me (talk • contribs) 17:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Read the FAQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer to FAQ question 1 is wrong

The answer to question 1 ("Why is the article reluctant to call him a terrorist?") is wrong. There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia. WP:WTA only says that certain words should be used with care. It doesn't say never use a word. WP:NPOV does not require that articles be neutral, instead it requires that editors be neutral. IOW, if reliable sources refer to Bin Laden as a terrorist, then so should we. We are not supposed to introduce bias to counter the bias of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Quest. Self "over the top" censoring is a huge problem in all communication and this is a perfect example of it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

But on reading the FAQ answer closer, it seems the decision not to use the word here was based on consensus (at some point in time) more than the guideline. That consensus would not likely prevail today, I'd say. I personally would prefer to leave the label out as it has become overused. In California they now have domestic altercations and threats(between couples) labeled as "terrorism" [25]. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You could say widely regarded as a terrorist or designated a terrorist, or w/e, we have done that for Hamas twice. Also, thank God I live in New York (where the Fourth Ammendment may be obsolete, but domestic disturbances ain't terrorism! =D) =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You must be looking at an older version; when I added the date question, I rewrote the terrorist question, because you are right that the word isn't banned; it's discouraged unless used very carefully. It's the difference between "must" and "should", really. As far as the consensus goes, I believe the consensus was marked by a slow burning away of the dispute as both sides slowly improved the lead section. Certainly, for the past two years, no experienced editor has raised it in dispute.

The whole "if X refer to Y as Z, then we should to" is an argument I remember not that fondly from the whole debate on the term. Sourcing isn't just about using Google Books to find a key phrase and using any results as citations; the source's context should be looked at too. For example, I argued against unattributed usage because someone can not be objectively a terrorist (given that there is no fixed definition), but it is objective to say that he is on a list of terrorists. Bin Laden's links with Pakistan (high approval rating among the public, allegations that the ISI helped hide him), and the now infamous meeting with Reagan in the eighties, led credence to it being a value judgement. At the time, there were also BLP concerns as well.

My personal opinion on the word "terrorist" is that, like any words used as synonyms for extremism, they don't really add anything to the meaning of a sentence. As someone who writes FAs, I'm aware that for good prose, there needs to be less "dead weight", so to speak. We need to have tight, interesting prose.

Also, as an aside, on the subject of Hamas: personally, I'd try for consistency between the articles for Hamas, and Sinn Fein and the IRA: they are both large left-wing nationalist political parties with a paramilitary arm notable for committing acts of terrorism at times (although I might get some stick from some Irish nationalists for saying that). Sceptre ^(talk) 20:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

---

He is Ben la den, it's mean he is without religion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.170.211.20 (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mitrev95, 16 May 2011

Osama was killed on the 1st of may not the second, President Obama's speech about the death of Osama was on the first of May (source)

Mitrev95 (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. From the FAQ at the top of this page:

Q: Why does the article say he died on May 2, 2011?

A: Independent verification affirms that a raid took place on the compound where bin Laden was killed in the early hours of the morning of May 2, Pakistan Standard Time. Per the Manual of Style, we describe his death as taking place on May 2, even though President Barack Obama made his announcement in the evening of May 1, Eastern Daylight Time.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Category "Extrajudicial killings"

If the order was "capture or kill" and the result was "kill" - why not have the category Category:Extrajudicial killings? IQinn (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

... because it doesn't fit the definition. Rklawton (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not? It does. IQinn (talk)

Here's the definition:

An extrajudicial killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process. Extrajudicial punishments are by their nature unlawful, since they bypass the due process of the legal jurisdiction in which they occur. Extrajudicial killings often target leading political, trade union, dissident, religious, and social figures and may be carried out by the state government or other state authorities like the armed forces and police. I don't think you're going to find enough reliable, verifiable sources to support your point of view. Rklawton (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You said it was a "capture or kill" mission. So it fits this definition. IQinn (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The definition also says it has to be unlawful, and according to the related article, it wasn't[26]. Rklawton (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"The definition also says it has to be unlawful" No that is not what the definition says. It says "An extrajudicial killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process." So, where was judicial proceeding or legal process? IQinn (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Read the full quote which I provided. It includes the phrase: by their nature unlawful. You appeared to have failed to fully quote. Now read the section I linked that states the killing was lawful. It even cites the applicable laws. Here's another example. If police are called to the scene of a bank robbery, their job is to protect the public, protect private property, and to capture, if possible the bank robber. If they end up having to shoot the bank robber instead, this would not fit the definition of extrajudicial killing - and yet that's basically what happened in this case. Rklawton (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

:) You are the one who is misquoting it. That's not what it says, please do not put things out of context. And your example does not fit at all as the police was not on a "capture or kill" mission. You fail to answer the question. Where was judicial proceeding or legal process?? IQinn (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The quote is above in italics and it comes directly from our article on extrajudicial killing. And the legal process is described in the link I sent. Yet you show no indication of having read either. Rklawton (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's be assured that i read it a few times and the killing of OBL fits perfectly this definition. Please also understand that WP articles are not WP:RS. Let's be clear: Osama bin Laden was executed – and for good reason Yes the congress made a law yes the president acted on that law and that is perfectly fine but it is simply a fact that the Judiciary was not involved. Could you just tell us where the judiciary was involved in that or you have any source that says the judiciary was involved? 01:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the requirements to fit your definition is that is by nature unlawful. This incident fails that test, so that's the end of it. Otherwise, per above, any time the police kill someone it would qualify as an extrajudicial killing (by your interpretation) and that's also clearly not the case. Rklawton (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Unlawful is not a requirement and as i said WP articles are not WP:RS and that the quote says "Extrajudicial punishments are by their nature unlawful" not killing. The police as well is never on "capture or kill" missions. So your example does not fit at all. It might be a lawful killing but that does not matter the question is if the judiciary was involved or not. Once again you fail to answer the question was the Judiciary involved in any way? No the judiciary was not involved and therefore it was an extrajudicial killing. IQinn (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The partial quote you provided is a restatement of the topic sentence where it is clear that the "punishment" is "killing" and is the subject of the article. Please use the full quote rather than chop it up into little pieces. The article is reliably sourced, so the quote is reliable. The killing wasn't unlawful per the main article on bin Laden's death, and extrajudicial killings are unlawful by nature. At this point you and I are just repeating ourselves. So let's open this to other editors and get their point of view. Rklawton (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You are quoting out of context and Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS so you need to provide a secondary WP:RS that would prove your point. So please provide a reference for you claim. The question is if the Judiciary was involved in it and it was not. So please provide a reference. IQinn (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeking consensus

Iqinn proposes adding Category:Extrajudicial killings to this article for the reasons noted above. Those wishing to comment should do so above. Those wishing to express their preference should do so below. Rklawton (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed - Iqinn is pushing his own POV and consistently uses only partial quotes to justify his position. Most sources agree bin Laden's killing was lawful, thus his killing fails the key element of the definition of "extrajudicial killing" - i.e. that a killing be unlawful. Rklawton (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment please provide at least one reference from a reliable source WP:RS that says that an "extrajudicial killing" needs to be unlawful. The question is if the Judiciary was involved in any way and that is not the case here - for further details see the discussion above. IQinn (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply - [27] end of story. Rklawton (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Not in source. Please provide Page number and quote. IQinn (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you try searching the page for the word "unlawful"? It's there four times. Rklawton (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of context? Well the word "unlawful" is on that page 4 times but not that this would proofs anything. So just provide the quote that you think would prove it. IQinn (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

OK: The Project on Extrajudicial Executions (2005-2011) provided support to the mandate of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Professor Philip Alston. It carried out factual, legal, and policy research into issues related to unlawful killings around the world. Here, the subject is "Extrajudicial executions" and it is further defined as "unlawful killings". Rklawton (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The quote does not verify that all "extrajudicial killing" are unlawful nor have you proved that the killing of OBL was lawful (that is still debated in the sources) but that is not the point here. The point is if there was a judicial proceeding or legal process and that is not the case. IQinn (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You admit the issue is being "debated" - and yet you are willing to make the assertion of "Extrajudicial killing" yourself. You know better than to do that. Likewise, it's just you who say the events described herein fit the definition (whereas its obvious to us they don't), and we don't do our editing based on that, either. Lastly, your views are in a minority of one. You aren't going to win this one, and given your frequent partial quotes and misquotes, I'm beginning to doubt your motives. Rklawton (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed I'm in full agreement with Rklawton. Al Qaeda declared war against the USA in Bin Ladens fatwa published on 23 February, 1998 and the USA has been in a state of war against al Qaeda since 12 September 2001. There is no expectation of judicial process in a war and to call this an "extra judicial killing" is idiotic.V7-sport (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for admitting that there was no judicial process. IQinn (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Rklawton, Iqinn has a history of disruption, POV pushing, as well as mischaracterizing sources. Iqinn, go slap an extra judicial executions label on Old Yeller.... another rabid dog that got it in the brainpan. V7-sport (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's another definition: [28] This definition hinges on the phrase "...the deliberate killing". In bin Laden's case, the order was "capture or kill," and the actual shooting was self-defense. Bin Laden refused to surrender and the operators feared for their safety. Prior experience with attempting to apprehend al Qaeda operatives suggested that bin Laden or the even whole compound could have been wired to explode, and bin Laden had sufficient time to access a suicide vest and detonator. Regardless, self-defense does not qualify as a "deliberate killing" and so fails the definition of judicial killing in that way, too. Rklawton (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"...not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court..." Self defense? Any sourced for that? He was unarmed? Does not change the fact that they were on a capture and kill mission and the killing was not authorized by a court. IQinn (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again you have misquoted a quote. This is a regular pattern with you. Please be careful lest some suspect it's deliberately disruptive on your part. The quote was "capture OR kill". The killing was in self defense, and the operators had no way of knowing he wasn't armed when they shot him. They knew, however, that he wasn't surrendering and they could reasonable suspect they were in danger based on prior experience. This is all sourced in the article. Self-defense is not an extrajudicial killing. Rklawton (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You be careful with out of context quoting what is a regular pattern with you. Ok now you say it was an accidental killing of an unarmed man. What make you think he would not have surrendered? They directly shot him and did not make any attempt of arresting him. IQinn (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Reuters says it was a kill mission. IQinn (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's another deliberate misquote. I did not characterize this as an "accidental killing". I called it "self defense". Please stop misquoting sources and people, it's very disruptive. Rklawton (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please you stop misquoting sources Reuters says it was a kill mission. IQinn (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't quoted Reuters, so I can't have misquoted them. Rklawton (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose It stretches the boundaries of common sense to suggest that all of the instances of the word "unlawful" in all of the sources above are being "taken out of context." Extrajudicial cleanly and neatly implies "unlawful." This is not only a non-neutral point of view, it is inaccurate. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see any disputing opinions here. Would be nice to have another voice or two but in the absence of said I think there's consensus against the category. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support The definition you quoted describes extrajudicial killing as the “killing of a person by government authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process,” for which the bin Laden raid clearly qualifies. The second sentence, which mentions that such proceedings are unlawful, is a conclusion rather than a condition of the argument. To use the fact that the attack has been declared “lawful” as a priori support for your case because extrajudicial killings are unlawful is an elementary error. Furthermore, you “don't think you're going to find enough reliable, verifiable sources to support your point of view,” just look at any official description of what happened. Does CBS News qualify as “reliable” or “verifiable,”? [29] Manx17 (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Uhm, CBS News isn't calling the killing "extrajudicial" there, Bin Laden's sons are. They might have a bit of bias. Maybe. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Uhm, it's not in quotes. Sure, they're paraphrasing the sons, but it's not in quotes so the article is not disputing the definition. Besides, regardless of what CBS or bin Laden's sons think, it was an extrajudicial killing in that it was not sanctioned by any court of law and was therefore unlawful, per the definition above. Since the suspect was unarmed, the only way you could try to dispute that is by saying it was part of the larger war and therefore he was a casualty of war, but the premeditated nature of the attack combined with the covertness of the operation (hidden even from Pakistan, who are supposed to be our allies in the war), would suggest that it is separate. Again, this has nothing to do with a question of whether it was just or not. I merely suggest we avoid euphemismsManx17 (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not stated, but implicit in the extrajudicial punishment article is that the punishment is applied to people within the jurisdiction of the state. Extrajudicial killings, when that article grows up, might also come to terms with whether or not the killing is understood to be within the jurisdiction of that state, and that judicial measures are being bypassed, not that they have no application. If one wants to be very loose in applying the term extrajudicial killing, it would apply to deaths by motor vehicle accident, or even people who die in a tsunami. What discounts those cases is that they are not done by the authority that has jurisiction - and they are accidental killings, not intentional executions. If a policeman, while apprehending a murderer, for whom an arrest warrant has been issued, kills the murderer in self-defense is that an extrajudicial killing? One also may ask if soldiers are "governmental authorities" --JimWae (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Article spreading anti semitism

just see page view statistics of this article,its the most read article in history of wikipedia maybe and yet this article is spreading anti semitism,there is no doubt that anti semitism is there in this world, as people love to hate someone else who are different from them but that does not mean wikipedia can use this article to spread anti semitism,bin laden is a misguided man who had a narrow oulook of the world in which he divided the world into people with different identities fighting each other for supremacy,the truth is in this world people do not exist to become supreme,they exist to try and hope to get close to the creator,reduce the anti semitism in this article.Xxrvdfan1000xx (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism? But how? I think, you have got the definitions mixed up. Shovon (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

anti semitic sentences need to get reduced or toned down,reading this some ppl might get influenced and become anti semitic thinking its acceptable,this man's cult of personality needs to be reduced,people need to realise he was not a god,nor did he have good or bad powers,he was only a human striving to achieve his own goals.Xxrvdfan1000xx (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Could you give some more specific examples? I'm not sure how this article promotes anti-Semetism. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Willbat, 20 May 2011

In the "Mujhadeen in Afghanistan" section of the article, please change "arrived to Pakistan" to "arrived in Pakistan" Thankyou! Willbat (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Willbat (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather than changing the preposition, I changed the verb. "arrived in Pakistan" is grammatically correct, but semantically odd--it sounds like he suddenly magically appeared there. So I switched to "went to", which should solve the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hacecalor, 20 May 2011

death May 1

Hacecalor (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

See the FAQs at the top of the page. He died May 2 in Pakistan Standard Time. BurtAlert (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Assassinated - revisited

We've got a couple of users who would like to characterize bin Laden's demise as an assassination. Our last thread on this subject had some in favor and some opposed with a general nod toward waiting to see how this all sorted out. We've also got a related thread above regarding "extrajudicial killing", too. Does anyone favor using the term "assassination" to describe this death? Rklawton (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - "assassination" is a judgmental term, and we should hold off using it until an authoritative judicial processes has determined it to be so. The U.S. administration has characterized the mission as "capture or kill", and that's not how anyone would characterize an "assassination". Rklawton (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, capture is not a part of assassination. The idea is to kill the person. I should know, I've been binging on Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood the last two days. ^^ Also, it depends on what the sources call it. Not us in our desires to dispense internet justice (not @Rk btw, just general statement). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The US administration is not a credible party in this regard, and it seems extremely unlikely that this is ever going to be subject to any kind of judicial process. That's the whole point of an extrajudicial killing, isn't it? Graft | talk 01:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per the stuff I said, mostly based on what sources say (doin' it right). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Per sources, standard usage of the term and legal opinion. Most newspapers are using the term "assassination". Although American newspapers tend to avoid the term, the LA Times uses assassination. The legal profession states it is an assassination under International law on the basis that assassination is a response to "war" and thus justifiable. Apparently if it is not assassination, then killing him is illegal under International law, see Osama Bin Laden and Assassination in International Law. Wayne (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Most of the sources I've read are not using the term "assassination". Therefore, neither should we. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I'm talking about international newspapers, not American. Wayne (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A Google News Search gives me:

• 33,664 hits for "Bin Laden" killed[30]
• 32,401 hits for "Bin Laden" death|died|dead[31]
• 4,776 hits for "Bin Laden" assassinated.[32] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comparing the same terms with .edu instead of news. 286,0000 for killed, 45,500 for death|died|dead and 111,000 for assassinated. Wayne (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of those appear to be blogs which have no editorial oversight.[33] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt "most" are blogs but what makes you think news sites have editorial oversight? The majority dont have any significant oversight, none have peer review and all newspaper articles are considered opinion by academics lol. At least many of the .edu sites have more weight than most newspapers. Wayne (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Check the search results I linked to above. Some of the blogs are from computer classes where they're discussing if the raid would make a good video game.[34] I'm not going to debate that newspapers are more reliable than personal blogs. If you disagree, I suggest you take it up at WP:V and get the whole community to change the policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting a handfull of video game discussions invalidates a large number of academic legal viewpoints? Where did you get the idea that anyone has suggested blogs are a better source than newspapers? If you cant mount an intelligent case for rejecting academic sources you are better off not replying. Wayne (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose On the simple grounds that it is inherently a non-neutral description of the event and given that we don't have any strong, sound basis on which to use that term to describe the event. That there is disagreement among newspapers (domestic, international, intergalactic, whatever) only tends to strengthen my view that we should not use this term. I also tend to think the definition of the word tends to not support its usage in this context, if we agree that the order was to "capture or kill." The Random House definition of the term paints it in a strongly negative light (the killing must be "treacherous", etc.). If we use a word to describe the action that calls the action inherently treacherous, that is very problematic as far as I'm concerned. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Alpha Centauri Daily Xenu is saying he was killed. Also, I'm not sure dictionary definitions really help us. I think we just go by what the sources say rather than our own interpretations or those of Random House or other dictionaries. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Well, aliens know the real story in general. More or less agree. My dictionary point was intended to demonstrate that the word "assassinate" has very specific, non-neutral connotations, and if there isn't broad consensus among sources (and it seems clear there isn't) that this was an "assassination," then we, as an encyclopedia, should absolutely not be using the less neutral word. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rklawton.V7-sport (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Why can't we just use the word "death"? It is neutral.—Chris!_c/t 19:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Since this is a matter of dispute "death' is neutral. However, since sources do claim its was an assassination we should report on that view within the article under the category of his death. I note that "death" does not preclude it being an assassination. BernieW650 (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Because "death" is not a verb. The question at issue is what verb to use to describe the action of, erm, effecting his "death." I oppose the usage of "assassinated" or "assassination" for the reasons listed above by myself and others, and prefer "killed." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The sources seem not to use assassination much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for now as the sources don't predominantly use the term. If this should change then we should revisit this. Caution all participants that this is not a suitable topic for levity, for multiple reasons. --John (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This was a military act of war. You don't "assassinate" someone who is active in a war against you. It would be an insult to the troops involved, given the negative connotation of the word, the meaning of which suggests premeditated murder as well. People are "assassinated" for their political activities/views such as Kennedy was, usually by extremist minorities. Dijcks | ^InOut 21:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Consensus seems pretty clear on this serious, inappropriate-for-levity discussion. Can probably be closed at this point, eh? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Look up the definition of "assassinate" on any notable dictionary. Technically, Osama bin Laden was assassinated. So, for the sake of clarity, I support the use of the term "assassination". --82.31.164.172 (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment He was also "technically" killed. Why do we have to go as far as saying the United States "technically" murdered someone rather than leaving it as the equally "technical" killed? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think dictionary definitions are all that relevant in issues like this.

• support The google-based kind of mincing diplomacy suggested above seems like it is designed to support official fictions, rather than present an objective reality. See, for example this article by a knowledgeable, well-connected reporter. The idea that the mission was "capture or-" is not credible; thus, the deliberate murder of a politically significant figure, whether in the context of a war or not, makes this an assassination. Graft | talk 01:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Two things. First, your article never uses the word "assassinate," which is interesting to me. Second, your definition of the word "assassinate" uses the word "murder." It seems very clear to me that if you agree that an assassination is more or less equivalent to "a highly prominent murder," then calling this an assassination is plainly pushing a point of view. Are you really saying Wikipedia should be in the business of determining that the United States just murdered somebody? Your reality seems extremely subjective to me, in this case, and when even the articles you and the other individual below discussing whether capture was a seriously-considered option or not fail to use the word "assassinate," I have absolutely no idea why you think an encyclopedia should. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Mea culpa - the article was submitted in evidence against the idea that this was a 'kill or capture' mission, since many 'oppose' voters above cited the "or capture" as a reason for feeling that "assassination" was inappropriate. I have no attachment to the word 'murder', and my intent is not to emphasize the unlawful nature of the act, merely to emphasize that it was a deliberate choice to kill him, which I fear will become lost behind vague language. But I'm no longer certain that 'assassinate' will do that best, since it seems the connotation is more debated than I thought. However, I'd still like to register my displeasure that actions that are clearly one thing (e.g. torture, assassination) cannot be called that because official sources would like us to refrain from such language. Graft | talk 22:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• support Graft is correct. The article he mentions demonstrates that the intention was never to capture bin Laden, as does this article[35], as well as a host of others. Essentially no effort was made to apprehend the suspect. The only way you could avoid calling this an assassination is by claiming that it was part of the larger "war on terror" and he was another casualty of war, but the premeditated manner in which this took place, including covert planning without Pakistani foreknowledge seems to contradict such an assertion. Incidentally, all this has nothing to do with a question of whether you think it was right or wrong for the U.S. to go in and do this, I merely suggest we try not to use euphemisms in discussing it. Manx17 (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment See above comment to Graft, applies equally to yours. I suppose, as an addition, and sincerely with all due respect, it's slightly hilarious to suggest that "killing" is a euphemism for an event in which we caused someones life to end (ie "killed" them). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Killing to me usually implies an unnatural ending of one's life, typically in a violent manner.

• Comment - It should be noted that it was pointed out in a previous rm discussion that the vast majority of Death-related articles use Death of rather than Killing of or Assassination of. A notable exception is of course Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Here it is from the Death of talk. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 07:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - One does not ordinarily call it an assassination when one kills a general after attacking his headquarters and shooting him when he resists capture. Generally one must have a position in a legitimate government to qualify as being assassinated -- but even if a head of state (president, premier, king) were killed as he took offensive measures, that would not ordinarily count as an assassination. To say it was an assassination would imply that OBL was a legitimate political figure AND that he took no offensive action when cornered. We do not know that he took no offensive action and it would be POV to suggest he was a legitimate political figure. If someone says John Lennon was assassinated, he would likely be suggesting that it was part of a plot done for political reasons. OBL was killed for military reasons (though it does have political consequences) as part of a military operation. --JimWae (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Because this is an encyclopedia there is an assumption that it should at least be internally consistent. So, per wikipedia's entry on assassination:

An assassination is 'to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons.' An additional definition is 'the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons.' Assassinations may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives.

The attack in Abbottabad clearly meets these conditions. Whatever other issues are raised are immaterial. Manx17 (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR, specifically the part on synthesis. Any arguments based on definitions are irrelevant. Any change like that should be based on policy. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Here's a new (?) source: Israel dubs bin Laden death an assassination, a story in the Ohio Standard newspaper. I chose my username before I was aware there was such a paper, btw; I have no connection to it at all, except that I really like its name! I've never been to the U.S. state of Ohio, either, but I found this story when I searched the web for my own username.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that story title is somewhat misleading. It should say that two of the best known Israeli news sources and Arutz Sheva called it such, not Israel (Which implies Bibi and party leaders), and it shouldn't characterise the Israeli media as doing so when it only cites two papers (well-known though they may be) and Arutz Sheva. They leave out other big guys like YnetNews, Maariv and Globes. I'm afraid your story title and article premise are there inaccurate, OhioStandard (that explanation won't get you out of being the paper personified). =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Opppose It still can't be legitimately called an assassination. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not? see, for example, Operation_Foxley. Graft | talk

File:Bin Laden Stencil.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Bin Laden Stencil.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Name hatnote

A hatnote has been added, reading; "This is an Arabic name; the family name is bin Laden."

"bin Laden" is only the surname in Western context, so the hatnote doesn't make sense.

It's really only used for names where the surname is first, and the hatnote also links to the naming customs article of that culture, explain why it is first. Everybody knows Barack's last name is Obama, everybody knows Osama's surname in the Western context is "bin Laden".

I've tried telling the user who placed the hatnote, why it's of no use, but he doesn't seem to understand my points. John Cengiz talk 17:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree - its not in any way a link to any relevant info about this name (its only used as am example) - Plus the linking is already in the "Name section" with a much more comprehensive overview of the "Name situation". Moxy (talk)

Saad bin Laden

The infobox which lists Osama's children says Saad bin Laden was Killed in Action, however according to his article he is still alive. His death was indeed reported yet never confirmed and denied by Al-Qaida almost immediately. So what is it? Is Saad dead or is Saad alive? His article and his father's are conflicting each other. Polozooza (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.244.175.155, 26 May 2011

Can you please change "...the terrorist organization responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States..." to ...the terrorist organization allegedly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States... because it has not been proven fact that al-Qaeda was responsible. Their are many unanswered questions regarding 9/11 and I think that it is only fair that everyone gets held responsible fairly.

96.244.175.155 (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you

 Not done Same reason we don't do conspiracy theories on the Sept 11 attacks page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a theory that al-Qaeda conspired to commit the attacks of 9/11. That is a conspiracy theory, therefore adding the word "allegedly" is entirely appropriate. KenricAshe (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is the most generally accepted theory and other theories lack both proof aswell as general acceptance. Polozooza (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Theories or hypotheses? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

He.. or she at the top has a point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.84.31.82 (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed re "genetic testing"

"Subsequent genetic testing supported the preliminary identification." What does this even mean? How was bin Laden's DNA available for comparison? Why is there no citation for this claim? If the claim can't be substantiated, please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.230.226 (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"How Officials Used DNA to Identify bin Laden" - There's your citation, courtesy of Time Magazine. It explains how it was done. It took me 10 seconds with Google to find this. Perhaps in the future you could use Google to avoid the need to ask silly questions? Just a thought. Seanr451 (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

BEER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.33.165 (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If the reference sample came from bin Ladens sister then the result can only say that the body is related, not that it is a specific person. I'm also concerned that they are claiming 99.9% certainty when the maximum match you can make with brother/sister is 90%, to increase this you need samples from other sisters or the mother. I have no doubt it is bin Laden but I think we need a much better reference for the claim. The Time article also exaggerates when it says "There's a 1 in 1 quadrillion chance this isn't the same person" so we also need to understand what a "99.9% certainty" actually means when comparing siblings. It means there is 0.1% possibility that the match is a coincidence and that they are not actually related at all. Thats a 1 in 1,000 chance, not 1 in 1 quadrillion. In fact 1 in 350 million is considered exceptional which still means that however unlikely, around 1,000 people in the world may match by chance which is why courts inform juries that they may disregard DNA if other evidence points to innocence. Because such a 1 in 1 quadrillion probability is actually impossible, unlike in televisions CSI, the word "match" is never used by forensic scientists in courts as it implies too much certainty. I believe they use the phrase "consistent with" instead. 99.99% is the industry standard with much higher percentages required as proof for courts. For example, 99.998% is the norm for paternity claims. The only 100% certainty claim that can be made is if there is no match at all. Wayne (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I just did a search for a reference and found there is another problem apart from there not being one. Bin Laden has no full siblings so all a match will suggest is that they both had an ancestor in common, ie: you can not even say they were cousins with any confidence let alone brother and sister. Dan Krane, a professor of genetics at Wright State University in Ohio and William Thompson, a criminology professor at the University of California have both stated that the governments 99.9% match is misleading as you cant identify a particular individual by comparing DNA from family members. Kane said that all 99.9% tells us is that it is 1000 times more likely that the body is related to the bin Laden family than to a person picked at random. We may have to wait for more information from Obama. Wayne (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This source is one of the most recent I can find and discusses the lack of information available. Wayne (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Change in wording

In the below:

"In April 2011, President Obama ordered a covert operation to kill or capture bin Laden. On May 1, 2011, the White House announced that U.S. Navy SEALs had carried it out, murdering him in his Abbottabad, Pakistan compound.[153]"

change "murdering" with the more neutral phrase "killing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesthecat (talk • contribs) 00:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon,...

Could anyone provide pictures and info about towers Osama is talking about?

Maybe this information would be valuable addition to some of the articles dealing with Osama bin Laden and 9/11 attacks. 93.138.81.56 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Beliefs and ideology

When next unprotected, can you clarify the origin of the condensed quote:- //According to former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader was motivated by a belief that U.S. foreign policy has oppressed, killed, or otherwise harmed Muslims in the Middle East,[42] condensed **by Scheuer** in the phrase "They **(Muslims)** hate us **(non-Muslim superpowers)** for what we do, not who we are."// — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.194.250 (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Get it straight

every other page says he died on may 1st 96.50.210.249 (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Because this site is the website that everybody can edit. See FAQ why he died on May 2. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 03:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to make the FAQ more noticeable? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Can the FAQ box be made permanently open (uncollapsed) and the "STOP" warning altered accordingly (perhaps bold the first sentence following stop as well)? Wayne (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Article Based on Hearsay

Osama bin Laden was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article.

I fail to see how this will ever be a good article when it's whole premise is based on heresay evidence. I see NO physical evidence presented that would convince a court of law that a corpus dilecti exists/ed. The DNA has no time stamp on it or to it. When a judge tells the bounty hunter to bring 'em back dead or alive, he doesnt say bring back a story, which is all you have here. Where are the eye witness reports out of Abbottabad? Nice try! Keep trying, the sentient among us arent buying the WH story repeated here or any of the many ever changing version, that is.

Abbottabad Neighbor Claims Bin Laden Raid Was Botched ... May 18, 2011 ... Abbottabad Neighbor Claims Bin Laden Raid Was Botched ... In a BBC News report, Orla Guerin interviewed dozens of people who were adamant ... clipsnews.com/abbottabad-neighbor-claims-bin-laden-raid-was-...

Billyc69 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC) billyc69

Wikipedia is not a court of law. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the official version of the event. Just because one little person disagrees with it wont get the article taken down, I can guarantee that. Case in point = Official 9/11 articles. J.Rly (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

listen bro,sometimes,one historic event can have many versions,they are called conspiracy theories by some,this is the case especially in the life of a famous person but they cannot become part of this article,include them in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden_conspiracy_theories Xxrvdfan1000xx (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an encyclopedic entry, it's an Anglo-American government story. There is zero content about the highly disputed year of Bin Laden's death, for example. If Wikipedia is going to publish American government propaganda, please advertise the website as American government-centric and stop pretending to be objective. Guv2006 (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That is because it isn't 'highly disputed'. The beliefs of fringe conspiracy theorists are irrelevant to an article based on mainstream sources. Convince them, and the article can change. This is how Wikipedia works. If you want to see us a part of the conspiracy, fine. Nobody is stopping you. We aren't going to change policy to suit your beliefs however. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Beliefs? Plural? You have fallen into the trap of believing anyone with an alternative theory must a) have a plethora of them, and b) adhere to what you term as conspiracy theorists' views as a matter of course. My view on this matter is widely supported globally, so hopefully someone with more time on his/her hands will provide said sources: I have enough time for occasional comments and tweaks,, but not for expansive re-writes of articles. In the meantime, you might want to visit Google - if you can be bothered. Guv2006 (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

infobox FBI ten most wanted

That's a pretty big infobox and a lot of that information is redundant to the lead infobox. Do we need to have every repetitive field (like year of birth, nationality, etc.) filled out in this infobox or could we pare it down some? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The infobox is redundant and irrelevant. Everything in it is covered in the article. Wayne (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Children

The article mentions him having 20 children. How many of them are still alive and if they are what happened to them? S_peakF_ree (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• The article is either too long. No need to talk about his children here. Your question makes no sense to me nor an answer could contribute to the article quality.--Eleven Nine (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

The September 11 attacks on the World Trace Center in New York City happened in 2001 - and not in 2004, as is incorrectly stated on the page about Osama bin Laden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.89.172 (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That is when Osama admitted to the attacks, not when they took place. Tried to clarify the article. Morphh ^(talk) 21:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

death possibly hoax

--Ronnie42 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)It's been know for a while that there has never been any body shown to the public to prove his death. There are some images uploaded around but they have already been clearly proven in the past to be fake, easily made in photoshop. So his death should not be 2011 but only mentioned as claimed to be dead. Also dna can easily be taken from one of his family but that doesn't explain why no body was ever shown.

No body was shown to he public because it was thought that would be inflammatory. There was a brief spasm of conspiracy-thinking on this, but I know of no serious scholar or journalist who believes UBL is alive. IronDuke 19:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

How is having no proof whatsoever of UBL's deceased state a "conspiracy theory"? One would think he has been deceased a very long time..--Suffery (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture

I know this happened several months ago, but why was the original picture removed? The new picture is of poor resolution and quality, essentially a crop of another picture that is already in the article. 216.172.135.225 (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Military Career?

It says he had a military career from 1988-2011? He was never in the military, and a Terrorist Organization doesn't count as one. --99.37.159.21 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Taken purely at face value, I would say you're absolutely correct, however, I think that here it is just an adaption of an existing infobox field - I don't think they have a separate one for militant groups, so they just use the military service one, whether correct or not.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The more I have been thinking about this, is there any way it could be changed? i was trying things with the infobox in edit preview, but nothing would work without the 'military service' header so I just left it alone. Is there any way to remove the header and have the rest of the info show up still? Some of the PKK leaders' articles are like that (but then again they are also simpler and smaller articles). In any case, I think it is something that should be looked into, cause it is kind of misleading listing a 'military career' for bin laden. my 2 cents--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Why should it be changed..? He was involved in a organized Militaristic force that involved itself in Militaristic activities, conceived and carried out strikes/attacks, it recruited members, and continues to do so. It is engaged in a war, that being the "war on terror". Personally; I think it gives the article a more neutral feel to it, it's better now than two years ago where the article was so biased on the U.S side that it was almost unbelievable. We performed sources, the U.S Political Administration began stating contradictions to statements, so we had to select which was more believable. The article is fine, leave it. It's better now than it has been.--Suffery (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Different picture

this picture is too respectful for this scumbag. 125.112.91.145 (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

How so? It's the lowest quality image we have available; everything else has been laid clean to Copyright or is unusable due to Wiki-standards. The image shows his facial appearance, his often used selection of clothing and the wall of the apartment the interview was conducted in, it meets standard. Seeing as how the U.S never released any images, stamps, proof or anything of anything to hint that Usama is actually deceased, we are unable to include such things into the article.. being that they do not exist. We have had this discussion numerous times, and this is the image that has arrived of it. --Suffery (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden's whereabouts since September 2001 copy editing request

--Can someone tell me what sort of revisions you'd like to see in the section about bin Laden's activities and whereabouts since September 2001? There is quite an archive on this article and I don't have time to review all of it, but I'm not the worst writer in the world. I'd like to have some direction on what changes are desired before I put in a bunch of time on this. Carmaskid (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

---Okay. I have just finished reading the first 11 archives of discussion on this article. While I admire the rigorous nature of the discussion I am reasonably sure that my ego will not stand up to it. Definitely not going to be bold, here! Carmaskid (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

--- The following is a suggestion for a text revision of the above named section to improve its readability. I kept all the facts currently in the text; I changed the order of sentences, and only deleted information that was being repeated; I bulletted the reports of bin Laden's whereabouts that were presented, and listed them in chronological order. The only new information I added was regarding the dates of Gen. McChrystal's service in Afghanistan and the reporting of his comments, which allowed me to place that item in chronological context.

"Shortly after the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush stated that he now hoped to "kill or capture" Osama bin Laden. Subsequently, bin Laden retreated further from public contact to avoid capture. Numerous speculative press reports were issued about his whereabouts or even death; some placed bin Laden in different locations during overlapping time periods. None were ever definitively proven. After military offensives in Afghanistan failed to uncover his whereabouts, Pakistan was regularly identified as his suspected hiding place. Some of the conflicting reports regarding bin Laden’s continued whereabouts and mistaken claims about his death follow:

• In December 11, 2005, a letter from Atiyah Abd al-Rahman to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi indicated that bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership were based in the Waziristan region of Pakistan at the time. In the letter, translated by the United States military's Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, "Atiyah" instructs Zarqawi to "send messengers from your end to Waziristan so that they meet with the brothers of the leadership [...] I am now on a visit to them and I am writing you this letter as I am with them..." Al-Rahman also indicates that bin Laden and al-Qaeda are "weak" and "have many of their own problems." The letter has been deemed authentic by military and counterterrorism officials, according to The Washington Post.

• Al-Qaeda continued to release time-sensitive and professionally-verified videos demonstrating bin Laden's continued survival as recently as August 2007. Al-Qaeda continued to release time-sensitive and professionally-verified videos demonstrating bin Laden's continued survival as recently as August 2007.

• In 2009, a research team led by Thomas W. Gillespie and John A. Agnew of UCLA used satellite-aided geographical analysis to pinpoint three compounds in Parachinar as bin Laden's likely hideouts.

• In March 2009, the New York Daily News reported that the hunt for bin Laden had centered in the Chitral District of Pakistan, including the Kalam Valley. Author, Rohan Gunaratna, stated that captured al-Qaeda leaders had confirmed that bin Laden was hiding in Chitral.

• In the first week of December 2009, a Taliban detainee in Pakistan said he had information that bin Laden was in Afghanistan in 2009. The detainee reported that in January or February (2009) he met a trusted contact who had seen bin Laden in Afghanistan about 15 to 20 days earlier. However, on December 6, 2009, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the United States had had no reliable information on the whereabouts of bin Laden in years. Pakistan's Prime Minister Raza Gillani rejected claims that Osama bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan.</ref> Pakistan's Prime Minister Gillani rejected claims that Osama bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan.

• On Dec. 9, 2009 BBC News reported that U.S. Army General Stanley A. McChrystal, who served as Commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan from June 15, 2009 until June 23, 2010 emphasized the continued importance of the capture or killing of bin Laden, thus indicating that the U.S. high command believed that bin Laden was still alive.

• On February 2, 2010, Afghan president, Hamid Karzai arrived in Saudi Arabia for an official visit. The agenda included discussion of a possible Saudi role in Karzai’s plan to reintegrate Taliban militants. During the visit an anonymous official of the Saudi Foreign Ministry declared that the kingdom had no intention of getting involved in peacemaking in Afghanistan unless the Taliban severed ties with extremists and expelled Osama bin Laden.

• On June 7, 2010, the Kuwaiti newspaper, Al Siyassa reported that bin Laden was hiding out in the mountainous town of Savzevar, in north eastern Iran. The Australian newspaper online published the claim on June 9. On June 9, The Australian News, online edition repeated the claim.

• On October 18, 2010, an unnamed NATO official suggested that bin Laden was "alive and well and living comfortably" in Pakistan, protected by elements of the country's intelligence services. A senior Pakistani official denied the allegations and said the accusations were designed to put pressure on the Pakistani government ahead of talks aimed at strengthening ties between Pakistan and the United States.

• On April 16, 2011, a leaked Al Jazeera report claimed that bin Laden had been captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan."

Carmaskid (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed something needing a minor edit. In the 7th paragraph, it says "However, on December 6, 2009. U.S. Secretary of Defense..." After 2009 that should be a comma not a period. I'm not sure if I can make that edit or not due to the semi-protectedness of the page. DaffyBridge (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

this is also a minor edit but I noticed in your first bulleted paragraph, there is a comma after 2005. It seems like that shouldn't be there. It could be removed to say "A December 11, 2005 letter" or changed to "In December 11, 2005, a letter". I think the latter is the safer play. DaffyBridge (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go through the revision so carefully. I haven't changed the actual article, yet, and just fixed the above draft to reflect the two corrections you mentioned. Before doing this revision I read the copy editing guidelines. They seemed to say that the comma you talked about in #2 is a Wikipedia standard. I like your way better. Carmaskid (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like this sentence would be better off giving a date instead of 'most recently' since this page will likely be here a while. Also, it seems like this is something that might need to be sourced.

Most recently, U.S. Army General Stanley A. McChrystal had emphasized the continued importance of the capture or killing of bin Laden, thus clearly indicating that the U.S. high command continued to believe that bin Laden was probably still alive. HotshotCleaner (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed that "Most recently" in the suggested revision above, You're right about needing a source, too. Here's a link to a story in BBC News in Dec. 2009 that gives that information: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8402138.stm. I don't know how to do a footnote, so maybe someone can help with that. I'm going to move your comments into the prior topic to keep all the comments together. If that's a problem for you, just revert it.Carmaskid (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think I figured out how to put all the links back in. I did the edit to the article, tonight. I spent the last 10 hours reading and trying to figure out how to put in the citation for McChrystal's remarks and it's still formatted incorrectly. It can always be changed again if I made a total mess of it.Carmaskid (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I could not find a reference for the first sentence in this section that read, "Shortly after the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush stated that he now hoped to "kill or capture" Osama bin Laden" so I substituted with this sentence, "While referring to Osama bin Laden in a CNN film clip on September 17, 2001, then President George W. Bush stated, "I want justice. There is an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted dead or alive'." for which I could find a reference.Carmaskid (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Here it is [36]. The video should be available, too as the clip of him standing with the bullhorn on the rubble is frequently shown. Rklawton (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I checked out the bullhorn video, and he doesn't say "capture or kill". No surprise Huffington got it wrong, and I shouldn't have even considered posting it as a source. From what I can tell, the "capture or kill" promise came from Obama and not Bush. Rklawton (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so should I keep my change?Carmaskid (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to your edits. They're reliably sourced, and they serves as an illustration of Bush's foreign policy toward OBL at the time. Rklawton (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The Arabic part of the following sentence does not say al amir: His admirers have referred to him by several nicknames, including the "Prince" or "Emir" (الالمجاهد, al-Amīr),

The correct arabic for al amir is الأمير. So الالمجاهد should be replaced by الأمير.

Source: I speak Arabic, and google translate can be used to verify the word for non Arabic speakers. 93.125.151.52 (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Done.  Chzz  ►  08:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 November 2011

Sir or Ma'am,

On the Wikipedia page for "Osama bin Laden", under the section with a heading of "Name", there is a sentence containing the words "and is not strictly speaking a preposition". While I do not believe in the "GRAMMAR OR DEATH!" mentality, I do believe that an edit would contribute to the readability of the article. I propose an edit that places a comma between "not" and "strictly" as well as "speaking" and "a" in my previous quote. In the case that it is asked, why? I believe that it is standard in English to surround declarations which break 'train of thought' in a sentence with commas. I do not believe that this edit will change the objectivity of this article, it would only increase readability (or decrease if I am indeed mistaken).

Thank you for your time.

66.168.254.78 (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- John of Reading (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Working Toward Good Article Assessment

{{help me}}I started to go through this article thinking it could be reassessed. I found a reference for the following sentence, "Mohammed recommended Hamida to Mohammed al-Attas, an associate. Al-Attas married Hamida in the late 1950s or early 1960s, and they are still together." and, in fact, it seems to be verbatim. [18] I don't think it's a very good source and there is a question of plagarism. I quit checking for another source when my security software told me it had blocked 5 Trojans. So, do I delete the sentence, or what?Carmaskid (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Using this tool indicates that there is indeed a text overlap. The question is, whether it is plagiiarism/copyright-violation, or if that source copied from wikipedia. So I used Wikiblame, and searching for a sample overlapping phrase: "mohammed bin laden divorced hamida soon" with this, which indicates that it was added with this edit on 9 May 2011 - but the referenced article [37] is dated 3 August 2011.

Therefore, this doesn't seem a copyright-concern (so, not so urgent). Of course, it might not be an appropriate source - I haven't really assessed that; but you could ask on WP:RSN.

There is a good guide to dealing with copyright issues in WP:CV101 - but if you do have further copyright concerns and would like help, please post to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, which usually gets a quick response.

As regards the other problem - a link claiming it had trojans - you'd have to tell us which it was; I tried a few of the others, and didn't see anything. So if that's still a problem, can you paste another {{helpme}} and tell us which links causes the alert, please.  Chzz  ►  00:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear. When I was going through the Google listings for Hamida al-Attas trying to find a better/additional source for the info that she married Attas in the 50s or 60s at least one of those sites was loaded for bear. It was not one of the URLS currently listed as sources in the Wikipedia article, but it scared me, so I stopped looking for a better source for the information. I very much appreciate your help and the info about checking on copyright issues. As you can probably tell, I'm a very apprentice editor, learning through my mistakes.  :-) Carmaskid (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 15 November 2011, duplicate sentence

There is a typographical error, in that a sentence has been duplicated. The offending sentence is

Al-Qaeda continued to release time-sensitive and professionally-verified videos demonstrating bin Laden's continued survival as recently as August 2007. Al-Qaeda continued to release time-sensitive and professionally-verified videos demonstrating bin Laden's continued survival as recently as August 2007.[164]

Please remove one of those sentences.

Picnicpete (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Murdered or Killed.

By any legal standards this was a premeditated murder. Not matter how big a scumbag Osama bin Ladin was or even if he was convicted for what he did. USA was not at war with Pakistan and invaded Pakistan illegaly to comit a murder. I suggest that the term "killed" is changed to "murdered". The Ködder 193.10.32.229 (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

A baseless suggestion. Criminality is established in a court or similar venue, not the tribunal of 193.10.32.299. ^Bongo_matic 14:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea. Are there no unsolved murders? I'm quite sure that Wikipedia is full of unsolved murders. In this particular case we know that this is an illegal act. Even in Pakistan it is illegal to kill people. They are even so civilized that the have a moratorium on death penalty. If this is a legal killing, you have to explain to me how the judicial system in Pakistan works. How is it possible to send military personell in to a country that you are not at war with and kill a person without breaking the law? If it is impossible to call this a legal killing. Then it is a murder. Just as the victims of Jack the ripper are murdered. Just as it would be called a murder if Chilean special forces came to USA to kill Henry Kissinger. The Ködder 89.160.91.159 (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't speak for Pakistan. We know Obama authorized the hit. Whether this is illegal or not is up to the Pakistani court system. So where are the indictments? The determination as to legality is obviously not a straightforward one. Kauffner (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I migth have to back on this one... Law 107-40 gave congressional authorization to the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Unfortunately that law has not been passed in any other country. Making it a murder by any other countrys standard. (Not only Pakistan.) This migth put Obama in the same position as Henry Kissinger. Putting him at risk of not beeing able to leave the country. The Ködder89.160.91.159 (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether he was "murdered" or "killed" depends not just on how you define the terms (especially as they apply to a known terrorist actively seeking to harm the country which ultimately brought him down), but also on who's account you believe. Early reports had suggested that he was shot while cowering behind his wife (or wives) unarmed. More recent reports (based on interviews with SEALs involved) indicate that he was attempting to grab his ASKU rifle when he was shot, and that he would have been taken alive, had he surrendered instead. (In fact, there were many inconsistencies in the initial reports, but that's the subject of another discussion...)

Unless reliable new evidence comes to light showing that Obama, Panetta, or others ordered that bin Laden be killed and not captured, I don't see the point of even having the semantics debate. DoctorEric (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

--Ronnie42 (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)The death of Osama Bin Laden has never truely been proven. Only a possible cover up, the body was never shown publicly, most images showing picture of him seeming to be dead were fake, done in Photoshop.

Date format

So this page has the death date written as Month, Day, Year....while the Hitler page has Day, Month, Year. Can we get some consistency and have the same date format for both or all deaths on Wikipedia? Tri400 (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a false quote that should be removed: "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."[154]. Already discussed here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:George_W._Bush — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.238.62 (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)