Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Legality section

That new legality section appears to be a bit of wp:undue. It is long relative to the rest of the article, and based primarily on one source. I would suggest -- assuming it is kept -- that consideration be given to trimming it, and/or moving text to a separate new article if it warrants it.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that when copyediting it. I feel sure there must be other reliable sources we could use to support the section, and I would favor doing this over trimming it. --John (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The definition of assassination

To murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons.

That fits the description of what happened in this "story".184.96.212.21 (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is already under discussion here. No need to open a separate discussion. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. If an al Qaida member were standing sentry duty outside the compound, wouldn't it be routine military action to cut his throat with a knife, no questions asked? Why would Osama deserve more consideration than this? Is this some kind of old Continental gentry officers versus worthless peasants thing? Wnt (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, he was a war combatant, killed in a raid on his hideout.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup ... there is that little detail of the definition of "murder".--Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Call it what the sources call it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Designation of Sunni Islam as a service and Wahhabism as a branch

The lead info-box about Osama bin Laden has a slot named Service which has a value of Sunni Islam and a slot named Branch with Wahhabism.

While Wahhabism is a religious movement within the major branch of Islam called Sunni Islam, a religion is usually considered to be different than a military service or military service branch.

Is describing Sunni Islam and Wahhabism in this way the correct use of this frame schema?

No it isn't. It is grossly inappropriate, and offensive - I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's likely a limitation of the infobox template. There really isn't an easy way to incorporate that sort of information into the infobox. Best to leave it out, or if it MUST be mentioned, include it in the article text itself somewhere. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

More detail on geography

On the map, Bilal Town looks suspiciously close to the boundary of the Pakistani held part of Kashmir (Azad Kashmir). From Abbottabad I think it's on the non-Kashmir side, but the map - like all our maps with a dot on them - is just about worthless because it doesn't zoom. This might make sense because it was a safe house for Hizbul Mujahideen - maybe they wanted their safe house entirely out of Kashmir just in case the Indians took it over??? Or if bin Laden slipped over into Azad Kashmir, would the Pakistanis and Americans be hindered out of fear of touching off conflict between India and Pakistan? I'm just guessing here, but I feel like there must be some significance to this location. Wnt (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DNA testisting was used does any one know what lab actually did the test?

Many sources have cited DNA testing was done any one know what lab conducted this speedy test? I can't find any information on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.115.40 (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The US Government has a lab that is used to do DNA testing on the remains of suspected high-profile terrorists. I'll keep an eye out for a source which names the lab and which government agency it belongs to. It might be CIA. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Firefight?

The UK's Daily Telegraph is reporting here that President Obama's Press Secretary Jay Carney "repeatedly refused" to confirm whether there had been a firefight in the compound at all. Should that question be addressed in the article? Bin Laden's daughter's claim that he was captured before execution? Issue of the risk of American hostages being taken in return for his release if he had been captured alive? FightingMac (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Code name and Reaction to code name

These two sections are redundant, as the information in them is duplicative. They should be combined or at least rewritten to keep their information as non-duplicating, and if they remain separate, a reference to the lower section in the upper section would help form a continuity of subject. Hires an editor (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Update conspiracy theories paragraph

Can someone update the paragraph summary to include a sentence or two that summarizes the new info added to Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories? At the moment, the summary paragraph here makes it seem as if just online forums are making up the theories, when the actual article on them has comments from Iranian and Pakistani officials about belief in the conspiracy theories (and making up their own), not to mention comments about belief in them from Andrew Napolitano and Thomas Mulcair. Silverseren^C 00:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible update on Hamas' comment

I think the desired effect that Hamas' remarks were supposed to have would be reached if the period at the end of the statement was replaced wit a question mark: the statement would read as follows, "We condemn the assassination of a Muslim and Arab warrior?". As you can see the question mark opens up the statement and allows it to have the desired effect that Hamas had originally intended.

However, that is just your interpretation and original research, so we cannot make that change. Silverseren^C 01:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal would actually change the message they intended. The full quote is “We condemn the assassination of a Muslim and Arab warrior and we pray to God that his soul rests in peace. We regard this as the continuation of the American oppression and shedding of blood of Muslims and Arabs.” -- Iksnyrk (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename to Assassination of Osama bin Laden

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus was in opposition of the proposed move —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:51am • 00:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Death of Osama bin Laden → Assassination of Osama bin Laden – I propose that the article be renamed to Assassination of Osama bin Laden rather than Death of Osama bin Laden to more accurately present the death. There are a number of reliable sources which describe the death as an assassination: Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, CNN, The Star, etc. Also should the article be added to Category:Assassinated people? Any thoughts?Smallman12q (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Google search for ("Assassination of Osama bin Laden" -wikipedia) returns ~13k results. Google search for ("Death of osama bin laden" -wikipedia) yields 1.6 million results. It's blatantly obvious far more people are referring to it as "death of Osama bin laden". If you want to put a redirect at your proposed name, feel free. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, the term "assassination" fails WP:NPOV, and the mission has been described by several reliable sources as "kill or capture" (emphasis mine). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly we are on the same page here. I agree wholeheartedly. Although I can also understand why some people would be resistant to that title, it would be more in line with other articles, and less obviously point of view. The current title would be appropriate had he died of cancer or a heart attack, but is an awry and suspiciously passive title for someone who was shot in the head. I strongly disagree the current title expresses a "neutral point of view". We don't call our article on September 11 "September 11 deaths", we call it "September 11 attacks". The reason is because the event was not the death of thousands of people, the event was the attacks. Here the event was the assassination, not the mere fact of his death. Owen (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

When I created this article, I had the same concerns as you. But, assissination simply didn't work because it implies something. Death doesn't. For what it's worth, I used Death of Princess Diana as a guide to create this entry. Iksnyrk (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and it's not "Manslaughter of Michael Jackson", although as I recall the physician who administered the Diprovan is up on manslaughter charges. Let's keep an editorial standard going here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I would consider this situation comparable to Michael Jackson or Princess Diana. And "death" does imply something. It implies that he passed away. More than that, the problem is that it lacks any implication. It does not imply that he was killed at all. If "assassination" is too much for people, we could still at least saying "Killing of Osama bin Laden". Is there even one other article about someone who was shot in the head that is titled simply "Death of..."? If not, by what grounds is this article an exception? Owen (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Death of Adolf Hitler. Either way, at this point, the consensus supports the use of death in the title. --Iksnyrk (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Killing (a subset -- not all people who die are killed) would I assume be an uncontroversial change, however, and is RS-supported.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It may work, there's only one way to find out =) I, personally, would reject it though, so it may still be controversial. --Iksnyrk (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Alan. The plan wasn't to assassinate him, it was to bring him to justice "dead or alive", which is not an assassination. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. At the moment, the media in general seems to be avoiding using the term 'assassination', so we shouldn't either - that Bin Laden is dead seems to be undisputed by all but the tinfoil-hat brigade, whether he was assassinated is however unclear. We should not let a minority of media sources deflect us from reporting verifiable facts, rather than speculation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy/Snow Oppose. For all the reasons stated above. There will be enough to spend time on -- we might as well close this proposal early, as it is clearly not supported by consensus. Or RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to a new proposal, however, to replace "death" with "killing".--Epeefleche (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Assassination carries a more specific definition which has not yet been established as fact. Initial reporting indicates the operation was undertaken with a "caputre" contingency in case he were to surrender, as pointed out above. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Assassination is always for ideological reasons, but in this case you could argue he was killed in self-defense. So better to stick with the more general term. Where Wikipedia does use "assassination", I don't think there is any doubt. Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Assassination of Julius Caesar Fnordware (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Death seems to be much more widely used than assassination in the media at this point and, as was pointed out above, whether this was technically an assassination or not is somewhat unclear. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose we do a lot of death of articles, we can't be parsing cause of death in title every time. jengod (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support: This would be in no conflict with WP:NPOV; in fact WP:SPADE definitely applies here. Article names ought to be precise, any assassination necessarily implies death, with assassination being the more precise term, while death being a rather vague and overbroad one. 178.41.75.206 (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Oppose You don't "Assassinate" people in a war. This was an act of war, not an Assassination. V7-sport (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As the nearly unanimous opposers reflect, we follow the RSs. The POV of using a phrase that suggests that the killing is illegal is readily apparent to the vast majority of the editors here, and -- as they indicate -- not appropriate where the RSs have in general eschewed the POV-laden term.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree that perhaps we should postpone this discussion until the question of the legality of this extra-judicial killing is properly resolved, as some scholars seem to suppose that illegality be a necessary attribute of assassination. 178.41.75.206 (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Assassination has some connotations that do not apply here. The typical assassination is in a public venue where the target is exposed. Caesar, Lincoln, and Kennedy, for example, were in public places. M L King was at a motel. The attempts on Ford and Reagan were in public. In contrast, this event was an armed raid on a fortified compound. Assassinations often involve stealth in that the assassin is quiet until he can execute his attack; the assassin blends into the crowd until the last minute; only then does the gun or knife come out. The goal is to kill without warning and before the guards have a chance to react. That is not the case here; there was stealth to take the compound by surprise, but there would have been some time to react. Typically, there is a lone assassin (eg, Booth) or a small number (Roman senators). A large group storming a compound is a raid. Glrx (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, our article on assasination has no such elements in its definition. While it notes that most modern assassination have taken place in public, it also explicitly mentions a potential assassination target who has been living in seclusion. 95.103.211.80 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Read assasination again; look for terms such as infiltration; look at how the assassin kills. Also, that article would not term this action an assassination but rather a targeted killing. Glrx (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please, you read the article on assassination once again, and pay special attention to the occurrence of the the term infiltration, esp. to the fact that it only occurs in the ancient methods subsection and that the methods fundamentally changed with the advent of the use of gunpowder. As I have repeated it many times here, it all hinges on the legality of the whole thing, which is very dubious and still quite unclear at this moment. The only difference between assasination and targeted killing is only the (partisan) label of legality. 95.102.163.186 (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Assassination" would mean that his death was the only outcome that would have been considered a "success", that even if OBL had waved a white flag of surrender and laid down on the ground to be arrested, they still would have killed him. There is no evidence to support that, so the term is inappropriate. "Death" describes the event factually and neutrally. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with JasonAQuest. "Death" is the most factual, least POV description. Even if there was an order to kill him even if he surrenders, I think a more appropriate term would be "Execution", but even that word can't be used with any reliability. Cresix (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Assignation" is not really accurate and is not NPOV. "Death" is more neutral and the better term. If it comes out that this was in fact a bungled assignation then we can re-debate. Dave You can help! 01:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djkernen (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - POV problem aside, bin Laden wasn't assassinated. He could have surrendered when he was surrounded by the US forces.—Chris!_c/t 01:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose He was not really assassinated and I believe "death" is the broadest, most appropriate, and most neutral term to use. - Uhai (talk · contribs) 04:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge into the person article. Why do we need a separate article on his death? 65.93.12.8 (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral-Support Death is a naive term to describe what and how it happened. Of course by all account he was target-killed (anyone objecting to this?), aka assassinated. But the use of the term assassination would remain controversial, and hurt the joyous sentiments of his death. However, here at wikipedia, we should purport a scholarly neutral approach, and stick with factual facts rather then our personal sentiments over any current world affair news. Jalal0 (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose RS mostly uses "death", so we use death. If the majority of RS switches to "assassination", we switch to assassination. --JaGa^talk 06:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Death is an NPOV term to indicate someone was living and now they're not. How it happened is the point of the article itself, not its title. And in fact only one source in this article — the terrorist group Hamas — views it as an "assassination". That this is their POV is acceptable to note, but "assassination" is not a neutral term, and so it is not one we use anywhere else in the article. Legal scholars understand the difference between the Machiavellian taking out of some guy you'd be better off without and a military operation to capture or kill an unlawful combatant inspirational leader on a 16-year terrorist binge that directly killed several thousand innocent civilians away from any battlefield (as in apart from those who were sent into Iraq or Afghanistan to fight ongoing insurgencies there and general calls for more of the same). Abrazame (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you would first need to prove that he directly killed several thousand innocent civilians, because, as I understand it from widely-published facts, that is a lie. And, please, refrain from using such fact-distorting labels as unlawful combatant (you may wish to review the article first). 95.103.211.80 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You misread my (I will concede perhaps awkwardly-phrased) characterization that bin Laden is the inspirational leader of unlawful combatants, not himself a combatant. Yet that is the point of leadership; he is responsible for what they have done in his name in adherence to his principles and his distortion of Islam these past 16 years. If you mean to say that what I have now clarified differs from widely-published facts, then again, you are apparently taking your "facts" from terrorist and terrorist-sympathizer POV. Abrazame (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Valid sources not calling it assassination, so from wikipedia's standpoint, it isn't. "Death of" is as neutral as it can get. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly support: If "Neutral Point of View" means anything, it means that you do not pre-judge organisms of the species homo sapiens based on which side they are on even on matters of good and evil, no matter how extreme. This particular "Osama" organism was alive and healthy and unarmed and he was killed in a completely pre-meditated way. This was clearly an assassination. If it causes you to say "Hip, hip, hurray!' then that is all fine and good and so enjoy yourself while doing so but let us organize the knowledge properly. Some commandos went in and mowed him down in a pre-meditated fashion. Either call a spade a spade or stop claiming your cherished NPOV. Is it only an assassination when a non-English speaking person or maybe a non-Christian person or a brown person does it? Someday Britannica will call it what it is: an assassination. If Wikipedia cannot do the same, then it will never be "better than Britannica" even if Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. ceases operations (something that Jimbo seems to think will prove some point of his if and when he "writes its epitaph"). Choose: either NPOV or "Hooray for our side." You cannot have both.--94.127.67.74 (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ummm ... how is that you "know" he was unarmed? How do you "know" his killing was pre-meditated? How do you "know" it was not illegal, which is an element of an assassination? Or is it possible that you don't in fact know any of those things, but just have a POV, not supported by the reporting of the bulk of RSs, that you wish to push?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ummmmm... No, he does not "know" that Osama bin Laden was unarmed, he only referred to a reliable source stating that. A very similar thing applies to the premeditation attribute: the killing of Osama bin Laden had been planned, there are way too many reliable sources for this to deny it, and if you read the definition at premeditated murder, you will get a perfect match, I mean, one with which perhaps every single judge would agree. Well, for now you can perhaps shield your stance behind WP:OR, because of the "overwhelming lack of sources", but, please, just do not ever call him or her biased for this, do not spit the POV nonsense into his or her face, as I feel that way too many (U.S.-based?) editors wielding the POV cudgel are, in fact, strongly pushing their own POV, just note how uncivil they are in their responses, including their stance and "consensus" on the inclusion of the controversy section and others. 95.102.163.186 (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wait - I've heard two versions from two top government sources. One was "kill or capture", but the other was "kill order". Once the dust settles, then we can decide. Rklawton (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(kill ∨ capture) ∧ kill ≡ kill ;-) 95.102.163.186 (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if it were to kill, we would need more than that for it to qualify as an assassination ... such as it being illegal. We kill enemy combatants and targets of targeted killings and there are abortions all the time .. without them being assassinations and murders.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose pending evidence. Yes, there are articles coming out now saying he was unarmed, and questioning whether (but not reporting that) the team came to kill him without offering a chance of surrender. But so far the news on this topic hasn't been too reliable, and I'm not convinced the one burst of AP wires counts as evidence, and even if it did, they didn't say "assassinated". It is possible that news will continue to move in this direction - it is also possible that deep thinkers will nuance the definition of "assassination" by the time this is over, since this doesn't feel like one. Bottom line: there's no evidence; it's just a bunch of WP:OR for now. Wnt (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. New title blatantly fails WP:NPOV. It cannot happen. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 03:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We've got a whole lot of "Assassination of..." articles you'll want to rename. Good luck with that.Rklawton (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose sources suggest that they were prepared to take him into custody but show him while resisting. The intent was not to assassinate and his death was incidental to the operation. What the Pakistani Ambassador to the UK says is irrelevant here - how could he have any more information than anyone else? If after we learn more about what happens it looks like the goal of the operation was to kill Bin Laden than I'd consider changing the title. GabrielF (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: while the proposal is somewhat justified by sources, the proposed name containing "assassination" seem to indicate something like a lurking disguised guy shooting poisoned needles against bin Laden, and thereafter sneaking away faster than a greased flash; the reality included more a military operation with bangs, explosions, shoots and probably some screaming too. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  Note: The first sentence for assassination is "An assassination is "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons." That is woefully inadequate. There is no cartoon character with a caricature of a burglar mask on. There is no slapstick lurking, disguises, poisoned needles, little caricatures of whoosh clouds as they run away faster than a greased flash and as the assassin maniacally giggles and hoots while wearing a black cowboy hat. Boy, that article needs a lot of modifications to bring great clarity about what an assassination is all about.--75.36.187.59 (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Non-neutral. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Everyone agrees he died. Even that he was killed. Thus "Death of" or "Killing of" would be a neutral point of view, also supported by most sources. Assassination, murder, etc., are more value judgments and it's clear from this discussion that there is no consensus on those labels (yet), so they shouldn't be reflected in an encyclopedia. --Sam (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support:Comfirmed that he was unarmed [1] and his daughter say he was captured alive [2]. I know we have to be prudent but it seems obvious to me that the order was to kill. Polmas (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It doesn't matter if he was armed or unarmed. He was an enemy combatant in the midst of a military operation, refusing to surrender. This wasn't some SWAT action in the streets of L.A., its war. Rules of war are quite different in this regard.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support: This is too much of what people want to depict, whereas in the overview of sources it certainly looks like an implemented shoot-to-kill policy. That being difficult to prove as yet, I vote for "killing of". And while "war on terror" might point to an act committed in a time of war, international law, science and governments state that the fight against terrorrism is an armed conflict, not a war per definition - which again has an impact on the rules of engagement. JerseyCommie (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Non-neutral and not evidenced Little Professor (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Besides being non-neutral, by definition, "assassination" (at least as I understand it) refers to the attempted or successful criminal killing of a head of state or sovergn nation, a major religious figure (e.g., Pope John Paul II) or major civil rights leader (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr.). Yes, Osama bin Laden was a major figure in the world (despicable as he was); but he was not a head of state, and his death was the result of a planned, authorized military initiative (not a criminal trying to take out someone). [[Briguy52748 (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)]]

If those are your criteria, we've got a ton of pages in List of assassinated people that need editing/reclassification/renaming. (Unga Khan (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

I have a better idea. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note: "Killing of" is for special cases of which the English project has only about a half-dozen examples. On its face, the death/assassination of Osama bin Laden does not qualify as such a special case:

Killing of British tourists in Yemen - a lenghthy series of violent attacks

Killing of David Coughlin - peculiar "mercy killing" of a friend while lost in the wilderness

Killing of David Wilkie - unusual case involving a somewhat random act of violence in the context of a larger conflict where murder was reduced to manslaughter on appeal

Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai - the victim was a Rabbi of minor notability in the context of a long string of violence

Killing of the Bytyqi brothers - post-war violence that recieved some press coverage.--75.36.187.59 (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note Assassination maybe it's not NPOV at the moment but 'death' is totally misleading as it implies natural or unknown causes, and a headshot doesn't sound very natural to me. Polmas (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is to happen to the helicopter remains?

Are there any sources talking about what will happen to the remains of the US helicopter that the SEALS were forced to destroy? As it is on Pakistani soil and Pakistan is supposedly an ally whose government has come out in favor of the results of the raid - is the US going to get its helicopter parts back? I can't find any sources on this at the moment.Wowaconia (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Presumably it's been listed as a material casualty, like any other combat aircraft loss. The Pakistanis can take possession of the scrap if they wish. If it were me I'd send the White House a polite bill for cleanup costs... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The bulk of it has been removed, presumably by local authorities. Locals kept a few scraps as souvenirs. Check out ABC's GMA, I think they mentioned that this morning or yesterday. Rklawton (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This section of the raid has now attracted considerable attention, given the highly unusual nature of the parts found on the ground, and the false statements made by White House officials (this according to Wired). Wired have a long and detailed article about the mystery helicopter, which looks unlike any known model. Photos and illustrations contained. See: Aviation Geeks Scramble to I.D. Osama Raid’s Mystery Copter. See also Army Times: Mission helo was secret stealth Black Hawk 122.57.56.243 (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just conjecturing that it is almost certainly a MH-60K Black Hawk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-60_Blackhawk#Special_purpose check here doesn't mention stealth of course but its used by teh 160th and seems to fit the bill. (Other than stealth of course ;P ) Magu (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point the stealth capability is the big talk; the tail section that was left behind apparently is apparently the perfect thing to have if you want to reverse-engineer it. Apparently the Pentagon is pissed, although I read this tech has been in operation since about ~1994 so it's not like they just deployed new magic they were handed by aliens last week. There's some talk that the Pakistanis will also certainly hold the tail for ransom to get more money from the Americans and/or just sell it to the Chinese. The blogger who broke the story that it was a new stealth helicopter modification suggested that a lot of the materials involved are carcinogenic if not properly encased. If that's true, I'm worried about all those poor local kids who were collecting fragments of the wreckage as souvenirs. :( jengod (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Compound Location

I have updated the location of the compound. http://markability.blogspot.com/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-compound-google-map.html shows the exact location, in addition I spent time overlaying the CIA imagery over google earth to confirm this. it is as posted: 34 10 156 N, 73 14 552 E. I did save a Google Earth kmz file if you really would like to see it as verification please let me know where it can be uploaded and I will gladly do so. I just do not know otherwise what to do to supply verification for the location. Magu (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you do this again - as there is an error - Also to bad we are using this bad ref system errors all the time.Moxy (talk)

Yes I saw that sorry, I'm not great at this whole wiki thing hehe, not sure hwo to fix that but I was expressing it in decimal seconds and it seems that this page is configured (?) for minutes/seconds, not sure what way it "should" be or how to change it. Magu (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort (yes the coding is hard at times) Lets assume that others have seen this and will add the info if its correct etc... -- lots watching this articels at this time.Moxy (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok tried once more this should work it did work right in preview. Still have a kmz with overlay available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magu2k (talk • contribs) 05:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Update I went to decimal based on some other articles and emulated the way the co-ordinates are listed, so the new exact location is 34.171445, 73.245014 in decimal degrees. Magu (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Stoping using List defined references for now - until article is stable (older)

As all can see the List defined references are simply not working in an article that is changing (updated) so fast. A ref system of this nature in an article that is edited by many many editors is not practical. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 86#Inline defined references versus list defined references

• They are not newbie friendly (as in they are complicated to implement for new users).
• They force editors to have to edit the "whole" page, rather then just a section. (or have to edit 2 sections - creating an error in the mean time between edits, thus resulting in more edit conflicts)
• When statements are removed and/or changed and re-references the deletion on the ref tag parameter will give us an error in the ref section because its no longer being used (as seen now).

Solution - Simply remove them when no-longer in use - while allowing normal <ref>www.whateverIfound.com</ref> to slowly take over the format (as it seems to be doing anyways).Moxy (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I second this emotion. jengod (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Another thing that will help is to prune the references. There are *way* too many with the same info.Brmull (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I trimmed a couple yesterday, but there's a lot more to go. Whenever you see a statement with four sources, and none of those sources are used again, it's safe to trim three of them entirely. No need to save them, there's plenty news sources available out there. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Splitting off of the operation

I was bold and split off Operation Neptune's Spear from this article as the article is already large and the operation is essentially an article within an article. I don't see why anyone would object but before reverting it might be best to explain here because this page is taking a long time to load and removing a quarter of it might help make it a bit faster for those who want to know about his death and not the nitty gritty details of it. This defined list thing was essentially broken (on both articles) when I did it though so if anyone with a fast internet connection wants to fix this (I would, but this netbook is slow), that would be great. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted you because that fork has been done and undone multiple times over the past few days. We have a references problem for one thing (as you mentioned, and see comments just above) and for another thing this article is still evolving fast. I believe it will be forked eventually, but I don't think today should be that day. That said, viva boldness! jengod (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur with the reversion - I was about to do it myself. There has been a great deal of discussion about this and no consensus reached to make the fork now. This is not a good place to exercise boldness, however well-intentioned. Tvoz/talk 06:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

However I just looked at it and it is a total mess - this has to go back to the way the article was before it was forked. I'll if I can do it - unless someone beats me to it (I hope). Tvoz/talk 06:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Better, but the refs are still a total mess. Tvoz/talk 06:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The mess, I think, is b/c of the spinoff articles I created for minor issues (burial at sea controversy, geronimo controversy) and the misguided references thingy deal that I don't understand at all. jengod (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a good way to proceed. I think we have to go back to the way this was before all of the forking, let the dust settle, and then talk about forks and get consensus about what we want. This is not working now. Tvoz/talk 06:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And what happened to the infobox that was there a few hours ago? Was this discussed or also just removed? Tvoz/talk 06:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the problems is numbering the references as that is a completely different system than what we normally do here. Honestly, the best way to split this all is to lock every article, split them, and fix up what's left behind. I removed the infobox because it doesn't really fit into the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Better to have made it fit? 81.178.38.169 (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We are currently left with sections that have no refs like (Locating bin Laden and Role of Pakistan) that were moved with out the refs being fixed thus causing many ref errors. Agree reinstating the article with its refs is better then the current version that has errors and unreferenced sections that are not summarized well. I do however believe the splits are warranted - just needs to be done properly with the refs.Moxy (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, eventually some splits will be necessary for details, but not leaving virtually blank sections here. That never works. And the ref mess, caused by this bizarre numbering system (and people perhaps not doing preview, so not seeing the mess?) is certainly making things worse. I think folks should slow down and take a breath, before plunging in and making massive changes. Tvoz/talk 06:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tvoz that we need to reexamine the massive number of forks that have been created. Besides for reference confusion, I think it will probably be bad for the quality of the prose at this point. I think it would be better to let the article stabilize a bit, then split out anything that seriously needs it. Kevin (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, we need to re-integrate the material for now. In the meanwhile, we have gotten over 1.3 million views since this article was created - 1.3 million as of yesterday. So I couldn't leave that long list of bad refs - I went through and commented out the following refs, but the words are still there, so they can be reinstated as we re-integrate the material that was removed. This is a big job, but should be done section by section - the way some of the forks were done is a problem because it was too severe. This is the main article, which will always have by far the largest number of readers, so we need it to have sections that are complete or, if they are decided - by consensus - to be good candidates for a fork, this main article still needs to have more than a cursory sentence or two - readers here have to get the full picture, just perhaps not all of the details. That's how you do forks, not by just in effect blanking a section. So the commenting out of refs is a temporary solution - I hope editors will take some time to re-instate material with the original refs (again, they all are still here, just commented out). These are the ones I commented out:

these ref names: Baer, Burns, Codevilla, Fox, Griffin, Guardian01, Gupta, Mussharrahsays,Reid, Roberts, Weiner, White,

these ref names (names, not footnote numbers): ref-15, ref-46, ref-48, ref-64, ref-65, ref-66, ref-67, ref-68, ref-69, ref-70, ref-71, ref-72, ref-73, ref-74, ref-76, ref-77, ref-78, ref-79, ref-83, ref-85, ref-99, ref-107, ref-112, ref-117, ref-118, ref-119, ref-120, ref-121, ref-126, ref-127

The editors who did the removals might want to help out in the reinstatement. Tvoz/talk 09:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to sleep in the near future, but I'm going to go ahead and attempt to reintegrate Critiques of Osama bin Laden burial at sea in to the main article. Once I'm done, I'll redirect the page to the main article for now. It can of course be reforked out later after discussion. Kevin (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Did a preliminary reintegration of the fork that I mentioned. Kevin (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

More sources

• Harper, Matthew. "Why The Story Of Osama Bin Laden’s Death Will Change." Forbes. May 5, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What real evidence is there supporting the "official story"?

Besides, "because Obama said so"? 184.96.212.21 (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:V makes this discussion moot. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Another source:

• Kain, E.D. "Wikileaks: Pakistani Forces Protected Osama bin Laden." Forbes. May 2, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Helicopter blowup

while the likely reason for blowing up the US downed helicopter was to prevent ANY access to classified electronic gear, that seems to be not so needed if allie Pakistan had aided its repair and return and guarding it in meantime, as they are presnetly guarding the Osama compound from villagers. scottie beammeup 69.121.221.97 (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead

I've reworked the lead to eliminate the awkward phrasing of the first sentence, which was trying to force the title into a boldfaced beginning. According to WP:BOLDTITLE, "If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface." I also think that it is important to identify bin Laden for readers, as is normal encyclopedia style (see the first line of John F. Kennedy assassination, for example). I also made some other tweaks to the intro section for better flow, including moving the time details to a footnote. Tvoz/talk 08:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that four out of five of the people killed were unarmed included Bin Laden should be in the lead section.I feel that is very important information surrounding this incident.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Fog of war

There were massive headlines initially about Osama using his wife as a human shield. These appear to have been due to the statements of a White House spokesman, John O. Brennan, which were subsequently retracted. Here's an example of a source which covers this flip-flop: Greg Miller, Joby Warrick (May 3, 2011), U.S. overhauls story of bin Laden's death, The Seattle Times. I'm not seeing anything about this "fog of war" in the early statements and reporting. As the accuracy of the information about this event seems to be a notable issue which bears upon our own reportage per WP:V , our article should say something about this. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree this should be included, either in the Aftermath/Reactions section or a new Aftermath sub.Brmull (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be carefully sourced but I believe it would be useful to document shifts in wording as part of the aftermath. I suspect it is an example of "fog of war" in that the white house was getting a real time updates (and possibly video feeds) of the assault. They had to process and report on that. As debriefing reports came in those were processed and reported. I suspect it can only be done via direct quotes from key, identified, people such as president Obama. In other words, we don't care what some college professor or anonymous "former intelligence official" says as neither is verifiably "in the loop" for what happened. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with FoW sections is that most of it is OR or SYNTH. To do a FoW section you need sources that actually discuss the FoW problems with that particular subject. Otherwise it's Wikipedia editors finding their own examples and highlighting them - and that's OR (or SYNTH). I suspect that in this case it's possible to write a decent section on the subject, but we'll have to be careful to steer inexperienced editors away from the OR trap. Rklawton (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Photos of the bodies

• "Bodies, unusual wreckage photographed in bin Laden compound." CNN Wire. May 4, 2011.

...has photos of bodies and debris. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

None of these photos show Osama Bin Laden. John Hyams (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, just three of the five dead. Poor guys, but comes with the line of work. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Achmed... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We, of course, will not find the relevant image (Osama) as the White House decided not to release it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's correct, none of these photos are OBL, and the US government said that it will not release the photos of OBL's body. The Pakistani authorities produced these photographs WhisperToMe (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, we do reference the existence of these photos in a sentence in the photographic evidence aftermath subsection. jengod (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Remove Picture [People Celebrating]

I suggest removing the picture of people celebrating. Its a poor shot even when seen in full. Apart from the White House and some blurry heads, nothing is visible. Searched Commons and Flickr for similar images but haven't found any. Lets delete till we find a better one - Sbohra 12:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbohra (talk • contribs)

If you find a better one, it could replace the one we have, but why delete something that's perfectly appropriate without a substitution? – Muboshgu (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. We start with nothing, we add something, and then we improve upon that, but we don't go backwards. Rklawton (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Choose the image you like and add it. See Commons.—Chris!_c/t 18:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

About the situation room photo

Here is a CNN article describing the significance of the photo:

• Blake, John. "What 'Situation Room Photo' reveals about us." CNN. May 5, 2011

They said that the photo shows how attitudes about race and gender have changed - that a black man can now be the "protector in chief" of the country Also commentators discuss how Obama did not place himself in the center of the photo, so he has a different kind of "swagger" and how Obama seeks decisions through consensus with his advisors As for women, the photo shows two (Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason) and commentators discussed how women are now coming into power WhisperToMe (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh. That seems very much like original research on their part and not really so important for the article. Obama was sitting next to the guy who was commanding the mission. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not original research for us if we cite what other people believe/come up with about a particular photograph. We don't have to dedicate a lot of space in the article for it, though. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Whisper is correct here. OR clearly applies to conclusions reached by wikipedia editors only, and not reflected in RSs. Not--as is the case here--conclusions/comments reported on by RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I read this article and it's intriguing, but very much a collection of impressions rather than verifiable facts. I think this article is best left alone for the moment. jengod (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was basically my point, only put better than I put it. Just because they synthesize info doesn't mean we should report on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that I also don't think this article would be the place for this, as it is not really about the death of bin Laden. But the argument that it is original research or synthesis and therefore inappropriate is off the mark. In fact we are encouraged to use third party RS analysis here - the research and thoughts of experts and writers and scholars - rather than primary sources like transcripts that we read. And further, we're prohibited from making our own conclusions and analyses based on information that we dig up from here and there, not the analysis and impressions of others in reliable sources, however original they may be. Indeed, if there is an article that goes into the changing perceptions of the American public about race and gender, this analysis may well belong there, or in an article about Obama's leadership style, but no, not in an article about bin Laden's death, because the analysis is on a meta level that transcends the particular matter that they were viewing. (They could have been viewing an alien invasion, for example, and similar original points might be made which would be very appropriate in the types of articles I cited, not in the inevitable 2013 alien invasion of Salt Lake City.) Tvoz/talk 20:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Merchandising opportunity

I wonder has anyone else commented on the large amount of very distasteful merchandise that has suddenly appeared on the internet, since the death of Osama bin Laden. I do not need to provide any examples of these products here, as they can be found so easily by entering the terms "Osama bin Laden" + "merchandising" on any internet search engine. But they include such items as mugs, t-shirts and even baby clothing, I believe. I don't recall seeing any such trinkets displaying images of collapsed twin towers for sale in Muslim countries only hours after the 9/11 tragedy. Or perhaps they simply were not available on the interent? So one wonders if this entrepreneurial energy, at such a delicate time, is a purely American trait.

I would suggest that this is a topic that deserves mention somewhere in this artiucle, but I am not sure where. The other article that might be suggested as a place to raise the topic is Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden, but that article seems to be about official political reactions at a national or international level. I'm not sure where this topic might be introduced into this article, but I think it deserves a place. One would, of course, have to be very careful about including examples of the phenomenon, in case other editors might show a typical wikipedian over-zealous "knee-jerk reaction" and mis-interpret the contribution as an attempt to promote such merchandise. This might be a particular risk with editors who have long lost their sense of humour and who are easily misled by attempts at ironic presentation. One would not wish to be accused of being "a troll", whatever that might mean. It's all quite ghoulish, isn't it? 86.167.240.178 (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source - e.g. a mainstream media organisation etc - that has commented on this 'Merchandising opportunity' phenomenon, it might be appropriate to mention it in passing. Much of what you write however comes under WP:OR, and as such is of no relevance to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm not surprised. But does all the kitchy shit sold at Ground Zero need to be documented? All those "RIP Michael Jackson" t-shirts they were selling? I'd hope not. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Before [3] and after [4] ? 86.167.240.178 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

They make merchandise for anything and everything (I will bet there are some holocaust shirts somewhere that vary from lame and offensive to funny (those written by us Jews only)). As Mubo said, does this garbage really need mention on Wikipedia? It will just make people buy more of it, and it's really not all that notable. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless this 'merchandise' is commented on in reliable sources, writing anything about it will contravene WP:OR, so can I suggest we leave any further discussion until such sources can be found - this isn't a forum for general debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

To the OP: Perhaps you are missing the fact that the Taliban and bin Laden and Muslim countries in general aren't about a culture of manufacturing and marketing. Perhaps you are also missing that, following 9/11, images of the Twin Towers were marketed in trinkets in the U.S. and around the world, albeit in their pre-attack or post-attack (anniversary lights) images. And perhaps, too, you are missing that the media consists almost entirely of commercial entities (PBS/NPR notwithstanding) who sell commercial space within specific programming and promised audience numbers and demographics to other commercial entities, all of whom made billions covering and re-covering the attacks. Admittedly that's a very peculiar angle to look at this from, and it's only a small part of the spectrum of my own perspective but considering your comment it seems appropriate to note. I find the bin Laden merchandise stomach-churning, though frankly not as much as I did the recycling of the attack-in-progress images (also in commercial context, I reiterate). But I say all of this to note that this has absolutely nothing to do with an article about the Death of Osama bin Laden. It has absolutely nothing to do with an article about the Operation Neptune Spear. Sadly, it may deserve coverage at Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden. Though I think I might be inclined to argue against that there, as any, if you'll forgive the bluntness, asshole with a PayPal account, can merchandise whatever they like. Relative to Wikipedia, the issue is the notability of the merchandiser and the success of its product. As to being purely American, and Godwin's law notwithstanding, I invite you to research how Adolf Hitler and the Japanese were depicted in commercial contexts (beyond, as I noted, the news media) before and upon the cessation of WWII. And I invite you to research how bin Laden himself was merchandised in the days after 9/11. For that matter, I invite you to research how images, reenactments, and conspiracy theories about the death of America's own presidents, particularly John F. Kennedy though Abraham Lincoln as well, broadly speaking beloved figures, have been commercialized. Love it or hate it, the capitalist system in the free world provides opportunities for entrepreneurs without requiring some threshold of taste. Each occurrence of such is not necessarily relevant to every article about the subject being merchandised, even if the pointy bad-taste novelty rises it to the level of being noted in a reliable source. Abrazame (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well said and contains enough relevant to the article to not get deleted imho. =p It has appeared (and been sourced to Reuters) in the reaction talk~ actually. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 21:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a refreshingly informed and sensible essay with a very useful historical perspective. I suppose it might depend on how large that "Reactions" subsection is expected to be - a single mention after the sentence with the David Sirota quote might not seem so inappropriate. 86.167.240.178 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the others that were killed

I don't see any mention of who else was living at the compound or who else was killed/injured there. I thought about just adding it, but I thought I would bring it up first. Wouldn't it be appropriate to add that as well as what happened to the other occupants after the raid? I like the idea of changing the name of this article to "Operation Neptune" and I think that this information should be included, epsecially if that change is made.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This article, however, is not just about the operation. Operation Neptune is a section included in this article, but it is about much more than just that. Silverseren^C 02:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should mention who died with OBL because it adds significant information about his last hour, the means, and the manner of his death. If we omit this, and stick specifically to the "death" aspect, then we'd have a short article detailing the bullet that went through his head. Rklawton (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ishtar, the other deaths are covered in the Death of Osama bin Laden#Combat section. jengod (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Earlier death reports" section grossly misinterpreted, overstated and cherry-picked; a poorly founded conspiracy theory section in disguise

Either this section was added in good faith by someone who did not read or fully understand the material he cited or it was added as a conspiracy theory section in disguise, to foster cynicism and doubt about the news. Most alleged reports are idle speculation by notables; many are anonymous rumors; several are actually included twice; and some are merely metaphors for his irrelevance.

• Late 2005: CIA disbands "Bin Laden Issue Station", codenamed "Alec Station", the CIA's bin Laden tracking unit, 1996–2005.

Nothing in this article even remotely suggests bin Laden is thought dead. A CIA spokeswoman is quoted as saying "The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," while an ex-agent laments his view that the agency now perceives bin Laden as less significant a target.

• 2008: Robert Baer, a former CIA operative, stated that "Of course he’s dead" and questioned the relevancy of bin Laden.

Actually, Baer does not say in this ref what the editor who added this quotes him as saying. His actual quote, at the beginning of the article, is "In a talk at the Atlantic Council this week, CIA director-general Michael Hayden said Osama bin Laden is alive. I'll take his word for it."

• November 2005: Senator Harry Reid stated that "I heard today that he may have died in the earthquake that they had in Pakistan, seriously."

Here the quote is accurate but cherry-picked with mitigation stripped away. Actually, while the source is indeed titled "Reid thinks Bin Laden was killed...", that is not what the source article actually quotes Reid as saying, which is "'I heard today that he may have died...'" and "Reid says that if that is the case, 'that's good for the world.'" It goes on to further contradict its own title when it gives him another quote, "'I'm not sure he is alive anymore. I think perhaps the earthquake took him down. I certainly hope so.'" (Emphasis is mine.)

• April 2009: During an interview with The Telegraph, Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari raised the prospect that bin Laden could be dead, after he said that intelligence officials could find "no trace" of the al Qaeda chief. Zardari's predecessor, Pervez Musharraf, similarly suggested that bin Laden could be dead. Additionally, Pakistan's intelligence agencies believed bin Laden possibly to be dead.

Again, musing that someone "could be dead", as both Pakistani presidents were doing, is not a "death report". Again, it isn't the complete quote, which goes on to say, "The question is whether he is alive or dead. There is no trace of him. There is no news. They (intel) obviously feel that he does not exist any more but that's not confirmed." And, as we know, Pakistan intelligence was a little behind the curve on this one, huh? Note that this was in response to concern from the U.S. Secretary of State that Taliban militants, who had sworn allegiance to bin Laden and who were considered a terrorist group by the State Department, had taken up positions in Buner, which is only 60 miles from the capital — and, incidentally, about 35 miles from Abbottabad, where bin Laden was living at this time.

• October 2002: Hamid Karzai stated that "I would come to believe that [bin Laden] probably is dead."

Here again the quote is accurate but cherry-picked with mitigation stripped away, and is a personal musing. "I would come to believe that [bin Laden] probably is dead...But still, you never know. He might be alive. Five months ago, six months ago, I was thinking that he was alive. The more we don't hear of him, and the more time passes, there is the likelihood that he probably is either dead or seriously wounded somewhere." For a reality-check, he is also quoted in that article as saying that the Taliban are "no longer a reality in Afghanistan". That was a declarative sentence, while clearly the prior is mitigated musing.

• November 2007: Political interviewer David Frost interviewed Pakistani politician and Pakistan Peoples Party leader Benazir Bhutto on November 2, 2007. In answering a question as to who had previously attempted her assassination, Bhutto named Omar Sheikh as a possible suspect, identifying him as "the man who murdered Osama bin Laden." Despite the significance of such a statement, neither Bhutto nor Frost attempted to clarify it or discuss it further during the remainder of the interview. Omar Chatriwala, a journalist for Al Jazeera English, said that he chose not to pursue the story at the time because he believed Bhutto misspoke, meaning to say that Sheikh had murdered Daniel Pearl – and not Osama bin Laden. The BBC drew criticism when it rebroadcast the Frost/Bhutto interview on its website, but edited out Bhutto's statement regarding bin Laden. Later the BBC apologized and replaced the edited version with the complete interview. In October 2007, Bhutto stated in an interview that she would cooperate with the American military in targeting bin Laden.

This actually admits the presumption was that she misspoke, to the degree it was removed from a rebroadcast. As exactly a month earlier she had given an interview stating she would cooperate with the U.S. in targeting bin Laden, this either supports the presumption she misspoke or it suggests she heard some rumor she was being terribly coy about.

• July 2002: FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson states that bin Laden "is probably not with us anymore but I have no evidence to support that."

I don't have to keep pointing this out, do I? Personal speculation. That it's on the part of the FBI counterterrorism chief is somewhat troubling, but there you go. This, incidentally, was the guy who admitted he didn't understand any of the differences between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

• March 2009: Angelo M. Codevilla, a professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University, wrote that "All the evidence suggests Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama bin Laden."

This is a cynical speculative screed that tries to make a case against CIA intelligence (suggesting that bin Laden is alive) and for giving up the hunt, but it's not a "report" of death.

• December 2001: Quoting an unnamed Taliban official, the Pakistan Observer reported that bin Laden died of untreated lung complications and was buried in an unmarked grave in Tora Bora on December 15. This report was picked up by Fox News in the U.S. on December 26. Also on December 26, the Egyptian newspaper Al-Wafd carried a short obituary by a "prominent official" of the Afghan Taliban, who was supposedly present at the funeral, stating bin Laden had been buried on or around December 13:

  "[Osama bin Laden] suffered serious complications and died a natural, quiet death. He was buried in Tora Bora, a funeral attended by 30 Al Qaeda fighters, close members of his family and friends from the Taliban. By the Wahhabi tradition, no mark was left on the grave"

  A videotape was released on December 27 showing a gaunt, unwell bin Laden, prompting an unnamed White House aide to comment that it could have been made shortly before his death. On CNN, Dr. Sanjay Gupta commented that bin Laden's left arm never moved during the video, suggesting a recent stroke and possibly a symptom of kidney failure. According to Pakistani President Musharraf, bin Laden required two dialysis machines, which also suggested kidney failure. "I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a... kidney patient," Musharraf said. If bin Laden suffered kidney failure, he would have required a sterile environment, electricity, and continuous attention by a team of specialists, Gupta said. In April 2002, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated, "We have heard neither hide nor hair of him since, oh, about December in terms of anything hard." FBI Counterterrorism chief Dale Watson and President Karzai of Afghanistan also expressed the opinion that bin Laden probably died at this time.

Okay, well first of all, the Rumsfeld quote is accurate but grossly misleading. Rumsfeld says in the same article, "We're tracking him down. He's hiding...My guess is he'll either be killed in some attack that takes place when we find him or he'll be captured," which of course clearly indicates that he believes bin Laden was alive. Second of all, this repeats the idle speculations of Karzai, Musharraf, and Bush FBI Dale Watson, as if they are not already noted in other bulleted entries. The Gupta quotes speculate on bin Laden's health, not his death. Here's the part I like. The one sourced to British tabloid The Daily Mail based on yet another bulleted entry, the Codevilla conspiracy theory, that purports to quote — get this — an unnamed prominent official of the Afghan Taliban who reportedly claimed three months after 9/11 that bin Laden had been buried in an unmarked grave, with a relaxed and confident expression on his face.

• September 2006: On September 23, 2006, the French newspaper L'Est Républicain quoted a report from the French secret service (Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure, DGSE) stating that bin Laden had died in Pakistan on August 23, 2006, after contracting a case of typhoid fever that paralyzed his lower limbs. According to the newspaper, Saudi security services first heard of bin Laden's supposed death on September 4, 2006. The supposed death was reported by the Saudi Arabian secret service to its government, which reported it to the French secret service. The French defense minister Michèle Alliot-Marie expressed her regret that the report had been published while French President Jacques Chirac declared that bin Laden's death had not been confirmed. American authorities also could not confirm reports of bin Laden's death, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying only, "No comment, and no knowledge." Later, CNN's Nic Robertson said that he had received confirmation from an anonymous Saudi source that the Saudi intelligence community has known for a while that bin Laden has a water-borne illness, but that he had heard no reports that it was specifically typhoid or that he had died.

First off, what the Saudi official actually says is that "there have been credible reports that the most wanted man in the world is ill, but there is no intelligence indicating he is dead." Again, most of this section is people saying they hadn't really heard that, or had heard it but couldn't confirm it, and discussions of health. It quotes several friends and family as stating they have heard no report of bin Laden's death. And, contrary to assertions in the conspiracy theory articles, it states that the CIA confirmed a tape released in June 2006 was bin Laden's.

And that brings us to the article by the Reverend Moon's Washington Times.

• May 2009: In Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?, it was argued that bin Laden had died of kidney failure.

As such, I am removing this horrendous overstated and redundant section, which is not actually about reports of death but about speculation and conspiracy theorizing. The only reports I saw were from an anonymous Taliban official and an anonymous and apparently unsupported French document; these two do not rate a section. It may or may not be encyclopedic to note somewhere that, as he was obviously in hiding and trying to evade capture, speculation often arose about his health, or after natural disasters or shelling, some would wonder if the reclusive, most hunted man in the world might already be dead. I will enable the reflist for anyone wishing to double-check my assessment or use an appropriate few to cite the sort of sentence I indicate. But even then, given that those were erroneous, this is the sort of thing more relevant to some other article than this one about his actual death.

Abrazame (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who originally wrote it but I copied it from the 30th April 2011 version of Osama bin Laden and it had been there for over a year without being challenged. Biscuittin (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I support removing, or at the very least paring down, that section. I had thought lots of it didn't fit here, but hadn't taken enough time to really think about what to do with it. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Claim removed

I removed the following text from the article as the claim is not supported by the source:

According to [[Public Multimedia]], Pakistan was informed by the U.S. about the raid once it had started, but was asked to stay out of the way.<ref>Roggio, Bill, [http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2011/05/pakistani_complicity_in_shelte.php "Pakistani complicity in sheltering Osama bin Laden"], ''[[Public Multimedia]]'', May 2, 2011.</ref>

--Rajah (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Operation Geronimo name controversy is nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Geronimo name controversy Teofilo talk 14:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Dalai Lama's opinion in lede reactions (Please vote)

Hi,

Secretary of UN and Hamas leader are quoted in lede on approval reactions but User:Alandeus keeps kicking out my inclusion of Dalai Lama, whose opinion was a front-page story in Wall St Journal. What I'm suggesting is:

1. Include ", the 14th Dalai Lama, "
2. Weaken "welcomed by" to "approved of" in lede

Let's put this to a vote, is Dalai Lama worthy of quoting or just not that important? I vote:

• Keep. Dalai Lama is that important.

Erxnmedia (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

None of them to be honest, IMHO the lede is too long, reaction and criticism should be in the article and not the lede. I would ditch the last two paragraphs and half of the second and expand the first one to have the only the pertinent or salient features. If this article were title the "Reaction to the killing ....." then I would say it was juste but as it's the death I would leave all the periphery to later in the article. ^Khukri 15:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all we don't vote here, we discuss. Secondly I agree with Khukri; this is definitely not right for the lede of this article. There is a reactions article to keep all the material of this type together. It should go there. --John (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment See WP:VOTE. With that out of the way, the Dalai Lama's comments would fit better in Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden than in this article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Eyewitness vs Local accounts

I don't want to nitpick (well, maybe), but what is the supposed difference by the titles? I think it was more important for someone that was actually IN the room would have a (literal) perspective of what happened than those that were outside and to emphasize that fact instead of merely muddling them all together. --Hourick (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hillary face grab & real time comms

during available video of the Obama44 gteam watching this raid, Hillary grabs her face, which occurred at the point of shooting or killing of Osama and that raises the question of denied real time onlooking and the further question of "giving" a kill order real to the seal doing the shooting. Important questions. Note also that helmut "headsup" displays allow via sat uplink not only TV viewing real time of these events but direct comms for instructions. elint commint sr Osaka Imp Househole CINC 69.121.221.97 (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What? This sounds like speculation and such. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

US Times

I notice we have EST & PST. Shouldn't we use daylight times since we're on that now, or what...?Smarkflea (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all areas in the US observe Daylight Savings time. That said, as I commented in another section, I believe Wikipedia's standard is to show dates and times of events in UTC, then in a meaningful local time zone. So the operation that killed bin Laden should, by that standard, be dated and timed first in UTC, then in PKT (for Pakistan local time). Someone feel free to correct me if this is an improper presumption. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there an official policy on times? I can't find one. I would think it would make sense to use local time zones where the local time was relevant to the story. In some parts of this article, it might be important to note that the mission took place in the middle of the night. Even then, you could probably give the UTC and then put local time in parentheses. Fnordware (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TIMEZONE --Skysmurf (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is another consideration in addition to the usual policy issues. I assume the US times were given to clear up the date difference between Pakistan time when it happened, (early morning hours of Monday May 2) and the time that Obama announced it (late Sunday evening EDT May 1). I think that is a good idea, as otherwise the timeline makes no sense. Also, I had moved the US times to a footnote because it was slowing up the intro too much - and I didn;t notice standard time vs daylight time discrepancy. If we do include US time, it should be rendered as daylight time. (By the way, I think in the US only Arizona and Hawaii do not observe daylight time.) Tvoz/talk 06:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Helicopter "stalling"

One helicopter may or may not have "stalled", however, it is not supported by the reference: "One helicopter was badly damaged after hitting the ground hard in a "vortex" created by the high walls.....". Also this section is linked to stall(engine). Stalling(engine) and stalling(loss of lift) are not the same. Please correct this section. 223.205.207.65 (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)mja

The ABC source mentions the stalling, so I have shifted the refs to clarify that.
Stalling is now linked to Stall (flight). Thank you for the corrections. Goodvac (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure stall is correct; see Vortex ring#Vortex ring effect in helicopters. I believe the effect is accentuated near walls; there was a crash of a VSTOL in a clearing. Glrx (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It may have been a straightforward problem where the tail rotor hit a wall, which may or may not have involved a vortex ring; better to be non-specific until definitive references emerge. Acroterion (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Reuters mentions higher than normal air temperatures for the crash of the Blackhawk.--PremKudva^Talk 11:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It was reported on I believe it was CNN tonight that it was a vortex, as User:Glrx guessed. Abrazame (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Vortex Ring State crash: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-05/commando-black-hawk-downed-by-air-vortex-not-mechanics-in-bin-laden-raid.html Glrx (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Capture or kill?

I am not sure we can justify having this in the infobox. It seems clearer and clearer that this was an assassination, not a botched arrest. So many of the initial details released by the US authorities are proving to be false, (and this is a situation with precedents), and it seems like this was one of them. --John (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Until we get a reliable source that calls it an assassination, the infobox should stay "capture or kill". --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I was querying the "capture or kill" in the infobox. Do we have a more reliable source for that? Consensus among reliable sources seems to be shifting towards this being a "kill" mission, not a "capture" one, in spite of the initial misinformation (or, to be charitable, "fog of war"). The BBC is a pretty good source, and so is the Guardian. --John (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Increasingly (and as usual) the BBC, the Guardian and AP and Reuters are proving far more reliable sources on what is going on that the US media. A useful quote from that article - "General David Petraeus, the commander of the Nato-led campaign in Afghanistan, announced that finding out how Norgrove died was his "personal priority", and a number of the seals involved in the failed rescue were disciplined." This was the same SEAL team sent to rescue Norgrove (and killing her in the process) that were sent to "kill or capture" OBL. I wonder who will be appointed soon to make it their Personal Priority to establish what really happened. And when will we get to see the vid of the assualt? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I added "or capture" to the infobox. Before that it just plainly stated that the mission was to kill Osama bin Laden. However, it is still the official story that this was a mission to capture or kill Osama bin Laden (as referenced). We can not completely disregard what is the official statement on this matter. But if this claim by the US government is being disputed by reliable sources, we may have to make a section about this dispute, and maybe link to it in the infobox. But I would argue the starting point should be to believe the official story.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Some people here are making a huge deal over the alleged "assassination" - I think there's a risk of putting undue weight on it. I mean, Osama said he would go out fighting, he had access to all sorts of weapons, and a long time to prepare the base. "Armed and extremely dangerous" scarcely describes it. All the soldiers going into that compound must have been thinking that Osama is going to press a button and kum-pome! Sort of like a bank teller, but not a silent alarm. So I think people should be careful not to discount the possibility, as some accounts describe, that Osama did make what - under the circumstances - was genuinely a "threatening gesture". This is not Amadou Diallo here. Wnt (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

On the point about giving greater weight to the "official story" - in this case, presuming we mean the "US government version of events" - well, we already have abundant evidence that the US military has repeatedly fabricated major propaganda stories in the recent past, one directly involving this very SEAL team. Wikipedia is not a US government outlet and right now I don't see any good reason to trust what the US is saying officially any more or less than we do other quality sources. I'm not saying anything goes but we need to apply sceptical thinking and look at all available good sources. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a better source out there somewhere, one that can demonstrate otherwise? If so, feel free to use it, as long as it's properly cited. Until then, we'll have to go with the official word. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire, if the "official word" is shown to be misleading (and it seems we have reliable sources for that), the onus would be on those wishing to retain this in the infobox to demonstrate a consensus of reliable sources that it is accurate. I am not sure that would be possible. Would you disagree? --John (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:V. The standard is verifiability, which is not necessarily the same as truth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? --John (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's assume that we are familiar with WP:V and also with WP:ONUS and WP:NPOV. Let's try again; as we acknowledge (with at least some reliable sources) that the official narrative is not infallible and has indeed changed in some important respects, how do we best apply WP:UNDUE to assign weight to the different narratives? Specifically around the infobox entry, is there a consensus to retain for now the two entries or should we just have the one? I would argue for the latter, but I would also stand ready to be convinced by a policy-based argument to retain both. --John (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I think that if the official claim about the objective of the operation is being disputed by reliable sources, we probably should make a section about that, and link to that section in the infobox. What I am opposed to is just to straight away assume that the official claim is false, as was done before.TheFreeloader (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That might make sense. For now, I have blanked the entry to reflect the uncertainty and disagreement about what the objective of the raid was. Given the disagreements among reliable sources, it just doesn't make sense to have only the "official" narrative reflected with one source when it would be equally easy to find sources saying it was a "kill" mission. As time passes, more will probably become clear. Rather have it blank than have it oversimplify, when the confusion is reflected in the text. --John (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a reliable source, but this article presents some analysis of the killing of OBL. Basically, it looks like it was a kill operation from the start. Hires an editor (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Marginalization of Native American objections

Hi there. I understand one can't have everything in this article. But I would be remiss in not saying here that moving all conversations about American Indian feelings off to another article has the effect of marginalizing them. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion a few sections up on this talk page (section #46 - "Splitting off of the operation.") All of the forking was done by a user without asking anyone else first, and so far there has been no consensus that it was a good idea. I agree with you, I don't like the forking, and wouldn't mind you reintegrating it. Kevin (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that fork. I was about to AfD it, but if someone wants to undo the forking with a redirect, that would be preferable. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I would like to stay out of the mechanics of changing this. A terse summary (even if just one or two sentences) here would probably be preferable. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Understandable. I decided to do it myself. I have to leave now, but someone else should look at paring the merged content. Or I'll do it later. By all means, you can go ahead and trim it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):: I see that you've blanked the fork - be warned that reintegrating it is slightly challenging, because of how the references are done. To do so successfully, you'll need to uncomment out the commented out references at the bottom of the main page, very carefully. Please preview your reintegration of the fork before you save it, to avoid messing up all the ref tags as was done earlier. (directed towards muboshgu) Kevin (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I don't follow. I reintegrated it without any problems, as far as I can tell. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

While it doesn't make sense to me to have a separate article regarding the controversy, it seems like it should literally be marginal to this article. A one sentence reference to the controversy would seem appropriate coverage. The current treatement is wp:undue in the context of this article. John2510 (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the reactions of American Indians (I always feel that Native American is a revisionist euphamism) to the name (the names are so uncreative these days that everyone should be offended) should probably go under Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden, and isn't really that central to this page. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

John2510, I agree with your concerns and have cut back several sentences. I have to go now but when I get back tonight will try to add only a phrase about Congressional hearings. Thanks for your comments. Sir William, that's where these comment started, but that article is reactions to bin Laden's death so they were moved here. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Good job with the paring down, Susan. It's no longer "marginalized", nor does it get undue weight either in this article or a content fork. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Well-done. jengod (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I made one more paring - replacing the quote about the Indian/enemy stereotype with a description of the nature of the objection.John2510 (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not support any reference to American Indian marginalization in this article. This article is about OBL's death, and American Indians were not marginalized by his death. Likewise, American Indians were not marginalized by reactions to his death either (which is just a sub-article under this article). I agree that American Indians were possibly marginalized by the operation whose planners made an unfortunate choice in code words, and I fully support including a paragraph or two on the subject in any such article. However, the subject is far too tangential for inclusion here. Rklawton (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As much as I think "geronimo" was a ludicrously offensive name to use, that this is not especially notable in the wider scale of the article. I think inclusion of the content in the main would probably be undue weight. We should not seek to marginalize, but neither should we seek to give undue weight. However, a clause or sentence in the discussion of the name may be fine. But certainly not more than that. I'm sure this is very important to some people, and I don't mean to detract from that, but it isn't the sum and substance of the article. Jbower47 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

I think you misread the first post of this thread, Rk. She wasn't saying that the raid marginalized native americans, she was saying that the fact that there was no mention of native americans' negative reaction to the name of the raid on the page marginalized native americans. It would be weird to claim that the raid somehow marginalized native americans, but it's certainly the case that the chosen name drew widespread criticism as offensive to them. I do not think that there is anything wrong with having at least some coverage of the fact that the name Geronimo has received fairly widespread criticism as insensitive. Kevin (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sensitive to Native American issues. But the justified offense taken to the name in the context of Native American history is, along with all other negative responses and conspiracy theories, given undue weight in the modern media that is always looking for a new and pointy angle, and in our presentation of such. Whomever it was that chose this name, that person and that decision is so far removed from the focus of this article, which is about the Death of Osama bin Laden, as to be inappropriate for coverage here. Yes, if we were writing a book, it would bear mention here. But the whole point of covering major stories at several different articles rather than covering a story comprehensively in one place is that, largely for weight considerations, though of course for size considerations as well, we do not present tertiary details in primary articles. Beyond articles specific to cultural insensitivity, considering weight and size, this issue belongs in our article compiling the reactions to the death, and it bears some mention in our article specifically about the operation that led to the death, but it does not belong in the article about the death. Abrazame (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it belongs in the "reaction" article only, as a reaction to the code name. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I said (and Abraz as well). =p Here is the relevant article so no search is needed: Reactions to the Death of Osama bin Laden. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agre, but the problem is that people want to delete those reactions from there too : see this diff. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Geronimo name controversy Teofilo talk 14:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I think there should be a separate article specifically about the military operation, and this issue should be a very small section there. And when I wrote the above post, I had seen a nascent article about the operation, which has since been deleted and redirected back here. I think this is a big enough story (by which I mean the overall story about bin Laden's death) that separate articles about the operation and the death itself are justified. I also think that the controversy does not deserve its own article, particularly if the operation does not. But I understand and support that the controversy would not be wiped completely from the project, and if it has to be in its own article at the moment, I think that's fair but undesirable. Again, I think an article that focuses specifically on the military operation should be created (and allowed to remain), and that this controversy is best covered as a small section there. After all, the controversy has nothing to do with the death, and it is not a response to the death; it is a response to the lack of sensitivity of the individual(s) tasked to name this military operation. Which I hope people can understand. It is of course completely irrelevant to the SEALs who carried out the operation, but the operation article would be the appropriate place to address the operation title and the code name in the first place, including (with appropriate weight) the controversy. I would have posted this in the AfD had it not been so speedily closed. Unless it involves removing inflammatory content, I don't think AfDs should be closed the same day they're opened. Abrazame (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

first sentence identifying bin Laden - comments please

The wording "founder of the al-Qaeda organization responsible for the September 11 attacks in the United States and other attacks worldwide," was changed to "founder of the militant Islamist organization al-Qaeda", with the edit summary "(npov opener. First of all, this is clearly intended to justify his killing in advance. We don't begin our article about the JFK assassination talking about the Bay of Pigs invasion. Second, it takes up far too much of the opening sentence)"

Since I put the context identifier in, and posted here on Talk to explain it when I did it (unlike the removal which was not discussed), I have to respond:

• first, that was not the intention at all - the intention was to provide context and clearly identify the subject, and to summarize the article, as the lead is supposed to do, without assuming the reader will understand the significance of "the al-Qaeda organization" which had been there alone. The article discusses the direct relevance of 9/11 in the "Legality" section, and it is central to why he was targeted and killed, so belongs in the summary. (It is only a theory that JFK was assassinated because of the Bay of Pigs, so it would be grossly inappropriate to say that in that article's lead sentence, unlike this.)

• As for taking up too much of the first sentence, if this is a real concern, we can remove "and other attacks worldwide", which I did not have in the first place, and do not think is necessary for the first sentence, although it explains some of the reactions from around the world to his death. (Or we could try rewriting the sentence again with all of the necessary information.)

• Changing this to "militant Islamist organization" is not enough, does not actually summarize the article, and is arguably not more npov than the 9/11 reference which is a widely acknowledged fact. I think it would slow things down and be superfluous to provide citations there for the 9/11 connection to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but we could do that.

I do object to this change, and think it should be discussed, especially as it is the lead sentence of a high profile article - rather than repeated reversion as was done. Would like comments from other editors here. Tvoz/talk 18:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer (as apparently does User:Rklawton) to just say "the founder of al-Qaeda". I used "founder of the militant Islamist organization al-Qaeda" as a compromise. It establishes the reader who Osama bin Laden was, and gives considerable context for the attack. But context shouldn't take up the bulk of the first sentence. The wording you suggest strongly suggests to me that the action was justified. If nothing else it is not a balanced sentence. I have no problem discussing the motivation for the attack later in the article, but I think the opening sentence should concisely tell the reader about the subject of the article, in this case the death of Osama bin Laden. Owen (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. If readers are so uninformed as to not know the nature of the organization, they are free to click the link for additional information. Rklawton (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rklawton and Owen here. --John (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Tvoz, and the compromise first put in place by Owen. I think that the compromise that Owen had used (which was deleted) is the most appropriate treatment. It was deleted under entirely misplaced premises -- for "npov" issues. Our job is to be accurate. When an editor deletes relevant statements for NPOV, that reeks of POV and IDONTLIKEIT. That information is directly related to why we had a "death of OBL" -- the subject of the article, and to the rationales presented for his killing (see the legal section).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden’s Neighbors Say Compound Was Under Surveillance Since 2005

The information from this article should be incorporated into this wiki article.

Given the claims that the Jamestown Foundation pursues a pro-CIA agenda, it might not necessarily be seen as a reliable source here. I think it might be better to find independent sources for anything added to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Immediate" Pakistani military response?

Look, I understand that a Pakistani government spokesman has asserted that there was an immediate military response to the U.S. incursion, and that it included the use of jets to chase down helicopters. I'm not sure how the jets *could not* have intercepted the helicopters if the response was indeed immediate. So, while I suggest that the content of this section be left intact, should we not remove the word "immediate" from the section title (or lede)? It's a bit conclusory when used in that way. I think it's quite fair to include the properly sourced statement of the Pakistani military, belied by other facts though it may be. Does anyone else have thoughts on this -- inclusion of the word "immediate" in the section title (or lede)? Goateeki (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I would indicate that it is an assertion of the P gov't. BTW -- it is possible that they responded at some point after the helicopters took off to depart P, and didn't intercept them due to the radar-deflecting skins, etc., of the helicopters.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And to your point -- yes, no need for it in the lede or in the title; just, w/attribution, in the text.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Residents of the compound at the time of the raid

The article currently reads: "Wounded in action (2) Amal Ahmed Abdul Fatah, bin Laden's fifth wife, unarmed Adult female , unarmed

Possibly captured by U.S. military (1) Adult male Left behind alive and unwounded (11) 12-year-old female child, bin Laden's daughter Safia Eight other children ranging in age from two to 12 years old Two adult females, possibly wives of bin Laden"

Initially it was reported that one woman was killed and two were wounded. It has since been reported that bin Laden's 12 yr.-old daughter was injured in the leg by flying debris. I came to the conclusion that she was the second injured woman. The US officials have left it really unclear who the second wounded woman was and since they did not say that any children were wounded, I believe they mistook the 12-yr-old for a women. I think that her information should replace "Adult female , unarmed", or at the very least she should be added to the list of wounded.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Operation Neptune's Spear Logo?

Who is the person who proposed this? Do they have any official standing? Are they aware that there is a typo in the logo? I think this should be deleted. Ttenchantr (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Removed it. Swarm ^X 01:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Controversy section missing Why this article doesn't has a controversy section? The are available sources questioning if he is really death, if the dody was buried at sea, etc. This section should be here. 89.155.35.179 (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Along with every other fringe crackpot theory, yes. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC) (ec)It'll happen. We just need reliable sources indicating that the controversy has become notable. Right now it appears to be entirely in the domain of the usual conspiracy theorists and hasn't yet moved to the mainstream. No doubt it will once the main stream media has gotten tired of repeating themselves. Rklawton (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Here are some reliable sources: [5][6] Fnordware (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Blog's aren't reliable, and ibtimes isn't an indication of notability. Be patient, it's inevitable that the conspiracy theorists will get their name in lights (so to speak). Rklawton (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC) What? "the reveler, who identified himself only as 'Nick'" isn't a reliable source?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC) He is a reliable source on his own beliefs and the International Business Times is considered reliable, no? Fnordware (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC) CBS News: [7] Fnordware (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Bingo. Rklawton (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC) The idiocy of humans never ceases to amaze me. I'm reminded that one person wanted a nuclear bomb to be blown up on the surface of the moon to prove we actually landed there. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC) These are the same folks who were saying a week ago that Obama was not born in Hawaii. Having been shown how stupid they are, they move on to their next round of stupidity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I don't think Cindy Sheehan was ever a birther.[8] Truthsort (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC) It amazes me how ridiculous Americans can get some times. After the flat out lies Bush told, we had the same kinds of idiots crying that they were "conspiracy theories, akin to 9/11 truthers" for pointing out that evidence clearly suggests they didn't have WMD. Now we have one of the worlds most hunted men who was attacked and killed on the sovereign soil of a nuclear armed nation and people are shouting "omgz guys yous just saying its a conspiracy" to drown out genuine criticisms? Pathetic. Again. Before he was even officially verified as Osama bin Laden by those who retrieved his body, his corpse was dumped into the ocean. Hilariously, the government even attempted to claim it did so because of "adhering to Islamic burial rites", which only the most moronic of diehard flag wavers could possibly buy into. This is suspect. Why wouldn't it be? Even the claims of "trying to stop his body being a shrine" doesn't work since they could have disposed of his body after complete verification. Ignoring the small already existing problem that they've released where he was killed, defeating the purpose. I hope Obama, as he has been suggesting, actually releases further verifiable information that confirms Osama's death (perhaps even sooner if leaked) so that any actual unfounded conspiracy theories are shut down. But UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, questioning clearly suspect actions and handling of the situation of a man who has been repeatedly suspected of already being dead for years by sources from around the world, after the US government has already been caught releasing "new" videos of Osama that were later shown to be years older, is NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY. It is raising valid questions. Hell, a controversy section should be included regardless of the questions surrounding his death, such as the claims of assassination (illegal both internationally and by US domestic law), the claims of deliberate killing of his family at the compound and so on. Get your patriotic heads out of your asses and edit like neutral Wikipedians. 203.206.14.221 (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane He was officially verified as Osama bin Laden by DNA testing and by other people present with him in his complex. I agree with a controversy section, but it can't have things about how the U.S. dumped his body in the ocean ASAP to prevent him from being positively identified when most reliable news sources are saying it was him for sure and that he was already identified. When you find a "genuine criticism", let me know. - Uhai (talk · contribs) 04:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Raising questions is fair. Jumping to conclusions is conspiracist junk. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC) To the original posting: the whole article is about a controversy. Adding such a section would make no sense. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Per WP:STRUCTURE: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." Does that make it clear enough what a bad idea this is? If I haven't already made it clear, I hate criticism sections. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC) I got in on this discussion late and haven't read everything under this particular heading. However, I would only include statements from those questioning bin Laden's death if it is reliably sourced. Same goes for statements presenting those people's reasons why they think the news reports were inaccurate, etc. -- reliable sources. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)]] Follow-up: In an early response to our IP friend's suggestion about "controversey" in the wake of the reports of bin Laden's death -- Yes, I am sure they will come in time, they will be published, all that good stuff. After all, we have an article titled "List of conspiracy theories," "crackpot" or not. Again, anything that does artise questioning bin Laden's death (e.g., whether he is actually alive, details about the mission are proven not to be as reported, etc.) must be sourced via reliable sources (and I don't mean a private blog by just anybody). [[Briguy52748 (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)]] This template: restates in other words what Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs) says above. Just wanted to draw attention again to Magog's reply. 68.165.77.123 (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Whether or not Osama bin Laden is dead is not the controversy. He is dead. Only fringe conspiracy theorists would like to think otherwise. But there are two major controversies here. And they are not related to why Pakistan didn't know he was there. It may have - just as the Americans had known for at least 6 months. If Pakistam is to be criticised for not finding a man wanted by the Americans, the Americans can be criticised for the same thing. No, the two controveries are why was he assassinated at all? This isn't legal (if it was, America wouldn't still be pretending he was killed in action). Are they afraid Obama will be charged with murder or war crimes? Or don't they like to admit resorting to terrorist tactics to fight terrorism? And the invasion of Pakistani territory. Secondary controversies are the dumping of bin Laden's body at sea, the kidnapping of his family, and that America waited at least 6 months before acting. They knew he was there last September, or earlier. Why not act earlier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC) English/Arabic comparison It would be interesting to compare the English version of this article with the Arabic one. Unfortunately, I don't know any Arabic. Has anybody else done this? Biscuittin (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC) That would be interesting to see, actually. Maybe they have some good ideas. Anyone here know Arabic and a decent amount of English? It doesn't have to be perfect mind you. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC) You can go to ar:ويكيبيديا:سفارة and make an inquiry in English WhisperToMe (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Hmmmm, good point. Hope they are friendly over there. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC) The word مقتل used in the title of the Arabic version of this article could be translated to murder, assassination or killing.--Axelode (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC) It's probably like Hebrew where you have similar meanings conveyed by triconsonantal roots, so you have one word in the language used for multiple things that we have different words for in English (and all related words have the same basic roots). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC) The word مقتل in Arabic grammar is called 'name of place/time'. It is derived from the verb قتل which means 'to kill'. In my view, it is neutral, if we agree that Usama bin Laden was killed, and probably, more precise than simply 'death'. For me, a better title for this article would be the name of the operation that led to death/killing because the article is mainly about this. This is what German, Italian and Slovenian Wikipedia have done, as far as I can judge. --Sabahrat (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Indeed they have, but we shot that idea down as few people really know that name, so we're just going by the common name. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Here is the Google translation of the page. Obviously leaves a lot to be desired, but doesn't look like there's much info there. Maybe it's in another place? Brmull (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Legal issues section The legality section could do with some balance. The overwhelming majority of the quotes and comments there now assert that the killing was illegal, two defending the action are buried in the middle and appear to be phrased dismissively. If anyone feels qualified to do the work, a more even-handed approach might be warranted. jengod (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Agreed. This should be whittled down to only the most serious allegations of illegality by the most serious of people. Not a random FOX News anchor or unknown professor. I'll take a look at it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Agree. Perhaps deleting opinions of Michael Mansfield QC and Geoffrey Robertson, both of them distinguished British jurists, but I don't really see why their opinions should carry undue weight? FightingMac (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC) I do not agree.Deleting the opinions of two distinguished lawyers would then mean that there are no lawyers opinions in the legal section at all apart from the American one who is obviously backing the American version of events.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) I think the opinions of American legal scholars dissenting from the governments' approach would be preferable to British lawyers in this case. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Why should American lawyers dissenting be so much better than British ones?Being as they are the only ones we have at the moment then I believe they should stay, their nationality should not even come into it.Until more people come out on the subject then I think it should be left as it is, if someone wants to add some more American opinion on the events then they can.There will be something coming from the Red Cross and other organisations soon enough as well.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC) You're right. My first thought was that Americans may have greater understanding of an American operation, but this is an issue of international law. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC) AI agree with the original poster. This section suffers greatly from undue weight.Jbower47 (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Michael Mansfield sounds a bit... errr... interesting... what is is his practice area exactly? I can't see it in the article, and yes it does matter, otherwise you could put in the opinions of my parents (dad's a corporate lawyer and my mom's an ERISA lawyer). Make sure these guys actually experts in the field of international law. Geoffrey Robertson looks a bit better, but that's solely on the basis of him apparently being a "human rights" attorney as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) I just read his page, and he comes off as a fringe individual whose opinion does not belong on this page. I'm removing him, and keeping the other guy for now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Hardly fringe the guy is a QC, you do not get there by being fringe.Owain the 1st (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Saying he holds the title of QC doesn't mean much to those of us who are tax-deliquent rebels. =p Would you mind elaborating? Also, I don't see how his title affects wether or not he practices in the area of international law or something else that is relevant to this issue. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC) You can read about him here. Michael MansfieldAs for a QC you can read about that here.Queen's Counsel. Owain the 1st (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC) I read about Queen's Counsel. I still don't see how it has any bearing on anything relating to his opinion on this case. He's also appears to be a civil rights lawyer, but that is just for the laws of your system. I don't see how that makes his opinion matter with respect to international law. Like I said, either of my parents is about as qualified (possibly more as they learn a lot of general legal stuff as well =p) as this fellow to comment on this. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC) The QC designation is, I agree, irrelevant. I'm on the fence as to his notability here generally. It is outside his area of expertise. But I'm on the fence.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Notability, of course, should not be a reason for his opinion to be put in if we don't have the expertise criterion satisfied, otherwise we could put in Judge Judy's opinion. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Expertise criterion?The guy represented the victims families in the Bloody Sunday inquiry.He also represented the family of Jean Charles de Menezes in the case about their son.Just these two events are cases where first the army killed unarmed people and then the police force did.Being as we are talking about a case where a load of unarmed people got killed I think that he very much has experience in that area, obviously more than Judge Judy and your parents.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Those aren't international law issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC) They are unarmed people killed by military/police forces issues which is even better.Owain the 1st (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC) The applicable principles here are international law, including Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This fellow doesn't seem to have an expertise in that, but rather in local UK law, which is not at issue as far as I can tell. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Well I guess him being a lawyer at the International war crimes trial in the Hague says he has experience of international law at the highest court in the world.[9] Owain the 1st (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure you read that brief very closely, here is a direct quote from Section 2, subsection 5: "On 6 May 2004 the Defence for the accused Fatmir Limaj (“Limaj Defence”) [Mansfield mind you] joined the Musliu Application and specifically relied upon all arguments and reasoning advanced in Musliu Application, except those concerning the appointment of investigators and lead-counsel for Limaj." - he basically didn't actually contribute anything else to this case as that is the only time he is mentioned (at least in this brief). So, no it doesn't give him experience really (especially since Fatmir Lamaj was apparently the focus of the case), though we don't know how he acted in the rest, also the bit about appointment of lead counsel is interesting. Was he not the man's lawyer or was he just a minor attorney as part of a team? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC) At issue here is the question of balance. Rather than quoting a bunch of international and celebrity jurists, what the editors ought to be doing is making a balanced summation of the issues involved and citing a representative selection of sources. Instead, of the two subsections involved, only the first has a lead paragraph setting out one justification in international law for the raid (but incidentally failing to address the question of killing which is what is really to be addressed here). Everything else in the section consists of quotes mainly from the press and TV. But we can get that for ourselves (it's just that some of us think it worthwhile to post it on Wikipedia as well). Balance is hard to maintain in such circumstances I suggest, likely merely reflecting the popular mood prevailing, and the goal of encyclopaedic coverage also unlikely to be attained as is plainly the case in this section. As for Geoffrey Robertson above, indeed he's a human rights lawyer well known in the UK (he recently represented Julian Assange) and not a specialist in international law, but we shouldn't have to be making judgements about whether he has the necessary experience to make his views worth quoting. Rather, in my opinion, the content should be there in the first place and the only issue a matter of fact issue as to whether he can be cited in support of the content. FightingMac (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC) If you're giving the opinion of a lawyer on the relevant laws, it should be one who you are sure actually knows what he is talking about rather than a showmen who might be giving misinformation. When people see reporter they think one thing, but if they say lawyer they think expert. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Well of course one should use one's discretion and I'm sure there are celebrity TV lawyers out there who have been sounding forth beyond what is their own expertise, but my main point (essentially it's the Wikipedia distinction between verifiabilty and truth) is that the editors shouldn't have to make that judgement in the first place because really they should be citing sources in support of the content (rather than creating content from sources, when you do have to make judgements about the reliability of the sources). What I would like to see from the Wikipedia section on 'legal issues' is a summary of the relevant international law along with with a description of what parts of it the US subscribe to (it doesn't subscribe to all protocols) including perhaps whether there was ever a possibility of the US handing bin Laden over to the Hague International Court of Justice (which is whatGeoffrey Robertson's opinion quoted is premised on but that was always rather an unlikely outcome to my knowledge), and then the section may cite opinion as to whether these protocols have been observed. FightingMac (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC) I put it up to show that he has been active in the international court and therefore is experienced in international law which Epeefleche thinks he is not.Of course you just read the one article and did not bother to follow it up but came to a conclusion anyway.Mr Mansfield was the guys council, it says that in the link I provided.You can also read it here in the case information summary [10].Therefore it is obvious that the guy has been involved in international law at the very highest level and his opinion was relevant.This case was involved with the violations of the laws and customs of war as can be seen here [11]and that is one of the areas where his views on the Bin Laden case are worthy.[User:Owain the 1st|Owain the 1st]] (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC) @Mac, alrighty, though I disagree on the point about examining for actual expertise, that's a policy issue, which shouldn't be discussed here ofc. Robertson, I've not had an objection to. @Owain, yes, I see in your other link, he and another attorney named Khan were his counsel, and that gives him some experience, but you'll have to forgive me not following it up as I live on the East Coast (the country should be easy to get =p), and it was already getting towards dawn. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC) The killing is clearly illegal if it was intentional. And it is fairly clear there was no intention to take him alive. I wounder if bin Laden knew that, so avoided having any weapons in the house. He knew he would be killed, and didn't want America to be able to say it was self-defence, or that he was fighting back. The CIA should have thought of that, and planted a couple of dead terrorists in the compound. Too late now, the truth will come out. The death is definitely unlawful under international law- to which America is a party - specifically Article 1 of the Geneva Convention's Current International law regarding Summary Executions. The only way it could be lawful under American law would be if America freely admitted it didn't comply with its international obligations to apply the Geneva Conventions, and that assassination is also specifically authorised under American law. I doubt they can do either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC) "Critiques" of sea burial Critique is a very poor choice of words imo. Critiquing is what you do for someone's essay (as the article there states), not whether or not you should be tossing a body into the drink. Criticism is the best term and it's just more logical as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC) I think the heading's going for something beyond just criticism, i.e. analyses, opinions and criticisms. Swarm X 01:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC) It's still very odd usage of critique though as most people usually hear it in the context of a literary work of some sort. Why not call it Analysis of sea burial then (or Criticism)? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC) I changed it to "Reaction to burial". Not sure if it's the best choice, but WP:Criticism advises against using criticism in the title, as it may indicate to some that it's only about negative reactions, and I personally think critique just sounds weird in this context.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Sounds great. Swarm X 17:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Yep, much better. You might be a freeloader, but you're starting to earn your keep. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC) I am afraid that far too many illiterate people use "critique" when they mean "criticise". The latter isn't just the better word, it is the only one for this purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC) nom de guerre User "Art and Muscle" is in an edit war with several editors as to whether the phrase nom de guerre which is hyperlinked in the article has to be explicitly defined as "pseudonym of war." At least two of us think this would be redundant and insulting to readers. We can't sidestep the issue because nom de guerre has no good synonyms. None of the cited sources define the term. "Pseudonym" may not even be correct because for example the person with the nom de guerre "William the Conquerer" really was named William. Can we reach a consensus on this?Brmull (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC) If you want to be pedantic, William wasn't "the Conquerer" until the 'guerre' was over - he was William the Bastard. But yes, a link to pseudonym should suffice, in my opinion. If people don't understand the phrase, they can follow the link, and learn something. Isn't that what encyclopaedias are for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC) People should not have to necessarily click that link to know what that high-sounding phrase is...as it would many times break the flow of the reading. And WP has come under criticism (from writers and educators, no less) for being too difficult, too technical, too wind-baggish, too stuffy, and not easily readable for even educated people, let alone casual or less-educated types. See my section below. Also, what "Brmull" doesn't grasp is that edit-warring is being done by HIM, not just me. (Selective analysis of course). And also the fact that ONLY TWO editors (in reality) are uptight to remove that clarification, wherase MANY OTHERS who have read and reviewed the entire article DID NOT feel the need to remove it. That point of course gets ignored by "Brmull." Art and Muscle (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC) That is Duke William the Bastard of Normandy, my good sir. =p I think in the context most people could probably figure it out, and if people have heard the term nom de plume they can also get it with no problem (guerre is also one of the better known French words), and as you said, if all else fails, click the link. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC) I don't think it needs an explanation in-text on this page. It's a common phrase that most editors will understand or get from context, and as mentioned people can always click through. Kevin (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC) My point is that I think it can go EITHER WAY...but a good-faith clarification for maybe people who DON'T readily know the meaning is not something that needs to theoretically be removed. Also, regardless of the actual merit of the argument one way or the other, a user on this now only felt the need to chime in because of personal bias with me over some other matter, and is arguably now sort of stalking me, in violation of WP:Hound. The user "Flinders Petrie". And I warned him not to do that. Art and Muscle (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC) You are going against consensus in making that edit revert over and over, and as I said before, I have been editing this page for several days. When a topic comes up, I usually contribute to it. Please also read WP:HA#NOT. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC) A "consensus" of TWO, at the time...admitted by "Brmull" himself then. And meanwhile HOSTS of other editors who have been reading through the whole article, leaving that edit alone. What about that type of "consensus"? But keep showing your obvious bias against me, which is really all that's going on. Uptight about another matter, so ANY POSITION I have, you'll automatically now think is wrong, or should be fought against. I know human nature only too well. And oh, how is that "please stay away from me" working? I notice you can't seem to follow that. Read WP:Hound. Thanks. And as I said, I think this edit thing can go either way. It's really whatever. Art and Muscle (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC) It's perfectly acceptable to revert good faith efforts that you disagree with - especially on a very high visibility page like this. I do not agree that the two options are equivalent, the one you have been reverting to detracts from the readability of a page that has enough readability problems as it is. You are using a really combative tone in your postings on this page, and your edit summaries are close to being personal attacks on other users. I've taken a quick look at Flinder's behavior and I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Please review WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Be warned that you are one revert away from violating WP:3rr over this issue. It may be a good idea for you to step back from editing this page for a while. Kevin (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Strutting down the street in arrogance, and saying "look at me, I talk smart" what part of lose the elitism and arrogance and NOT everyone knows off hand what uh "nom de guerre" means, and this stuff is also for causal readers too, not just for PhDs or elitists didn't you grasp? You honestly (and people such as you) think that EVERYONE on the planet knows off hand what the hell "nom de guerre" means? If so, you're actually DELUDED, not enlightened or educated. WP is NOT just for PhD or high-minded readers, but for EVERYONE...and what is the big problem in simply parenthetically clarifying what a stuffy snobbish sounding expression like uh "nom de guerre" actually means? What is the HARM in clarifying it a bit briefly? When people (who are uh "educated") use high-sounding language, it's NOT done for the benefit of the reader...but only so that the writer or speaker can strut down the street and say "hey look at me I talk smart." (Keith Olbmerann) Anyway, it would be nice if you didn't think the universe revolved around your brain, thinking that JUST BECAUSE you and some other elitist types may know what that French phrase means (I know it, but I try to consider EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING...), does not mean that every casual reader may know that thing right away. There have been criticisms hurled against Wikipedia (by writers, and educators, no less) that too many Wikipedia articles are WAY TOO DIFFICULT AND TOO TECHNICAL in language and style. This crap of "nom de guerre" is just another little example of the problem. So to answer your rude question "does anyone besides Art and Muscle think 'nom de guerre' needs to be defined, so and so"...obviously there is, since not every editor who has reviewed and looked over the article has felt the uptight need to remove the parenthetical clarification. But guess what, ONLY A FEW have felt the need to remove it. You being one. Stop edit warring over this. Only true vandalism, or opinion, or inaccuracies, should be "reverted" or "removed"...NOT good-faith clarifications or edits. Bye...Art and Muscle (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC) "Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia where everyone can remain ignorant". AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC) @Art, please respect WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as you have been asked to before. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) With your own arguable violation now of WP policy, you can self-righteously throw wiki tags at me, without looking at yourself. Want me to give you WP:Hounding? I thought I told you to stay away from me, and not stalk me. I guess obsessives can't help themselves though. From now on, you'll be ignored by me.Art and Muscle (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC) I have been editing this page for about two or three days, long before you showed up on it. You posted something on it and I responded. As I said on my talk page I am not hounding you/stalking you or doing anythign else you have chosen to accuse me of. This is the second time we have actually come in contact. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Long before I showed up on it? You need to get your facts straight. I've been editing on this article SINCE THE STORY BROKE OUT FIVE DAYS AGO...uh, long before YOU showed up on it. In fact, if you go to the special toolserver website, and click this you'd see I'm (lol) on of the TOP TEN editors on this article. Ooops. Anyway, regardless, you're (albeit slyly) hounding me, and I told you to like stay away from me. Chiming in your two cents on stuff that directly involves me (when you don't really have to) is not really staying away from me.Art and Muscle (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC) If that is the case I have not seen you on the talk page, and if you were on the talk, I have forgotten seeing your name (which does happen). I am trying to help with the article while you are launching personal attacks at me and accusing me of harassing and stalking you after I made only two actual posts on your talk page. I cannot attempt to help out without responding to these topics I'm afraid. Though I probably am doing the wrong thing by responding to personal attacks. The original point though was that the original post seems uncivil. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Well, fair enough. If you meant this TALK page specifically, that is true. I have not appeared on here. I thought you meant this article situation in general. But no, I have not edited or dealt with the actual talk page itself. But even so, my point is earlier I told you to not deal with me, since you have this issue with a word I used (which I meant no terrible thing by, and I've seen other accomplished WP editors use the term too, by the way), and even if you saw me on this talk page, there was no real NEED to come on to this thread or matter. That was my only point. As for the French phrase, if you see "Abrazame" below, he's of the mind that it's better to leave the clarification, to make it plain to the average reader. As I said, I think it can go either way.Art and Muscle (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC) It does not matter in any way shape or form if you have been editing this article longer than he has. You cannot command a user to arbitrarily stay away from you or from articles that you edit, especially when he all he seems to be doing is posting civil good faith requests for you to tone down your postings. Kevin (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Hello...I have to be frank here. It's amazing how you're getting on MY case about that, when HE was the one to bring that "long before you did" remark first. Yet you won't address or gripe at him, but will have him smell like a rose (fallacy of selective observation) that "all he's doing is asking you to tone it down." Uh, no, sir, that's NOT all he did (he belittled me, thinking and saying that I JUST came on the article, which you don't get on his case about, but when I defend myself against his incorrect assertion, you only get on MINE...biasedly and selectively) and also he's hounding me, with stuff that involves me, but does NOT really involve him. I told him to keep his distance, and he's not. You seem biased yourself. You already showed your lack of credibility when you just BLATANTLY overlooked his thing on "long before you showed up" but only jump on ME for correcting his wrong assertion with it. Interesting. I guess I'll tell you the same. Don't stalk me, sir. For real. Just cuz more than one person is doing it does not (lol) ipso facto make it right or uh WP appropriate. It's none of your business. This is about the French phrase, NOT your personal and obvious bias and bloviating towards me. Thanks.Art and Muscle (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC) "This is about the French phrase". Yup. We can Wikilink it for people that don't understand it. That way, they can learn something, and the rest of us can read the article without having to be spoon-fed. Encyclopaedias are supposed to educate people... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC) If you read my other comments dealing with this, you'd see that I said more than once that I think it can go either way. Also, as far as the "spoon-fed" (arguably arrogant and elitist attitude, must say...), see what "Abrazame" said below on that. He's of the mind that clarification and spelling out and making plain for the average reader is probably better. Just sayin. Again, it's NOT that big a deal to me. Peace... Art and Muscle (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC) If you reread Abrazame's comment, he actually says that he thinks a wikilink to the term without a parenthetical translation in the actual article is most appropriate. I would like to see this very unproductive discussion chain end, and if necessary, a discussion about the nom de guerre issue can be restarted on this page. Art&Muscle and Flinders - would you be okay with me hatting out (collapsing) these sections? If both of you agree, I will do so, and we can move on. If conversation continues in the way it's been going, I'm going to make a post on one of the noticeboards asking for admin intervention. Kevin (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC) I stand corrected. I don't know what's with my eyes tonight. I didn't see the word "not". I read it a bit quickly. My mistake. OK, as I said, (ayayaya), this actually was NOT that major a deal for me. It was the principle that a good-faith little clarification arguably did NOT have to be removed per se. Also, let's be honest, do you think every single reader who comes across the WP article on bin Laden's death, will know right away what "nom de guerre" means? Yes, wiki link, but let's say a reader wants to keep the flow of what he's reading and NOT go to another page, and break that flow? See my point? That's really ALL I was saying. But again, ultimately, WP policy is also WP:Consensus. So it's fine. Peace out. Art and Muscle (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC) I have no issue with it being hatted and preferably archived to gather e-dust, I think we may have worked it out anyway. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Since both major participants have agreed and the discussion here is not productive and is mostly off-topic, I am hatting these sections out. If anyone would like to continue to discuss the nom de guerre issue, please start a new section. Kevin (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC) C'mon, guys, let's take a step back from this. It's a dispute about whether or not a Wikilinked French term requires, or is even accurately, being parenthetically translated. Let's keep this one strictly on weighing the editorial benefits of the two choices. I can see both sides. Personally, my take is that we're an encyclopedia; we should be helping the reader to understand things specific to this article, and phrases in the general lexicon are not the things we should be taking pains to spell out for people. But that — and the warning to play nice — is all I'm going to say about this. Not to be all hall monitor about it, but not too far beyond this point is where someone else comes along and sanctions somebody. Abrazame (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think there is a need to define it; wikilinking should be sufficient.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hamas is a terrorist organization

Since when is Hamas NOT a terrorist organization? Even the article here on Hamas in far left Wiki-land clearly shows that the bulk of the English (native language) speaking world has identified Hamas as terrorist organization. All I have been doing is to try and ensure if we're going to have a quote from the "leader" of this terrorist orgainization, that it be identified for what it is in the English speaking world. Last I checked, this IS the English Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.88.77 (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:TERRORIST - it outlines Wikipedia policy on labeling individuals or groups as terrorists. Kevin (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Kevin, the vast majority of native English speaking countries identify Hamas as a terrorist organization. This is the English Wikipedia.--68.13.88.77 (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Although it's true that most english speaking countries identify Hamas as a terrorist organization, WP:TERRORIST still applies. Kevin (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(this was the start of another topic earlier) Now there's a slight bit of contention over Hamas. While I agree that they are a vile terrorist organisation, I think the best approach we can take in referring to them as such, if we decide to, is to do what a rather nice fellow on the reactions page did. That is, call them a "designated terrorist organisation", as they have been designated terrorists by various governments. What do others think? I know it's not the focus of the article, but still. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be fine.--68.13.88.77 (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty. Does anyone object to this idea? Here is the original topic about that btw. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to the idea of labeling them as a DTO per se, but I am a little bit worried that labeling them as a DTO with proper in-text attribution might make the sentence a little bit crowded. If it can be done in a way that preserves notability I don't have a problem with it, but if it can't I don't think it's necessary. Kevin (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see what you mean. How about "The leader of the Hamas government designated a terrorist organisation by many governments), ...) The of the Gaza Strip bit, is it really necessary? It reads in a somewhat awkward manner imo. I think this wording could work though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Then another alternative is to eliminate the comment. It is no surprise that a terrorist organization would be disheartened by the death of the worlds most wanted terrorist, especially considering both believe(d) the U.S. and Israel are evil. IF an alternative view is needed to be balanced or politically correct, then maybe a more reasonable quote can be found?--68.13.88.77 (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, I mean when I first saw it there I found it a bit strange to point to well... Hamas. I mean they're very notable and all, but I didn't see why their reaction should go there in the lede. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no particular attachment to the Hamas quote, but I do want to point out that your comment that it's no surprise that a group like Hamas would disapprove of the death of bin Laden is not a very useful statement in this context as you could equally say that it's no surprise that America would approve of the death of bin Laden. Kevin (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Why not just use the comments coming out of Venezuela which has at least one official that has called the death of OBL an assassination.--68.13.88.77 (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the quote currently there is further complicated by the fact that the person who said it has a claim to being the democratically elected prime minister of the Palestinian Authority. So any attribution of the quote probably needs to contain that he is both a leader of Hamas and the (disputed) prime minister of the PA. Kevin (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well we handled that by using the reasoning that at the time, he was still just Hamas' leader, and the same for PA statements (as it was pre-Unity). Also, HE is (possibly) the new PM? This is the first I have heard of this and I am none too pleased. =| Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should point out that I may have been wrong in saying democratically elected, since my silly American brain forgot that prime ministers are generally not directly elected, but yeah - according to the current wiki articles at least the hamas faction of the PA recognizes Haniyeh as PM, while the fatah people recognize someone else. I'm tired and frazzled, but I can't come up with a non-awkward sounding wording that would describe both of his roles and manage to label hamas as a DTO with intext attribution at the same time. Kevin (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Man or Woman killed

I believe we have the Pakistanis saying that no women died and they have the body of an unidentified man, the Americans are saying a woman was killed and that is what is in the article.So who is right? Being as the Pakistanis have the bodies I suppose they would know and going on all the mistakes put out by the Americans I would go with the Pakistani version as I do not see what they would gain from lying about it.Should it be changed or are we in a wait and see?Owain the 1st (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I Think we are going to have to wait until this becomes more clear. Most reports are that it was the courier's wife. We just have to wait to see. --Ishtar456 (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

adding further information under Pakistan allegations

So far, excellent continuous synopsis and accounts on this developing story. I would recommend under the current subheading "Pakistan allegations" to add that Bin Laden was living in Pakistan since 2003, as Pakistani interrogators found out from his youngest wife, that they lived in Pakistan couple years prior to moving to last residence (compound) in 2005. Here is the source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/world/asia/07policy.html?_r=1&hp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.225.242 (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

New sub-category specifically for Death of Bin Laden?

As of 5/7/11, there are at least six different articles directly related to the death of bin Laden, and it seems likely that more will be written in the future - What do we think about making a sub-category of Category:Osama bin Laden for this? KConWiki (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. I'm not sure how many people would view it, but eh, could help someone at some point. Not much work either. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone has a rationale not to, I am going to do that tomorrow. KConWiki (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think an additional category is needed, as the Category:Osama bin Laden covers everything OBL (may god curse his soul) and would eventually lead readers to his death. It would not hurt to go ahead and make it a category and revisit it in a year to see if there is a need for one. --Hourick (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you might have misread this, the OP was saying make a sub-category of the existing Category:Osama bin Laden, like if you look up Writers from California (which I am having trouble finding again) and then see a sub for Writers from the San Francisco Bay Area. Helps to break things down more. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, done - Let's see how this works out... KConWiki (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of where SEAL team traveled after leaving compound

From what was stated from a Defense Dept. prepared document, read by White House Press Secretary, it appears that the Seal team traveled directly to Carl Vinson, rather than back to the Afgan base. Here is the link: http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/03/what-happened-at-the-obl-compound/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.149.2 (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorporated. Thanks. jengod (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This article indicates that OBL was first taken to U.S. military base in Afghanistan. A CNN article says "Photos of OBLs body at a hangar after he was brought back to Afghanistan." As the team included electronic jamming and countermeasures aircraft, and likely fighter cover, I'd be surprised to hear it was split with some going back to Afghanistan and others traveling the length of the Pakistan/India border. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorporating conflicting info, hold pls. jengod (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Adjusted language in "wrap-up" situation. Thanks to you both. jengod (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Mark all US government announcements as dubious?

Given the veritable blizzard of "mistakes" that have emanated from US government spokespeople in the military, White House and also US media sources like Fox, I wonder if we should now adopt a policy of marking all material that derives from a US source as dubious? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

While we all might wish the WH media post-op had been handled with the same, er, efficiency, as the actual op, this proposal sounds unrealistic. Ronnotel (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I support the proposal from Jamesinderbyshire. Please note this is about improving the article by making it less biassed. Biscuittin (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Doubts about the official version are widespread in the UK. See this [12] for example. Biscuittin (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that many aspects of the post-op narrative have been badly bungled. However, tagging *all* US sources - just because they are US - is arbitrary and discriminatory. There's more than enough reportage (even in US sources) picking apart the various mistakes that have been made without resorting to that kind of action. Ronnotel (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Most information about this event comes from the U.S. or from Pakistan's own investigation - and Pakistan is in America's pocket. The only independent account comes from interviews from locals woken by the noise and a single Twitter feed. So - do we trust the U.S. or do we not? The clue that we can trust the U.S. is that the U.S. has not come out with one single, consistent story - as it would if the story were pre-planned. Instead, it has come out as a jumbled, contradictory mess just as one would expect from people speaking without a script. For example, initially the media reported a "double tap" as two shots to the head. This is consistent with popular military myth and shows that some unnamed official was embellishing the story. Eventually, the U.S. revised the "double tap" story to one shot in the head and one shot in the torso. This version is consistent with actual practice as two shots to the head of a standing target isn't practical. Many other such details have also changed to more realistic versions. For example, we went from a fierce firefight lasting most of the 40 minute raid to a single armed gunman who was quickly killed. Again, this latter version is constant with the shell casing evidence on the scene. The fact that we're moving from embellished version to a much more realistic version all from the same (general) source (the U.S.) helps lend credibility that the U.S. itself is busy trying to sort out and report the details and separate fact from fiction. So yeah, I think we can trust the version-of-the-day to be the most accurate information currently available. Rklawton (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Otherwise-reliable US sources have been quick to correct themselves when errors are discovered or as new information has been obtained. Still, this is the inherent trouble with maintaining an article that documents a current or recent event; like the template indicates, information may change rapidly, and it often does. My 2p is that all contributors to the article need to be wary of recentism and look at how their edits will affect the article in the long term, not just throw text into the mix just because source XYZ says something. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Dubious? Hardly. This is part of covering a current event; the information available is dynamic and everchanging and still being released/produced. Labeling all US statements as dubious on principle would not only go against all wikipedia principles of neutrality, it actively promotes the conspiracy talks, which is sort of void now that even Al Qaeda have confirmed that bin Laden is dead. So basically, if you don't like the fact that the information at our disposal changes on the fly, wait until the dust has settled and everything has been established. --Rogington2 (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust statements by al-Qaeda either. Biscuittin (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Even the dirtiest window lets some light through... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It is in al-Qaeda's interest to support the death report because it gives them an excuse for more terrorist attacks. Biscuittin (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)OK, @Biscuittin, I think I see where the disconnect is coming from. Trust has exactly nothing to do with it. Please see WP:RS. Our job is not to sort what what is or isn't WP:TRUTH, but to incorporate information from sources deemed reliable and do so in a way that allows the article to maintain WP:NPOV while avoiding WP:UNDUE weight to fringe topics. Simply marking otherwise reliable sources as "dubious" because they come from one particular country flies against all of these policies. Ronnotel (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Jamesinderbyshire was probably being facetious but the idea that you can't always believe government statements is not unusual. In the UK, many people on the left believe that the UK government told a pack of lies about the Iraq war. In the UK, it is not controversial to say this and it is not seen as anti-British. Britain is not monolithic and criticism of the government is not seen as criticism of the British people. I think the USA is culturally different and criticism of the American government is seen as criticism of the American people. I think this is why we keep getting these misunderstandings. Biscuittin (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I was being somewhat satirical, but only partly. The idea that the US govt means well and that all the mistakes will be speedily rectified is, if y'all don't mind me saying so, a little naive. Nearly all the "mistakes" are in fact deliberate acts of propaganda. People nearly always remember the account they first heard. The one that will stick is that bin Laden was sheltering behind a woman and drew a gun. This was promptly dished up by the right-wing press in both Britain and the US. It's foolishness to think that this and other stories coming out of the Pentagon and the White House were not intended to have a specific effect. Ditto the story that Obama and his cabinet watched the video. We are intended to think of a War President. Manipulation, manipulation. Here in Wikipedia we have an enviable position in that we are not the property of one nation; the English-speaking Wikipedia can explain, cast doubt, analyse, present other views and be sceptical. I am challenging the tone of gung-ho US militarism that partly inflects this and other articles related to the shooting. I'm personally glad that OBL is dead but I do think it would have made more sense in the long run for the US and the world to have had a trial. Part of our job here is to not take what we are told by the main media for granted - and that's not, to be fair, just the US media. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful James. A lot of editors here don't like truth. See Wikipedia:Truth. Biscuittin (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The chains of increasingly wrong "mistakes" that have pursued the release of this story have become notable in themselves and deserve an article. That's if there isn't already one - I've lost track of the number of forks now generated! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to contribute to Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories if you can find proper sources to back your perception of reality. --Rogington2 (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a source for you, James [13]. Biscuittin (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will disregard the comment above Biscuittin with it's smearing assumption that to be suspicious of US govt sources on this is the same as accepting daft conspiracy theories. The fork here would be an article about the serial lies that are pumped out of Washington on each of these major stories from the "war on terror" (is that still on now?) only to be "clarified" somewhat later when the media have moved on. That's a different article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the mistakes might be deliberate and it's a double-bluff. Nobody could possibly make up such rubbish so it must be true. Biscuittin (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Biscuittin, I hate to say this, and I don't mean to be uncivil, but I really think you are letting your POV and what appears to be an anti-western media bias get into your editing, or at least on talk. We all have our own opinions, and we're welcome to express them, but it's problematic if we let them affect our editing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, I've only done one edit on the Death of Osama bin Laden article (and that was quickly reverted} so I can't understand your problem. Why is it that my POV is problematic but your POV is not. Biscuittin (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Sir Petrie on this; the ability to think critically and skeptically can be of great value, but IMHO there's a tipping point when persistent questioning ceases to add value. We're all doing the best we can from the sources available, and it appears to me that the overwhelming majority of sources agree on the general details of the death of bin Laden. Let's absolutely hammer them on the details, but let's not be cynical for the sake of cynicism, either. We live by the principle of "assume good faith" here on Wikipedia; let's assume that works here because it applies just as well to the greater world and all the people sharing information about this event with the media. jengod (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Burial at sea

The fact that the ship was nuclear powered seems irrelevant. 66.108.243.166 (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Moi

fixed--RaptorHunter (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede Image

The pic that was originally on this article [14] should be put back for the reasons stated in the Osama bin Laden talk. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 05:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not see any problem with that original picture.Someone changed it to another one that claimed made him look more evil and that one was then replaced with the original one and now we have yet another one.I am happy with the original one in your link frankly.Owain the 1st (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I mean even though it makes him look like a chummy fellow, it's not like it does anything to impact the reader's view of him, and it's a good image. It shouldn't be changed just so he can fit in better with the views of the editor. I cited other "d-bags" pages as examples of how there were handled. We had (mostly) clear images showing most of their bodies, and looking anything from friendly (Saddam and Comrade Joe) to stone-face (Hitler). =p Glad this didn't get any cries of "terrorist sympathiser!" though in either spot. Now let's all find something to disagree on lest we have civility. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Osama Bin Laden-Pentagon.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Osama Bin Laden-Pentagon.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. 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. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Non sequitur

Non sequitur discussion bordering on trolling

Unite Obl's out. 82.14.61.44 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Proles of the world unite!  :-)81.100.127.37 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Trolls of the world unite!! 86.139.139.167 (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Selestine!82.27.27.214 (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Operation Selestine?213.81.121.93 (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Well, at lest ObJ is no longer anoying Pakistan any more! :-) Plebs of the world unite. 86.26.72.145 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Nota bene Should we all read this?- WP:NOT- a guideling on notability. WP:OR- a guideling on notability. WP:GNG - the general notability guideline. WP:EVENT - guideline on the notability of events. WP:NOTNEWS - a guide on the use of news reports. WP:SPECULATION - wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WP:BB - guideline on the notability of events. WP:NOTSOAPBOX - guideline on the notability of events. WP:NOTGOSSIP - sources guideline. WP:SOAPS - sources guideline. 82.14.61.44 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC) People keep saying this when I write something they don't like. I'm trying to improve the article, by making it more balanced, so I am ignoring the rules, as I am entitled to do by Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. PS, it's Nota bene. Biscuittin (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC) See also WP:BURO. Biscuittin (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC) I am not sure this directed specifically at you Biscuittin, if at all. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Edit: Ah wait, this is a subsection of the above topic, so you along with everyone else then, maybe, or maybe just for people who have been bringing in what appear to be conspiracy hypotheses. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Regarding Wikipedia:Ignore all rules - That works best if you can get consensus that it's a good idea. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC) If there was consensus, there would be no need to use it. Biscuittin (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC) A note on 2 of the tags used above- WP:NOTSOAPBOX - guideline on the notability of events. WP:SOAPS - takes you to a wiki-page on soap operas. I'm confused and worried by the paradox in usage, lads.213.81.125.167 (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC) At least the page is not WP:PAIC.17:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Is this topic getting a bit to 'Grogan'? 09:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.74.2 (talk) This part is becoming off topic.213.81.121.93 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Is the subject WP:COAT?82.27.30.35 (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Well, atlest ObJ is no longer anoying Pakistan any more! :-) 86.26.72.145 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Archived.82.18.206.86 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Role of Pakistan

Somehow this section grew out of control, with a lengthy paragraph of Abbottabad trivia ("U.S. Marine lieutenant colonel Asad Khan was born in Abbottabad!") as well as a long paragraph of official quotes accusing Pakistan of hiding bin Laden, followed by a meandering paragraph labelled "Pakistani response" which is not really a rebuttal at all. I propose to cut the section down by about half in order to give the issue proper weight within the context of the article. Any objections or concerns? Brmull (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Go for it, but if you think there is inherent value to the information, consider forking the info out into a separate item? It might be a good add to the Category:Death of Osama bin Laden, Category:Pakistan-U.S. relations. jengod (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, there's already a fork. I would just suggest making sure that you just transfer anything that's not in the fork over there when you're making the section more concise on this page. Cheers. jengod (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OkayBrmull (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)