Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 16

Not repsonsible for 9/11 accorrding to FBI's 10 most wanted list
Please read the full description of Osama Bin Laden on the 10 most wanted lists website. There is no mention of September 11, 2001 in the section describing his crimes. huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.127.9 (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The FBI has already said that it could not find enough evidence to connect Osama bin Laden to the attacks of September 11, 2001. This is why bin Laden has not been formally indicted and charged with the attacks on the World Trade Center. In 1998, however, he was charged for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa. Hope this clears up some confusion. 70.121.22.163 (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

$50M or $25M award
There is an inconsistency between this article and the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives article regarding the amount of the award. There is some discussion on the talk page of that article regarding why they have left the reward listed at $25M. This article references a newspaper article indicating senate approval of the increase, but does not indicate that the change has become effective. Is anyone here confident on the approval process of such a measure? I would expect house and or executive approval might be involved as well. -- Bdentremont (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions
79.72.56.100 (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ZOMFG!! LOL etc. This isn't a forum.  Plus a stanley blade is pretty small. --hubare (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Section 4.3 Early attacks and aid for attacks - Closes with "There is some evidence, however, that Clinton let bin Laden slip through his fingers, refusing to extradite him from the Sudan (no citation)" Should be changed, suggested "While rumors exist that Clinton refused to extradite him from the Sudan, the 9/11 Commission stated, "We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim." Mairsil (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All references to Jihad should be replaced. OBL is not Jihadist he is a terrorist.

Why is William Walker considered a ;filibuster' and bin Laden is considered a terrorist, when one WAS COMPLETELY LINKED TO OUTLANDISH ACTS and the other was just an Afghan Nationalist who hated American and can only be proven to be indirectly responsible for the USS Cole attacks?

The word will be changed in the William Walker entry to reflect the seriousness of his attacks, with no bias to Nationalism.

Opening section

 * Although bin Laden has not been indicted for the September 11, 2001 attacks, he has claimed responsibility for them in videos released to the public

Should this sentence include anything on the controversy around this, including the indescrepencies in the video? This sentence implies that he made the video, which may or may not be fact. Matt (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is just trivia unless you want to imply that Bin Laden is in fact innocent. It's not "the video" -- there is more than one. See this interview with Al-Jazeera, where he also accepts responsibility for the anthrax mailings. Surely an innocent man would be eager to deny responsibility. Kauffner (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The text currently reads (third paragraph): "Although bin Laden has not been indicted for the September 11, 2001 attacks, he has been reported to have orally claimed responsibility for them, in a Conservative leaning English language newspaper...". Is there any reason not to name the paper at this point? It is named in the reference. Why not write: "Although bin Laden has not been indicted for the September 11, 2001 attacks, he has been reported to have orally claimed responsibility for them, in The Times of India, a Conservative-leaning English-language newspaper..." or even simply, "Although bin Laden has not been indicted for the September 11, 2001 attacks, he has been reported to have orally claimed responsibility for them, in The Times of India..."? The Times of India is a significant and serious paper on the global scale, but in any case the text as it stands read oddly to me, almost as if there was something cloak-and-dagger about this report (along the lines of "Unnamed sources have said..." and so on). Ondewelle (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why include the word "reported" at all? Not only was it reported that he claimed responsibility, but he did claim responsibility. I think that we should change the wording to be more terse. 70.15.27.34 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bin Laden / Bin Ladin
I have read about maybe 10 or 15 books more or less in these past three months now concerning Osama Bin Laden from my local library. And it is flat out staggering on how incredibly stupid and ignorant that some people are when it is contrasted and put against the substance and content of the concrete knowledge for which is collected and is known about this man. Some people are walking around on this planet thinking in their heads that Osama Bin Laden is just a fictitous man made up by the imagination of our american goverment. Some people think he is dead. Every time this guy is reported dead and stages a faked death. Well where the hell is the body. That seems like a crucial question. Seems you cannot confirm or deny he is dead. Unless you are staring at his bloated corpse and doing a exhaustive DNA test on the cadaver. I recommend that people try and withdraw every possible book they can get their hands on from their local libraries that concern Osama Bin Laden. I cannot beleive not any worthwhile and substantial data has arisen to help improve this Wikipedia article segment on this guy. There are countless websites based out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States is not the only nation hunting this guy. As to where he is hiding. I beleive he is hiding in the lawless tribal border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Osama Bin Laden has for all intents and purpose become Christan Bale (aka Batman) and he is hidden securely in the fortified areas of the lawless tribal border inside of his own self made bat cave. The guy has got like the collected sum of 250 millon US dollars if not more of his money to move around on the Internet. This article needs to be proof read a couple of billon times with an exhaustive and a lengthy precise time line. All you ever see on the television are questionable images of this guy. 76.241.105.254 (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realise people are claiming he is dead because of his previous physical state, right? That hes dead because, in conjuction with his current situation, he would naturally have died of his ailing conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.181.6 (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Pakistan - Benazir Bhutto: "the man who murdered Osama bin Laden" If this was a misstatement, at 6:15 in this video, she did not correct herself, nor did the interviewer call attention to it. Before she was murdered, there was another attack on Benazir Bhutto's life. She was not even allowed to file a police report let alone get a serious investigation of the attack. She specifically stated that she wanted the finances of the terrorists traced. Omar Saeed Sheikh is the man Bhutto refers to in this interview.

http://www.investigate911.se/benazir_bhutto_about_bin_laden.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peik (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"Islamicist terrorist"
An editor has added this description of bin Laden, backed up with several western sources. Per WP:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV, I'd like to suggest we use a more encyclopedic descriptor here, as this language is too close to Fox News for my taste. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:TERRORIST would tend to support my views. If you can find a reliable source, Western or non, that contradicts the idea that bin Laden is a terrorist (or "Islamist"), there will be room to mention it later in the article. The number of sources out there that label bin Laden a terrorist is literally overwhelming; it would take months to find and catalogue them all. "Fox News?" No: The New York Times, BBC, Interpol... All good sources, none with a conservative bent: quite the contrary. IronDuke  00:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. "In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. As alternatives, consider less value-laden words such as insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan." --John (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It also says, "In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names..." I have provided several sources, with a standing offer to include several thousand more. Now, if we wanted to break down who calls OBL a terrorist we could, but there are so very many reputable sources that do -- it is in fact a virtually universal appellation applied to him -- that it would be odd to single out the NYT, BBC, Interpol, countless scholars, etc. Also, we are talking about a style guideline, not something written in stone. We would look very silly clinging to a guideline at the expense of a crystal clear designation. IronDuke  01:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the policy means it's ok to say something like "the NY Times has called bin Laden a terrorist". Currently, the context is that the editors of Wikipedia has called bin Laden a terrorist based on this information from these sources. I do disagree with this specific policy but I feel that IronDuke changes might be out of line with the intent of the policy. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But then again, it appears we have a project terrorism--PatrickFlaherty (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted this again in light of the guideline discussed. ID, if you are still finding this difficult to comprehend, think how easy it would be to find reliable sources which refer to GW Bush as a "dolt", a "dupe", a "war criminal", a "lame duck president" or even a "terrorist". We do not call him these things in our article; per NPOV we report what the sources say in reasonable proportion, but we do not parrot sources where they use judgemental language like this. I hope this clarifies my edit. I may raise this at the project page as well. --John (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As the founder of Wikiproject:Terrorism, I can assure you that the name itself was a contentious choice - but mitigated by the fact we used "Terrorism", not "Terrorists". Similarly, I would not be adverse to seeing Conrad Black appear on the "Wikiproject:Crime" project, but I would be very adverse to seeing him described as "Conrad Black is a Canadian criminal...". Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 23:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * John: 1) If you could find a way to post without a condescending tone, that would be great. 2) Do you have any sources that suggest that OBL is not a terrorist? IronDuke  01:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "often referred to as a terrorist"? This reads as if the man is unfairly accused. How about: "Bin Laden has been designated a terrorist by Interpol and other law enforcement agencies"? If your trying to get on his good side, it won't work. Unless you convert to Islam, he still wants you dead. Kauffner (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good change Kauffner! --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yeah, far better than your ignorant post above would indicate. Well done. --John (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * John, can you refactor your comment please? IronDuke  22:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Be happy to, after Kauffner refactors his.--John (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you that part of Kauffner's post could stand refactoring, but it isn't nearly as offensive as yours. IronDuke  23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Kauffner's version looks good. We must not directly say that he is a terrorist because of the age old adage "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." - it shows Western bias if anything. I think that there is a sizeable proportion of people who think he is a freedom fighter. Sceptre (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you suggest any reliable sources that call him a freedom fighter? IronDuke  22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just weighing in here, but I think the current version is fine. It's similar to the solution reached on Mohammed Atta - say what he did, and let others come to their own conclusion on whether or not he's a terrorist.  If they're not sure before coming to this article, stating "he's a terrorist" is not going to change their minds.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 00:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. See also recent conversations at Talk:Adolf Hitler. It never ceases to amaze me that people are prepared to wade into controversial articles like these without having grasped one of our most fundamental principles, WP:NPOV. It is not our policy to state opinions on people, living or dead. Rather, we state the facts and let our readers form their own opinions. Unlike Fox News. --John (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But this just begs the question. And whatever the purpose of Wikipedia may be it, is is not to change people's minds. To recap: we have sources in the thousands labeling bin Laden a terrorist. I haven't seen any reliable ones disputing that. For WP purposes, that makes this an open and shut case. IronDuke  23:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:NPOV; it is one of our core policies here and following it is not optional. --John (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not a response to my argument. IronDuke  23:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. We have a policy that says "don't call people terrorists".  We're also not calling him a "freedom fighter", "militant", or "activist".  He founded an organization that almost every single reliable source out there considers a terrorist group.  I don't see what we add to the article by stating "also he is a terrorist".  This doesn't make us apologists for him, we're stating facts and letting others make their own value judgments.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 00:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We have no such policy. What does it add to the article? It is the thing he is best known for. Not being "a militant" or being "a freedom fighter." IronDuke
 * WP:WTA. Guideline, but that doesn't make it any less relevant than policy. Sceptre (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By definition, a policy is more relevant than a guideline. And in any case, WTA provides for exceptions. IronDuke  22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to libel another person. Whether he's the most wanted man in the world or not, we still have to abide by our guidelines. Sceptre (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Begging the question. IronDuke  23:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving on
Okay. I hope I can get broad agreement that, if the word terrorist is acceptable in the lead, that it is not merely law enforcement agencies who have used that term. Accordingly, I am going to add some more sources/qualifiers, but thought I'd get some input before I dug in. IronDuke 01:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. The word terrorist is unacceptable as a definitive statement. No exceptions. Sceptre (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "No exceptions?" Hm, that seems awfully... definitive. Where is the policy on that again? And speaking of definitive, that's exactly what I'm not proposing, c.f. "Qualifiers." Anyone want to respond to my actual suggestion? Oh, and a further point: I'm going to be reinstering "Islamist" (not "Islamicist"). I believe those who argue against it aren't realizing that it is far more accurate -- and far less offensive -- than the word "Islamic", which has been in the article along while. Again, thoughtful comments welcome. IronDuke  23:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please spell out your proposed wording? //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 01:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure -- I don't actually have any specific wording in mind yet... hmmm... I guess it would be something like "He has been designated a terrorist by numerous law enforcement agencies, scholars, and media outlets.[3][4][Sources to come] In conjunction with several other Islamist leaders..." I'm not married to "numerous," BTW, that's just off the top of my head. But I think it has to be made clear that the overwhelming consensus of what we consider to be reliable sources label him as such. Thanks for asking.  IronDuke  02:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem terribly different from the current wording. What I object to (without speaking to the opinions of the other editors involved in this debate) is a statement along the lines of "He is a terrorist..."   I see no problems with your suggestion.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 02:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems fine to me also. What we must always avoid is saying "XYZ is a terrorist", as, famously "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter", as I think Sceptre already pointed out upthread. For balance, do we/should we include something about the sector of the world which supports him as well? It would of course need proper sourcing but NPOV seems to dictate that if we can find them then we must include something of the sort. --John (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of deaths in 9/11
This article says 2974, whereas the September 11 article says 2998. Clarification? 75.177.165.95 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

2974 is the deaths excluding the hijackers (I think) 81.110.169.157 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture
What is the copyright status on this video? Is it possible it could provide a higher resolution free pic than is currently provided? --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 16:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Err, what happened to the original photo of him? Copyright problem? what a load of crap, the original was much better. 84.9.164.204 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than use a fair use photo taken from al-Jazeera, why not use the FBI's mugshot? Since it's hosted on a US government website I'm sure it'll pass off for public domain. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1996 fatwa
Bin Laden released a fatwa in 1996. This is a very important one, as it describes his original purposes for war. Could you please add it under the "External Links" section? You have added the 1998 fatwa, so could you please add this one too? The fatwa is entitled ""Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." PBS has the transcript of it:

Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places

Thanks so much. --Jo (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Osama" or "Usama"?
According to the FBI it is Usama. But here it is mentioned as Osama. Which one is correct?-- Vintei  Talk  23:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither is "correct"; they're both transliterations from Arabic. "Osama" is overwhelmingly used in the Anglophone world. This is dealt with in the article already. Vashti (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"He has been designated a terrorist by numerous scholars, journalists, and law enforcement agencies."
This must be attributed per WP:WEASEL. Sceptre (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quit trolling.  naerii  00:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quit stalking my contribs. Sceptre (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol I edit one article after you and I'm stalking? Wow. Paranoid, much?  naerii  12:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "per WP:WEASEL" and "must" do not belong in the same sentence. Weasel is a style guideline. If you still feel strongly, you could change "has been designated" to "is." But some people might object. IronDuke  01:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Guidelines become mandatory when they deal with BLPs. Sceptre (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is that written? IronDuke  01:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First the claim about guidelines is false. If anything it means we need to be more careful about when guidelines should apply and when they shouldn't rather than use them blindly. Second, the sourcing is quite clear. Third, WEASEL words aren't always weasel words. Indeed this is an example where the use of specifics would be not NPOV because it would portray the number as small than it actually is. Fourth, this is Osama Fucking bin Laden. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the subject is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. Not to call Mike on this, but Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions - that doesn't mean that we suspend guidelines and policy for him. Sceptre (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So is Bush and Blair in their illegal wars. Are their designated as terrorists in their articles? Many journalists, etc have called them that. AWT (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Look as for "He has been designated a terrorist by scholars, journalists, analysts and law enforcement agencies." Just remove that line and put in something like, "The United States government, NATO, EU, etc., have designated him a terrorist." Someone just find some sources that have quoted the governments and put this in. That SOLVES this problem. Fanra (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see "numerous" was removed. That should work. It should be fine now. Fanra (talk)

Proposed rewrite
I can't reinstate this because it might be construed as going over 3RR. The old wording is:

He has been designated a terrorist by numerous scholars, journalists, and law enforcement agencies.

The new, proposed wording is:

He has been indicted by Interpol for crimes against life and health, crimes involving the use of weapons or explosives, terrorism, and conspiracy to commit terrorism, with arrest warrants issued by the cities of Madrid, New York City, and Tripoli.

With the new version, we don't run the risk of violating WP:WEASEL (e.g. "numerous" is a weasel word), but we still give facts, especially about his terrorist status (it's a plain fact that Interpol have indicted him for those crimes, and those cities have released arrest warrants). Sceptre (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence which describes him as a terrorist if fine. I doubt there is no consensus among journalists that he is not a terrorist. However the word "numerous" was something weasel wording, I have reworded it to "several".  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It still violates WP:WEASEL: several is no better. And while, yes, most people agree he is a terrorist, it's still a POV laden term. I prefer the Interpol list of indictments because that's pure fact: "OBL is a terrorist" is an opinion (widely held, but still an opinion). "OBL has been designated a terrorist by several scholars" is better: a fact about an opinon, but Wikipedia guidelines dictate that we attribute them, and frankly, the sources leave something to be desired. "OBL has been indicted on charges of terrorism by Interpol and is on the FBI's Most Wanted list" is better because it is a fact. Sceptre (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You please apply common sense that a person who is responsible for masterminding bombing and homicide attacks against civilians is a terrorist per definition of terrorism.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Terrorist" still violates NPOV because of the old terrorist/freedom fighter adage. Per the definition you've just given, you could easily argue that Bush, Blair, Thatcher, Churchill, FDR, et al are also terrorists. The exact meaning of the word "terrorism" and or "terrorist" is disputed (see our article about the dispute), and we don't want to look like we're giving judgements even if the term is correct in its basic syntactic definition. It is much safer and more ethical to stick to neutral facts like the Interpol indictment in a case such as this. Sceptre (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You give a list of people admired in the U.S. and Britain and then call them terrorists without any explanation or justification. This is an outrageous tactic. If you really think these people are terrorists, go edit their articles and make your case there. If all you're saying is that some hypothetical person might argue that they are terrorists, well I suppose there is always an idiot ready to argue anything. Kauffner (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's a fair tactic. At some point in their term, those leaders have been responsible for targeting civillians in bomb attacks specifically. So why is that not terrorist but this is? Sceptre (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So now you're admitting that they weren't terrorists after all? Then there is nothing to see here. Everybody just move along. As far as Wiki standards go, we don't have to come up with a consistent definition for who is a terrorist and who isn't. It's all about citing the RS and following common usage. If your complaint is that the way the word used is not entirely consistent, well, this isn't math class. Kauffner (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a point, however his designation as a terrorist have weight to be mentioned because it is the overwhelming consensus among academics and journalists. He is considered a freedom fighter within only a tiny minority. I only reworded the "numerous" because numerous suggests countless which is weasel wording. And regarding your comment on Bush, Blair, Churchill etc. I am agree as OBL is a terrorist for killing so many people, Truman will also be a terrorist for killing more than one million people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But that is not a reason for removing information from this article. You cannot deny that the general consensus is that OBL is a terrorist and al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. If you can find any reliable source which says he is considered a freedom fighter among some people, feel free to add it.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said I was disputing the terrorist claim. I'm saying that the current way Wikipedia is saying he's a terrorist is incompatible with our policies. We shouldn't definitively label something with a biased term with no clear definition. We can, however, say he was indicted on terrorism charges by Interpol, as that has a clear definition and is not biased. Sceptre (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I support the rewrite. We should be specific here. There are parts of the world that don't see him as a terrorist, and it should be made apparent who is who. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If people have reliable sources indicating that a significant minorit view him as something other than a terrorist, they are urged to put them in this article. However, the vast, overwhelming number of reliable sources available call him a terrorist (how many sources do people feel they need for this to sink in?). Therefore, a sentence that indicates he is widely thought of in this way is not merely acceptable, it is mandatory, though I grant that it fails WP:DONTVIOLATEOLDADAGES. IronDuke  14:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I count only four in that lead sentence: Interpol, the NYT (twice), and the Daily Mail. I don't think the latter two encompass the entire journalistic community, and of course, there are no scholars within those four. Of course, is the word terrorist in fact needed? A cursory look at the article, even if you take the word "terrorist" out, seems to imply that already (indictment by Interpol, on the FBI's most wanted list, involvement in bombings). Sceptre (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Do you believe that there are thousands of books and articles that refer to bin Laden as a terrorist, or is that false, and there are really only several? IronDuke  15:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do, but we cannot force the reader to make that assumption. Sceptre (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't an assumption, it is a fact. If you don't know this, you don't know enough about the subject to edit it properly. IronDuke  15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Imagine the first thing Elisabeth Fritzl does when she has some time to herself was to go onto this very article (assuming she is fluent enough in English to understand the article). Would she think that those six sources comprise the entire world? I doubt it. Wikipedia articles should be written so that someone who knows next-to-nothing about the subject matter can understand it. Sceptre (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources which dispute that claim? IronDuke  15:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll also add: where are the sources from people who say "Bin Laden is not a terrorist"? IronDuke  15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A lack of sources to an opposite viewpoint does not give us license to used biased and unfocused language. Take, for example, The Godfather, a film which as never had a negative review. We don't say "it's widely considered the best film ever", we list facts about it, such as it being #2 on AFI's list, #1 on Metacritic, joint-#1 on Rotten Tomatoes, etc. A reader would think, "this must be a good film". Applying that example to this article, we shouldn't say "Bin Laden is widely considered to be a terrorist". Instead, we should list his indictments by Interpol (which actually includes terrorism), the FBI Most Wanted list placement, arrest warrants in three cities, and responsibility for multiple attacks. That is actually a much more neutral way of presenting the majority viewpoint he is a terrorist, and is actually better because we don't use a word with no clear definition, we use the word as a clearly defined legal term. For another example, take Hitler. Nearly everyone believe he was a bad man. But we don't say that. We say, dispassionately, that he was responsible for the genocide (in its base dictionary definition) of the Untermensch. Sceptre (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to say "Bin Laden is a bad man," or "bin Laden is widely considered the best person ever," your analogy would hold. I'm not, so it doesn't. Yes, there are grey areas in terrorism: you might want to contact some of the sources I'm providing and tell them that. In the meantime, we repeat what they say, not what you say. I think there may well be some sources that support your (minority) view. Please go out and find them; I think they'll improve the article. IronDuke  16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when did I say that Bin Laden was not a terrorist? In fact, I think we do need to say he's a terrorist, but we need to say that in terms that are clear and unbiased. Sometimes we wouldn't even need to use the word "terrorist" to say he's a terrorist: the KKK are racist, but we say that by not using the word racist, but by detailing their white supremacist and anti-minority viewpoints. And yes, you are saying he's a bad man by virtue of the word "terrorist" in a non-legal sense. Sceptre (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not not saying anything at all about bin Laden, other than quoting many respected individuals who believe him to be a terrorist. That's what I said I'd do weeks ago, and it's what I'm doing now. IronDuke  16:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are offering a biased viewpoint by the language you use. If you are quoting people who believe he is a terrorist, you must say, in the article text, who they are. Sceptre (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am offering the only viewpoint I know of, in terms of a viewpoint coming from reliable sources. It is biased by what I know, but then, every single edit I (and everyone else) makes to WP is biased in that manner as well. IronDuke  16:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, now Ottava has provided multiple citations for the differing opinion, so you have no excuse for just presenting that one. Sceptre (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IronDuke, it is troubling that instead of acknowledging that there are over 1 billion Muslims in the world, of who there are probably a significant number who are neutral, as with many other ethnicities (China and India) who are also probably neutral, that you insist to not be specific of who is who. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you find yourself troubled, Ottava. Please provide some good sources that back up your claim. We can use all we can get. IronDuke  16:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but did you just suggest that Afghanistan was not protecting Bin Laden? And that many countries did not support his attacks on the US? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you clarify it? IronDuke  16:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One simple click and I found millions of articles. You know, instead of making such claims, you could look it up yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What claims are you speaking of? If you can find a reliable source that says something like, "Though many have referred to Osama bin Laden as a terrorist, that designation is false," let's have it, please. I'm sure there's a place for it. IronDuke  16:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When 46% of a population thinks of someone "favourably", you think "terrorist", a disparaging term, is an appropriate representation of how they view an individual? Even though support may have dropped, 39% of Lebanon still support the actions, 49% in Jordan, etc. ""Support for Usama bin Laden is waning, but there are still people who admire him and view him as a hero," said Ulil Abshor Abdala," There is a direct quote that even states "hero". And yes, there are 3.8 million more of these references. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * More - from here you have In May 2003, many Muslims "saw a worldwide threat to Islam and [bin Laden] represented opposition to the West and the United States," said Andrew Kohut. An opposition leader. Definitely not "terrorist" to them. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another that puts it perfectly - "Bin Laden's inspirational power can't be quantified like missile strikes and battles. But it's evident in the waves of recruits for suicide bombings in Iraq and, increasingly, in Afghanistan. It's in surveys that show Muslims increasingly seeing the war on terror as a war on Islam." Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, we can't just start throwing old poll numbers in this article and assuming we can extrapolate what the respondents feel on a number of related issues. Second, raw polling data does not replace reasoned analysis. I'll give you an example. Roughly 40% of Americans recently polled still think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Does that belong in the 9/11 article? Or perhaps here? "Though some have suggested OBL bears primary responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, many Americans believe Saddam helped plan it as well." Right? No. Start this way: break out a section below, something like:


 * === Support for bin Laden ===


 * then, using your sources, see if you can find good, recent sources that refer to him as a hero. Try and be careful, though, not to make it sound as if Muslims have generally favorable impressions of him, unless that is sourced to the hilt; it could be highly offensive to many people. After you've done that, we'll see how much you've got, and whether it merits a sort of caveat mention in the Lead. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with. IronDuke  17:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Wiki verifiability is against you. I have proven substantial data to suggest that there are groups that view him neutrally or as a hero. If you do not accept that, that is your right, but it doesn't mean that you can stand in the way of fixing the page to remove the weasel words that negate NPOV. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you should maybe go back and take another look at WP:V. There are an overwhelming number of sources that refer to OBL as a "terrorist", so many, in fact, that one could argue the "narrative voice" of WP can make that claim. I'm not arguing that, but I am putting forward a large number of reliable sources that call him a terrorist. Opinion polls do not negate those sources, or even balance them. We can surely find a place to mention in the article where he's popular (though please be careful if you do this -- it would be a bad thing to imply that most Muslims support his actions without ironclad sourcing, which I think does not exist for that claim). I think you should also take another look at WP:WEASEL. Leaving aside that it is merely a guideline, and further that exceptions are allowed for within in the guideline itself, what I've done is actually to remove a weasel word ("several"): the number of sources using this term is in fact pretty overwhelming. IronDuke  22:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can provide me a quote or source that would suggest that its appropriate not to identify specifics and groups, and instead rely on vague information and ignore a substantial opinion held by a different region of the world, then please do so. I have not seen such so far, and I have provided 3.8 million links to suggest that I am correct. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can point you to WP:NOR. I can also point you to all the points I've already made. Have you read them? IronDuke  00:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IronDuke, according to my reading of that policy, it would suggest that not identifying the sources directly and instead replacing them with generic terms would be the essence of OR. Unless you have a source that says "many scholars, etc, say ___", and then you would have to identify that source suggesting that. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But I'm not saying "many." I just quote sources. IronDuke  02:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "numerous scholars, journalists, and law enforcement agencies." As you can see, numerous is a synonym to many, and quoting sources does not override that you need to list the sources by name instead of using generics such as "scholars", "journalists", etc. Is it really that bad to say "UN, Nato, Interpol" etc, instead of "law enforcement agencies" or certain important scholars and journalists instead of generic terms? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does the word "numerous" appear in the article? IronDuke  15:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was in a previous version. The dropping of the term numerous still leaves the section vague and does not reflect the significant amount of agencies, etc, that do feel that he is a terrorist. This is why a listing of some of the major groups would be necessary. We need perspective of who is what. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but let's focus on the version we have, yeah? It'll make things less confusing and save time. I know of no "agencies" that deny bin Laden is a terrorist. Can you list some? And I don't know what you mean by "etc." What other reliable sources (scholars, journalists, analysts) contradict the assertion that OBL is a terrorist? IronDuke  20:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdent - I assume Al Jazeera does not call him a terrorist. I also assume that the governments of Syria and Iran do not, as with their supporting media. I'm sure there are other governments that are neutral or ambivalent on the issue. How does Russia describe him? How does China? How does India? I'd be curious to know. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points, all. Again, though what we're looking for is reliable sources that contradict the idea that he's a terrorist. Al Jazeera, AFAIK, does not hold an official position. They may report on public support for OBL in some quarters, but that does not itself constitute a source that could change what we have in the lead, though it might well have a place in the body of the article. So... if you're committed to this line, you'd need to get those sources. IronDuke  21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and FWIW, I'm pretty sure China and India would have no problem designating OBL as a terrorist, China because of its Uighur separatist problem, and India because of tension between majority Hindus and minority Muslims. But that analysis is from my own (imperfect) memory... IronDuke  21:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, the approval rating of 46% is higher than George Bush has had in his own country since his re-election. Sceptre (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd write a really lengthy, thoughtful response to that, if I hadn't already. IronDuke  17:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is too much. OBL being a "terrorist" is not the same thing Bush being a "bozo" or whatever. The analogy has to be with "murderer" or "rapist". And since OBL is a designated criminal around the world, in democratic contries and in the Middle East (yes, he's considered a criminal in India), Interpol has him on their hitlists, that makes Osama a terrorist, who is the head of a terrorist organization. Isn't there a wikipedia policy against excessive use of wikipedia policies? The point is that it's not like he's the "alleged" perpetrator, it's not like there's any doubt that he did what he did. He even went on camera and said it. Even if he's a freedom fighter to a people, he isn't what you would call a guerilla fighter. His methods are terrorism and spreading fear. That's terrorist by definition.Nshuks7 (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"He has been designated as a terrorist by scholars, journalists, analysts and law enforcement agencies.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]"

I don't know if this has already caused a large dispute, but this sentence looks very WP:POINTish and unencyclopedic. It would be best to replace it with something like "He is wanted by the UN for charges of terrorism" or something similar. Grey Fox (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It has caused dispute, and been essentially settled. If you have more arguments to make that have not already been made, please do so. IronDuke  01:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The arguments I just made still stand. Please look at my alternative, it looks a lot more encyclopedic and pretty much tells the same. Grey Fox (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your alternative is considerably less encyclopedic, and tells nothing like the same. I don't mean to be harsh, but there it is. IronDuke  00:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a lot more encyclopedic, the way it looks now is extremely silly, especially with the 15-or-so footnotes. Grey Fox (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it more encyclopedic? And the footnotes are necessary, unfortunately. Otherwise, well-meaning but thoughtless editors may come along and say, "Well, there's only a couple sources here. That's not enough to use such a strong word." IronDuke  23:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 15 footnotes should not be necessary and ruins the layout, you can place them on the talk page if someone starts messing with it or you can combine them in to one or two footnotes. It's less encyclopedic because it reads extremely silly. He's not just called a terrorist by "scholars, journalists, analysts and law enforcement agencies" but by pretty much the entire world. It's better to just state that he's wanted for terrorism by the entire United Nations. Grey Fox (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call the UN the best source for it, though I agree its a usable source. The UN is not an impartial org, whereas the combination of scholars, journalists, and analysts cited (plus thousands more) are. I think the layout with all the sources is still plenty readable, and provides handy links for more info (the talk page will not). If it were up to me, we wouldn't have a long disquisition on the different ways to spell his name in the lead. IronDuke  02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As Ottava argued, you can easily get ten sources saying he is not a terrorist (and he indeed unearthed some). More sources does not necessarily mean more neutral. Of the nine sources given, seven are American, one is British, and one is international. I find it hard to believe that that constitutes global opinion. As I've said, "he is a terrorist" is an opinion: a widely held one, but still an opinion. "He is considered a terrorist" is a fact, but is against our policies about weasel words, and gives no definition of terrorism. "Interpol have indicted him for terrorism" is also a fact, with a definition of terrorism. It also makes us look good to states in the Middle East and Asia which have a more favourable opinion of him; the "many" (nine) sources given in this article are mostly American and looks like Western bias, while just using Interpol would look better; nearly every country is a member state of Interpol, and we don't get bogged down in the terrorist/freedom fighter debate by sticking to cold, hard, facts. Sceptre (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that I am all that versed in Wikipedia guidelines or anything, but the only one making much sense here is Sceptre (and some of the people agreeing with him). He keeps hammering home his point with very solid logic, and people are still arguing with him. 82.82.174.118 (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One should mention that in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden got immense support by the CIA ... brothers in arms ... Americans drop their former allies much quicker than changing undertrousers ... --77.186.156.49 (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

America does not make allies because we have some kind of genuine bond with someone (unless its england and Israel). Alliances are made because of matters of convenience. Plan and simple. Everyone likes to pick on the United States, but we do stuff that just has to get done. I miss the old days when the Soviet Union was the enemy, and they took care of the arab countries. The americans try to codify and make brotherhood with the Iraqis and Afghans. The Russians just get the job done, and tell everyone else to kiss their behind. I think america should stay in the americas. Hugo Chavez has a big mouth and someone needs to punch him in it, lol

bin Laden and Bin Laden
Why his name is spelled as bin Laden, not Bin Laden?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% sure, except that (I believe) "bin" means "son of." It would occupy a somewhat similar linguistic niche as "de" would in French, eg., Charles de Gaulle. (See also Simon bar Kochba for a Hebrew variant.) IronDuke  01:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm 100% sure that IronDuke is correct. Nshuks7 (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Conservative-leaning English newspaper" reference in the first paragraph.
This phrase should be removed. Very subjective - I would say this if the line said "liberal leaning." It's editorial and does not belong on a Wiki entry unless it is referenced in a labeled "editorial/criticism" section.

I suggest replacing it with "The Times (India)" instead.

Any thoughts?

Image removed
The image at the top of the page was a political cartoon, which I have removed. Someone should add a picture of the man. Mathlaura (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone replaced it with an old guerrilla picture. The Caliph prefers to be photographed more recently in his official caliphate robes. Thank you --Johnny Adam Apple (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
"He has been designated as a terrorist by scholars, journalists, analysts and law enforcement agencies.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]" Should there be a geographcal reference there? I.e. "He has been designated as a terrorist by scholars, journalists, analysts and law enforcement agencies in [many nations/western cultures\or something] .[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]" as the current sentence creates the impression that he is universily considered as a terrorist, when in some places he is a hero, holy crusade leader, fighter for the rights of those oppressed by western culture and commercialism etc. Just a thought SGGH speak! 15:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is probably most relevant what his people call him: the Caliph of the Ummah. --Johnny Adam Apple (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't just Westerners who consider him a terrorist. There's totally room in the article to discuss those for whom he's a hero, but it wouldn't go in the lead -- there are no reliable sources that I know of which dispute this characterization of OBL. IronDuke  04:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm feeling this would be better phrased along the lines of "he has been described as a terrorist by national and internation law enforment agencies, goverments and islamic scholars".00:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, this should be changed. There are just a few vocal editors who don't understand how to word something objectively. We'd be just as well off calling movies "masterpieces" as labelling people "terrorists". Regardless of who we personally consider a terrorist, or which movies we consider masterpieces, there are good reasons to avoid this. 82.82.174.118 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Alive or Dead
Nobody as far as I know is even able to independently verify from a reliable source to whether or not that he is alive or whether he is dead. If it turns that he is alive, could some one please pass that along to the military, and also maybe knowing his location within a one mile radius might help to. How much can one Saudi areabian man get around on a donkey at night in the Afghan and Pakistani border. George Bush has done about as much valuble work as to find Osama Bin Laden as say perhaps OJ Simpson has done to isolate the killers of Nicole Simpson and her lover. I think the Wikipedia article is very splintered and fragmented other wise. This guy is a treacherous murderer. He is not one of Jim Hensons's sock puppets.

http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JJ01Df05.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.105.227 (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THE SECTION ABOUT BIN LADEN'S HEALTH?
It is not okay that it was deleted. Bin Laden has had numerous health problems throughout the years, and it should be known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.121.29 (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

==Although bin Laden has not been indicted[14] for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, he has been reported to have orally claimed responsibility for them in audio and video tapes released to the general public.==

I would say "he has claimed responsibility", not just "has been _reported_ to claim responsibility". If anybody seconds that, please make the change... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsHolmberg (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Osama's audio tape has not been verified.
I want to edit these parts

WIKI on OSAMA He has been indicted in United States federal court for his alleged involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, and is on the US Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.

=
===============================

I want to change it to: He has been indicted in United States federal court for his alleged involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, and is on the US Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list, but not listed in connection or responsible for the 911 attacks.

SOURCE http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

FBI's own website makes no reference or suggests no part in 911 attacks. We must be careful when stating these things.

WIKI Although bin Laden has not been indicted[14] for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, he has been reported to have orally claimed responsibility for them in audio and video tapes that have been made public.[15][16]

=
================================

I want to change this Although bin Laden has not been indicted[14] for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, he has been reported to have orally claimed responsibility for them in audio and video tapes that have been made public,[15][16] however the authenticity of this tape is disputed and not confirmed as well.

SOURCES Authenticity of audiotape as being the voice of bin Laden has not been verified as of yet. http://aubreyj818.blogspot.com/2006/01/new-osama-bin-laden-audiotape.html

Show me where they have been verified

Osama Terrorist?
This should be removed from the opening to help it keep a npov. I am going to take it out of the opening for now. Fru23 (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The guy is only well know because of actions that are widely considered to be terrorist. Failing to mention this presents serious POV issues. So the lead should include something alonf the lines of "he has been described as a terrorist by national and internation law enforment agencies, goverments and islamic scholars".Geni 01:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We can say that he claimed responsibility for 9/11. Most people will see that as terrorist, others will see it as an act to stop the heretic Westerners. We cannot advocate one of those viewpoints and ignore the other. That is very non-neutral. Let people make decisions for themselves! Sceptre (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

100% with Spectre on this, I hate Osama with a passion and would be happy if I saw him killed but saying he is a terrorist in the opening violates npov and bolp, sorry it's the right thing to do. Although I see the other sides point that this may be viewed as pov-pushing, but it is not. Fru23 (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I have no problem with saying that people have called him a terrorist, but we must (per NPOV) say who has called him for a terrorist. For example, it is perfectly neutral for saying Madrid indicted him for 3/11. Following NPOV and attributing all nine sources in the old sentence was really silly. Saying "many" is against WEASEL. Keep the number short, and list the most notable accusors. Sceptre (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All been dealt with above. Fresh, factless assertions are fine, but don't trump previous consensus. IronDuke  01:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're getting close to WP:OWNing this article, IronDuke. Do not revert and say that your version is correct, when multiple people have piped up and said, "wait a minute, it looks a bit dodgy". There isn't any consensus to use the word "terrorist" on this talk page, and Wikipedia's global consensus is to use "terrorist" only in rare cases and with direct quotation and attribution. Your version falls flat far from the finish line on both. Keep it to the indictments only - it's more neutral than the old weasely phrase. Sceptre (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. This was discussed above, and the reversion has remained stable. Also, there is attribution of the quotes: please note the numbers following the word. If you click on them, they lead you to the sources. IronDuke  01:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Only because you threatened to revert them. And saying "many" is not good enough for a biography of a living person or to satisfy NPOV. From NPOV:

"It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating 'some people believe...', a practice referred to as 'mass attribution'. A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups."
 * You can't say your wording is neutral when NPOV says quite clearly that it isn't. Sceptre (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know of no reliable sources which dispute this designation. This is, I think, mind-shatteringly obvious. I challenged to come up with an RS (not an opinion poll) that contradicted this. I'm still waiting. IronDuke  01:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop dragging your feet and shouting "prove me wrong, prove me wrong!" The simple fact is that your version violates NPOV. Lack of sources to an opposite viewpoint does not make a viewpoint neutral. I'm not even disputing the designation of "terrorist" either. I'm wording it in a way that is compatible with our policies. Sceptre (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. You've no sources whatvere -- none -- and I have thousands. And yet the POV you are pushing must be allowed to stand because...? Sources don't matter? Nope, sorry. IronDuke  01:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Never twist my words. Never once have I advocated for saying he isn't a terrorist. Neither have I advocated for removal of the term. I am advocating a NPOV-compatible way of saying he's a terrorist. Sceptre (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Chill IronDuke, it still says who says calls him a terrorist, just not in the opening. It really does not belong in the opening.  Fru23 (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also I second everything Spectre said. Fru23 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does say the word "terrorist"; it says he's on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list. Sceptre (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Generaly the opening of section of articles is meant to talk about what people are known for.Geni 03:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And it does. It talks about the attacks he's notable for orchestrating. Whether they're terrorist or not is not for Wikipedia to decide. Sceptre (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It just looks like the difference between which sentence is first, as far as I can see in the diffs. Really beyond the point. WP:BLP should be suffice to allow the statement that he is viewed as a terrorist by many organizations. I feel that Sceptre and Fru23 are both overenforcing WP:BLP on such a inconsequential thing. Remember, Rules are Principles. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP is one of the policies that it's okay to over-enforce. Remember: I'm all for saying he's a terrorist in the lead article, but in a way that is factual and neutral (i.e. listing what he's been indicted for (terrorism charges) and what terrorism list(s) he is on). I think, right now, that the US and Spanish indictments/classifications is enough. Sceptre (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Chiming in here, while there is also a show v. tell issue we should make clear in the lead how this individual is viewed by major law enforcement organizations. The notion that making that clear is somehow a BLP problem is a borderline caricature. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the old statement was horribly vague in saying who exactly said he was a terrorist. BLP says that the article's prose must contain the allegator and, in cases such as calling someone a "terrorist", we need direct quotation. What we've got to understand is the underlying real-world situation. It is a fact that there are quite a lot of people in the world who don't think Bin Laden is a terrorist; they think he's fighting a holy and just war against the Western heretics. If the Arab states were as developed as Ireland was 15 years ago, unequivocally labelling him as a terrorist would be unthinkable! I thought the the bombing of the Arndale was wrong when I was five years old, because we were the targets. There are Irish republicanists who probably think that bombing is justified. So we don't say it was a "terrorist attack" because, in the real world, whether something is "terrorist" is hotly disputed. We say it was a "bomb attack", because it was an attack, done with bombs. We've also got a problem by: "what do we mean by 'terrorist'?". With the old version, such definitions ranged from legal definition to "someone my country doesn't like". With this version, we stick to one definition: the legal one. Maybe the US and Spain are slightly different in how they define terrorism, but not as widely different as the previous version. Sceptre (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem, in fact, is that I continue to ask for RS that dispute an extraordinarily widely held belief about OBL. None are forthcoming, none at all -- that individuals, somewhere in the world, may disagree is of no import whatever. If someone really wanted to list every RS in the intro that calls him a terrorist, I guess they could, though I think that would be silly (though not as silly as the tap dance around the T word). Even if an RS could be found to dispute this (and I risk repeatng myself when I say we've seen none), that would be a tiny minority view, referred to elsewhere in the article,. It would not effect the way he is widely held, the term that for most RS's defines him. IronDuke  00:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have given sources that people dispute that characterisation. There is no Wikipedia guideline that says we cannot use reliably sourced opinion polling as sources; it's the opposite, several articles depend entirely on opinion polls. This FOX News story said that Bin Laden's tactics had a 73% approval rating in Lebanon at one point about four or five years ago (and went down to 40%, which as we've said, is about Bush's approval rating in office for most of his second term), and that there were similar levels of support for him/opposition against America in predominately Muslim countries. Why are you forsaking the public opinion of the Muslim world just because someone hasn't written a paper about it? I'm going back to the Irish example again: if you couldn't get Irish academic papers for some reason, would you characterise a member of the Provisional IRA unequivocally as a "terrorist", despite a good proportion of the Great Unwashed supporting said member? You need to get your head out of the sand and apply common sense into these situations. Sceptre (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you actually not understand what a reliable source is? I'lll give you a hint as to what it's not: it isn't, as I have said, an opinion poll. Can you show me where it says in WP policy that an opinion poll can be regarded as a RS source about a subject? Because if so, I'd love to violate WP:POINT and tweak the Gulf War article to reflect the fact that some people Americans believe Saddam Hussein helped plan 9/11. Again: "the great unwashed" are not a relaiable source. It's totally fine to think they are, it just isn't fine to edit a sensitive article under that misapprehension of policy. I would cheerfully call the provos terrorist if 1) many, many RS's called them that and b) essentially zero RS's disputed it. IronDuke  02:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh please, stop it with the straw men. You know that Saddam's involvement (or lack of) in 9/11 or developing WMDs shouldn't be compared. You are being deliberatively obstructive, kicking your heels and demanding reliable sources to the contrary to push your pet point of view - i.e. Bin Laden is a terrorist. You know that Bin Laden being a terrorist is not a worldwide point of view. You haven't answered my question about the Irish, either. Sceptre (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Straw men"? You haven't even begun to defend your position. Resorting to standard wiki talk page boilerplate terms isn't, itself an argument. And I responded to your point about the Irish. Quite clearly. IronDuke  23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, can you provide RS showing this dispute? In your edit summary you say that "the Muslim world has a high approval rating of his actions".  Putting aside this huge blanket generalization for a moment, and assuming that this is true for the sake of an argument, how does this challenge his status as a terrorist?  You do of course realize that people can approve of terrorists, no? Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See above, the FOX story. A bit of hyperbole, I admit. And yes, it does. As the old adage goes, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". When you get into mixed or good approval ratings, it slides from "terrorist" (an inherently negative term) to "freedom fighter" (an inherently positive term). You know the Iraq War? Although we see our actions as fighting for their freedom, people in Iraq may see our actions as glorified terrorism. That's why the use of the word "terorrist" is discouraged on Wikipedia for more neutral terms such as "militant" or "insurgent" or "partisan". And, of course, editing Wikipedia requires an inch of common sense. While there may be fewer if not no sources (probably a developmental issue more than anything) disputing the characterisation, it doesn't mean that people don't think he's not a terrorist. Sceptre (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you didn't get the memo, but a single FOX news story is not exactly what one describes as a scholarly, reliable source nor would any expert use it as a source. Also, the 2005 source you are using does not support your claim in any way.  Please provide a reliable source that disputes OBL's status as a terrorist.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, stop digging your heels in and use common sense, for God's sake. Just because reliable sources don't exist for a viewpoint doesn't mean that the viewpoint doesn't exist! Especially for one as prominent as this... say we extrapolate the "40%" to encompass just Pakistan and Indonesia. If 40% of the entire countries think he isn't a terrorist, that's around 180 million people. Two-thirds of the population of the USA. Sceptre (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide a single RL that says "OBL is not a terrorist". You seem to be saying that we should accept your interpretation of sources that don't exist.  Is that correct? Viriditas (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't need to. common sense dictates that said viewpoint exists. Sceptre (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation. And, I've challenged it.  Now, you are supposed to provide a RS.  The FOX news article you cite above doesn't even make that claim.  Please provide a RS for the viewpoint you claim exists. Viriditas (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to satisfy you, I did a Google Scholar search for the terms "freedom fighter" and "bin Laden". TF Pettigrew - Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 2003 - Lawrence Earlbaum asserts that some Muslims see him as a "freedom fighter" (and cites that fact downstream). Images that Injure by Paul Martin Lester and Susan Dente Ross discusses the fact that, during the mid-80s, Ronald Reagan received several members of the Afghan mudjahadeen and refered to them as freedom fighters, citing it to a book by an Islamic Studies university professor. It goes on to talk about how the CIA did recruit bin Laden against the Soviets and was loyal until the end of the first Gulf War. Sceptre (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you finally learned how to use Google. Unfortunately, neither source supports your argument, nor could it be said that each term is mutually exclusive or temporally static.  One could be both a freedom fighter and a terrorist at different periods.  Per NPOV, significant  viewpoints should be represented.  I'm still waiting for you to explain your edits with actual sources that support them.  I'm guessing that will never happen. Words have meaning, and their use is historically relevant.  How many disparate, authoritative sources can we find classifying OBL as a terrorist?  How many do not? Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a fun story for you. In the mid 19th century, goalkeepers at soccer games would bring walking sticks to their games. Oh, they could walk perfectly fine. You see, at the time, the crossbar was made of rope, or tape. So said goalkeeper would, seeing a ball coming his way, pull down the rope so it would fly over when it should've been a goal. IFAB quickly put a stop to it and regulated that all crossbars be made out of metal or wood. Hence, the goalposts were not able to be moved anymore. The end. Sceptre (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The goalposts aren't being moved; you are dredging up weak sources that don't even support your point. IronDuke  23:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I forgot. A truly strong source is American. Oh wait, wrong. You're just an ostrich. Sceptre (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said anything like that. Talk about strawmen. Please try to focus. IronDuke  16:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed my request the first time. In that case, I'll repeat it for your benefit.  You provided two sources that you claim support your argument.  They consist of an AP news story carried by FOX News and a journal article, Pettigrew 2003. Please provide actual quotations from those two sources that directly support your argument.  This is a reasonable request.  Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, you can find press releases on Google Scholar now!?!? Sceptre (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. The two links above were offered by you.  Please show me how they support your argument.  Quote a passage or a select sentence or two.  Anything that shows you aren't making this up. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Osama Terrorist?
Old version: this edit

Proposed version: this edit

diff


 * As I've said above, this article is horribly slanted to a Western viewpoint. There are very few non-American sources in the article, for example. The characterisation of him as a terrorist is predominately Western. Also, I'd like to compare this article to Provisional IRA, which, although classified as terrorist by several countries (for instance, the UK), is not called terrorist in the manner of IronDuke's prefered wording. The wording I'm proposing attempts to shift it a bit into "neutral". I still keep the word "terrorist" in the article, but in the context that he's on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist list, etc. I could say that the charges he has been indicted on include terrorism, and that would be fine too. Sceptre (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He deliberately targeted non-combatants. That is generally a globally accepted definition of a terrorist, not a freedom fighter. However, if the Most Wanted Terrorist list is cited, there's not much benefit to repeat that he's a terrorist. 66.97.224.189 (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, my point exactly. Though that definition you've given would make Harry Truman a terrorist, too. Sceptre (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

How about we don't call anyone a terrorist? How about instead we describe what bin Laden has done? --harej 18:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's what I'm trying to advocate. I've described his actions, and how people reacted. It's just a coincidence that the article now calls him a terrorist by way of the FBI's Most Wanted lists and Spanish and Libyan indictment. Sceptre (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to discuss calling Harry Truman a terrorist, do it at his page, not OBLs. 66.97.224.189 (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We've been through this 10 billion times. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. US colonists were terrorists from the perspective of King George. Messedrocker hit the nail on the head; let's just stick to the facts. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is precisely why Wikipedia is not taken seriously in RL. We've been through this so many times because "anyone" is allowed to edit.  Now, please tell me what other encyclopedias say on the subject.  Do they follow your example? Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. This has come up again and again. And every consensus has been against the use of the word "terrorist" in the lead section, because it carries an inherent non-neutral point of view. WP:WTA has been around for five years, and every time the issue came up, people would get referred there as to why it shouldn't be used. In fact, I'd say that the consensus is not to call bin Laden a terrorist. Sceptre (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's quite wrong, of course. The very last discussion on this matter that was had ended with the editors who were left (who had initally been reluctant about the t-word) supporting my version. WTA isn't a policy. I don't understand what's so hard to grasp about that. Let me say it again, just in case: it is not a policy. You know what else isn't a policy? The hoary old cliche "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Is that quote in some way germane to this argument? It is not. It has eff all to do with policy (or common sense, really, but that's beside the point). This is one of those wacky wiki disputes that exist nowhere in the real world, and indeed, the vast majority of RS's in the real world would be alternately horrified and amused by this discussion. There can be no avoiding this topic in the lead, I'm sorry. The suggestion is... far from wise. And I will not here, or on any article, accept the argument "My common sense trumps your thousand of reliable sources." That way madness lies. IronDuke  00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Policies are not more important than guidelines. WP:RS is a guideline, after all. And common sense does trump reliable sources: do you honestly think that everyone thinks Bin Laden is a terrorist? There are people who argue this in loads of different media: is bin Laden a force of terror, or is he combatting the Zionist and American imperialist threat? Ask someone in the West, you're likely to get the answer "terrorist". Ask someone in the Middle East, they're more likely to say "freedom fighter". The assertion of bin Laden as a terrorist is far from fact, I'm afraid.
 * Still, you're missing my point. I'm not keeping the word "terrorist" out of the lead. I'm using the word terrorist in the way that is compatible with Wikipedia policy. Both of the versions I've proposed contained the word "terrorism" or "terrorist". The older version said that bin Laden was indicted on terrorism charges. The new version says he's on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list. They adequately say that he is a terrorist in a way compatible with all of our policies. You never told me how your version satisfied WP:WEASEL or WP:ASF even though I brought it up a million times. Sceptre (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, you totally got me on the weasel thing. Except where it isn't a policy. And except where the sentence is cited. Other than that, rock solid. (I won't rebut this again: the weasel argument is null.) And that leads me to ASF: the term is already well-sourced--over-sourced, some say. But I can provide more. Yes, you can trawl through Google and maybe find some people who make passing allusion to the fact that there may exist still other people who do not belive OBL is a terrorist. That's all fine, but would not effect the lead in any substantial way. Adn simply sourcing the terrorist designation to the US FBI is worse than useless, it actually warps the reality of who considers him a terrorist. And who is that again? Virtually every RS there is, by overwhelming margins. (I could find ten sources to call him a terrorist for everty one you provide without breaking a sweat.) I say again: the vast majority of RS's see him that way. Your mythical man on the street in Pakistan would not effect the lead one iota. Maybe there could be mention later that such people exist, but WP does not privilege minority opinions by non-scholars over majority opinion by scholars. See WP:UNDUE. And yes, that is an actual policy. That you do not understand the difference between policy and guideline is deeply disturbing. You should ask someone you trust to spell it out for you. This is a thunderingly obvious point, and I'm suprised I have to keep making it. (Okay, actually, not all that suprised.) IronDuke  03:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You appear to be on the wrong website. Here, you need actual reliable sources and quotations from those sources to support your assetions.  You've been told this several times now.  Please provide them immediately. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not on the wrong website. Here, you can also disregard nearly every major rule if following it sounds like a bad idea. Regardless, I provided some sources at 5:24pm. You keep moving the goalposts as to what's an acceptable source, though. If I kept finding sources for you, you'd keep moving them until you wanted a dissertation written by an professor, between the ages of 46 and 48, at the University of California with PhDs in terrorism theory and Islamic fascism which was published while Mars was in the fourth house and Andromeda subtended Taurus, with the first name Xavier, and be no less than 248 pages but no more than 251 pages long. Sceptre (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And again, you're missing the point that I do call him a terrorist in my version!:

As part of al-Qaeda, he has been indicted in United States federal court for his alleged involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, is on the US Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives and Most Wanted Terrorists lists, and was indicted by the city of Madrid for involvement in the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings.
 * Emphasised in case you missed it. Seriously. You're policywonking over reliable sources but aren't paying any attention to NPOV. WP:MORALIZE and WP:ASF are good parts of the policy, you know. Read them. Sceptre (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? Sceptre (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide direct quotations from the two sources you have offered that support your argument. I see nothing in the AP news article that does, and nothing in Pettigrew 2003.  Either you don't understand how to use sources, or you are deliberately prevaricating.  Which is it? Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're missing out the source that actually does contain the viewpoint you don't like. And you sound like you haven't read NPOV either, after I asked you to. Sceptre (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, please provide it here. What is the source I am missing? I haven't promoted any viewpoint.  I came here because I saw you adding inaccurate information to this article, information you corrected after I pointed it out.  Now, I'm asking you to show me the sources you are using to support your most recent changes.  The two sources you have offered do not support what you are claiming.  Is there a third source?  What is it? Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (de-indent) Images that Injure by Paul Martin Lester and Susan Dente Ross. Page 54. Cites it sources. And you still haven't read NPOV... Sceptre (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. The page you point to is an essay by Deni Elliott titled, "Terrorists we like and terrorists we don't like."  Deni Elliott is a teacher and journalist that writes about media ethics.  Please explain briefly how this supports your argument. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jesus, I was joking about Xavier. To answer your question... maybe it because it cites a paper by an Islamic studies professor? Sceptre (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Got that. Let's just stick to Elliott for the moment.  I've read the essay.  Are you aware that Elliott  states that this is an alternative view? Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Your point? Sceptre (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not stupid. I think you got my point.  Tell you what, let's take a breather.  Happy Thanksgiving. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I think that we're going down alleys we don't need to anyway. As I said, I do say he is a terrorist in the article, but in the way that few if any people are going to assert violates BLP. Sceptre (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why leave it simply at the FBI, when multiple sources across multiple disciplines also assert it? IronDuke  16:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? If we need to cite a fact (i.e. that he's on their terrorist list), we often only need one source (or two or three in worst cases). If we need to cite an opinion (i.e. that he's a terrorist), we need sources complete with attribution and direct quoting. One of the problems with articles on Wikipedia is when people try to push a POV without realising it (this is visible mostly with controversy sections). They take an opinion as fact an end up citing a load of sources for it. I fear you might be falling into the trap of thinking that more sources are better; there is a very delicate balance.
 * Now, I've got multiple reasons why I like my version better. For one, it gets rid of the sweeping statement which implies every media agency/scholar/government thinks he's a terrorist (I can't speak for scholars, but al-Jazeera are lenient towards him to the point where people think it's a front, and several governments [notably Reagan's administration and the Taliban in power] were favourable towards him). Second, if we say that he's been indicted on terrorism charges, we can discuss why; for example, the US indicted him for the embassy bombings, and Spain for 11/3; and we end up with a more encyclopedic lede and article.
 * It's a subtle distinction between moralizing, and listing facts dispassionately. In my case, I think we're heading towards the latter. Of course, the lead section is only the start. I really think we need this article to be cleaned up so we don't moralise him. Instead of saying "he is considered a terrorist" in the article text, say (I'm busking here) "Joe Bloggs, professor of Islamic Studies at University of Foo, cited bin Laden's anti-American beliefs and advocacy of achieving them by suicide attacks as his main reason for labelling him a terrorist." Again, much more encyclopedic. There's really no reason why this can't be an FA, but we first need to stop moralising and start looking from a dispassionate perspective.. Sceptre (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to RFC RayAYang (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Firstly, the introduction is a mess, probably because of edit-warring. Introductory sections are supposed to work in summary style, without citations; the citations are supposed to be in the text below.
 * 2) Secondly, the introductory paragraph should mention Osama's most well-known actions, which is to say, the 9/11 attacks. Waiting several paragraphs to mention the 9/11 attacks (and then only after mentioning the embassy bombings) is bizarre; imagine an analogous biography of Winston Churchill that neglected mention of his role in WWII leadership until the third or fourth paragraph. The impression, that Osama bin Laden's notability derives principally from his family, and then from his role in founding Al Qaeda, rather than, say, his role in coordinating the greatest terrorist attacks in American history, is erroneous and should be corrected.
 * 3) Thirdly, on a particular point Sceptre's version is simply incorrect: Osama did not come to prominence following the 9/11 attacks; he was already quite prominent as a result of the East Africa embassy bombings.
 * 4) Quibbling about the exact nature of the allegations surrounding Osama's responsibility for particular actions is inappropriate for an introductory section. We should be satisfied with saying that he is generally considered to be responsible for the embassy bombings, 9/11 attacks, etc. We can discuss the details in the relevant portions of the article.
 * 5) I think the word terrorism should be mentioned up front and center in the first paragraph, as well, preferably in connection with Al Qaeda. To fail to associate terrorism with Al Qaeda would be to commit a grave offense against the common understanding of the word and surrender to a viewpoint so politically correct as to be a self-caricature.

Question by Dank55 Has there been any previous RfC or mediation on this issue of how we want to use the word "terrorist" before? We've had a request on a style guidelines page (WP:AVOID) to handle it there, but I'd rather we get something kind of broad-based, such as a broad discussion or a mediation, then give a one-sentence summary at WP:AVOID and link to the mediation. I'd prefer the style guidelines not become a place where NPOV issues are hashed out. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by PBS Short answer I'm with User:Sceptre on his one don't use the term terrorist in the unqualified narrative voice of the article. Longer answer:

The above quote can be found in the section "pejorative use" in the terrorism article. The section goes into much more detail about the pejorative use of the term terrorist. If Wikipedia was being written in the 1980s would we have been right to use the term terrorist in the unqualified narrative voice of the article to describe Nelson Mandela? Or would it have been better to quote the British government to get the point across?

We have a style guideline on this issue WP:TERRORIST (which User:IronDuke has repeatedly tried to alter (is that because you are trying to alter it to help you label such people as bin Laden terrorists in the "the unqualified narrative voice of the article"?)).

There is a problem inherent in Wikipedia which the Wikipedia project Countering systemic bias addresses. As Sceptre has intimated, I could find dozens of articles in the British media that called Martin McGuinness a terrorist. But those same sources stopped calling him one after the British Government (who "never negotiate with terrorists") used an interlocutor to negotiate a peace deal with Republicans, now he is the "deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" instead of "convicted terrorist" in those same sources. Currently the US media, as the US is a target of bin Laden and his motley crew, tend -- as the London media did during the troubles-- to see those who would blow them up as terrorists, (As did Goebbels when Germany was reaping the whirlwind that the Luftwaffe had sown).

The Wikipedia policy "neutral point of view" covers this issue specifically the section "Bias" "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." (short cut WP:ASF) and in the same policy "Let the facts speak for themselves" "you won't even need to say [Saddam Hussein] was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with 'Hitler was a bad man'—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over". We do not have to state that Osama bin Laden is a terrorist ... --PBS (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's cut to the chase: Which RS do not refer to OBL as a terrorist? Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. We have the sources that say he's a terrorist, but we don't need to repeat that. His deeds convict him a hundred times over without saying the t-word. And again, thinking someone is a terrorist is, ultimately, just an opinion and can never be a fact. As I've said and PBS has repeated, think about the Irish and Mandela: would we be justified in calling them terrorists? If not, why are we justified in calling bin Laden a terrorist? You're looking at this from the wrong perspective. Don't ask for sources which challenge your view, and kick in your heels and say we're whitewashing. Work with us to make this neutral. We can make this a featured article if we try. But you're obstructing that by keeping moralising statements in. Sceptre (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ignore your inflammatory (and erroneous) comments and wait for a reply from PBS. I already know your opinion, and you already know I disagree with it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Phillip, you're essentially arguing that OBL is not a terrorist, is that correct? Sources, please. Oh, and if OBL will no longer be considered a terrorist in the future, which country will he serve as deputy First Minister? Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He's not. Stop it with the straw men. He's saying we don't need to say he's a terrorist. Take for example, this commentary of the Omagh bombing in 1998 (this is lifted from the BBC's editoral guidelines):

There should have been a carnival here, instead there was carnage. Saturday afternoon shoppers here because it was safe, crowded together away from a bomb scare. Instead the bomb was in their midst.

It killed fourteen women and three young girls…

It killed five men and four young boys…three of them came from County Donegal, another was a 12 year old boy from Madrid, they were all friends on an exchange scheme.

It killed three generations of one family…a 65 year old grandmother, her pregnant 30 year old daughter and her 18 month old daughter.

A litany of the dead…of the slaughtered innocents.
 * Would the word "terrorist" have added any meaning at all to that sentence? Sceptre (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your name isn't PBS. Try to respect your fellow editors.  I've already had a discussion with you.  I know your position.  You know mine.  I'm looking to understand PBS' take on this matter, not yours.  Now, if PBS is still around, I will ask him another question.  In addition to the sources supporting the idea that OBL should not be labeled a terrorist, please also provide RS stating that it is biased to describe OBL as a terrorist.  Internal Wikipedia guidelines do not suffice. Actually, let me be clear on this.  Internal Wikipedia guidelines are mostly nonsense.  Now, please also show me how other encyclopedias and reference works treat the subject.  Thanks in advance, PBS. Viriditas (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sceptre for explaining for me. Viriditas I am not arguing that anyone is or is not a terrorist we don't need to make that assertion, all we need to do is "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." and "Let the facts speak for themselves". --PBS (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. It is a fact, not an opinion, that OBL is considered, categorized, classified, described as, and called a terrorist.  If you dispute this assertion, then you will of course have a RS showing this dispute, and I will of course, be forced to concede.  Now, please produce it. Viriditas (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * " It is a fact, not an opinion, that OBL is considered, categorized, classified, described as, and called a terrorist." We agree on that point. What you seem to have problems with is understanding my point that we do not need to state in the unqualified narrative voice of the article that he is a terrorist, because to do so is to express an editorial opinion which is a breach of WP:NPOV, just as it would be to write "The Pope is infallible" or "The pope is the Antichrist" or "The United States is the best [or worst -- take you pick] country in the world". Instead we make statements like "Roman Catholics believe the Pope to be infallible, but Ian Paisley, until recently the First Minister of Northern Ireland, has stated that he believes that the Pope is the Antichrist." By doing this we are stating the facts not editorial opinions. --PBS (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I apololgize. I had no idea you weren't aware of what was going on here.  For some reason, I thought you had actually read the discussion before jumping in.  Apparently, you had not.  Sceptre removed the following statement from the lead: He has been designated as a terrorist by scholars, journalists, analysts and law enforcement agencies.          Where is the editorial opinion you describe? Viriditas (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As to your comment about "Internal Wikipedia guidelines do not suffice", I would ask you to read WP:CONSENSUS. We are not talking just about guidelines but also about Wikipedia policy. These are policies that have been worked out over a number of years and I am not cherry picking an obscure passage from a little read guideline to justify my arguments, I am using core policy documents of WP:V and WP:NPOV. If you do not agree with them and think "Internal Wikipedia guidelines are mostly nonsense" then you really ought to consider if you should be working on this project. --PBS (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:TERRORIST is a guideline, not a policy, and it is an attempt to redefine how words are used. Wikipedia is not in the business of interpreting the English language or dictating how we use it.  Wikipedia is a tertiary source that provides information based on primary and secondary sources.  I am waiting for the sources that support your premise. Viriditas (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And why, exactly, are policy and guideline different? Sceptre (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop distracting this discussion. I'm talking to Phillip.  You can go read WP:PG and discover the difference between standard and advisory on your own.  Phillip said we are talking about policy, but we are not.  We are talking about an advisory guideline that makes this very clear.  More to the point, the guideline is nonsense.  It says, "these words are inherently non-neutral" as if there were words that were neutral, which is of course, ridiculous. And per that guideline, RS may be used to support the term.  The question is whether there is consensus in this article to use it.  Viriditas (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "as if there were words that were neutral, which is of course, ridiculous.". There are lots of words and phrases that are neutral: "Patrick Magee the Brighton Grand Hotel bomber..." is a neutral phrase because it describes what he did, "Patrick Magee the Brighton Grand Hotel terrorist ..." is not because it expresses an opinion. --PBS (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't been following the discussion. You just jumped in here to support Sceptre without even looking at the edit history.  Tell me what is non-neutral about this statement: He has been designated as a terrorist by scholars, journalists, analysts and law enforcement agencies. Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would stick Who who on that! See WP:NPOV and the paragraph that starts "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe..." ..." much better to go with a formulation such as that proposed by  Sceptre. --PBS (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly needs to be improved, and I've asked User:IronDuke to do just that. But there is general agreement that the statement, "OBL has been designated as a terrorist " needs to appear in the lead section.  RayAYang covers it above, and IronDuke and myself are in agreement on this.  I don't think you've been really following this, and your comments give the impression that you are supporting Sceptre without actually understanding what he's doing.  His last round of edits not only removed this material from the article but introduced errors.  I'm going offline, so I'll leave this current discussion to somebody with more free time. Viriditas (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

""The term 'terrorist' just doesn't apply to Osama bin Laden or Mohammed Atta," Brown said. "It can be used to describe groups of individuals that are involved in anarchy as well as white supremacists and militias." Sources exist. Seraphim  &hearts;  13:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To add to the discussion, makes a good point about there being 100 types of terrorism defined by the USA. It's better to stick to the plain facts stated in the proposed version, which happen to be far more informative anyway and properly define his role in terrorist attacks. Seraphim &hearts;  13:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Brown obviously meant "The term 'terrorist' doesn't just apply...." Kauffner (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not in the game of guessing whether or not someone said what they meant to say. As it is, he plainly states that the term doesn't apply to bin Laden. I imagine that a news item like this would have had plenty of fact-checking. There would have been plenty of time to notice if there was an error in the wording and the direct quote would not have been published if it was incorrect. But let's not get too hung up on that source. I posted it here just to show that there are indeed people who disagree with the specific terminology. I'm more concerned about having a lead that is factually correct and informative. Seraphim  &hearts;  15:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Seraphim I don't think that you do yourself any favours with such a line of argument. User:Kauffner is clearly correct, people make such mistakes when they speak, and you are entering Alice in Wonderland with your current line of argument (March Hare 'Then you should say what you mean,' and (a chapter or two later) the Mock Turtle 'I mean what I say,') --PBS (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gosh. I sincerely believe that an error like that wouldn't have been published. But obviously my input isn't warranted... Good night, I'm off to Wonderland now. Enjoy your discussion. Seraphim  &hearts;  19:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is quite clear what the agent meant. Indeed, this would be yet another source (among the thousands) supporting the idea that OBL is a terrorist. IronDuke  22:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * @PBS. Thanks for the bit from Hoffman. There's another quote from him you may be interested in: bin Laden himself is perhaps best viewed as a terrorist CEO. A few more fun quotes: here's another encyclopedia, Britannica: "...mastermind of numerous terrorist attacks against the United States and other Western powers..." and, just for fun, Al Jazeera, which says that "Osama bin Laden's operation" had "perpetrated the worst act of terrorism ever witnessed on US soil." . Though I think a lot of people who are objecting to the t-word on this page are doing so with good faith, they are also badly misunderstanding wiki policy: we reflect what others' (RS's) say, and we do so proportionally. Is it possible we might end up writing something that was heavily weighted to one POV? Yes? Something false? Yes. WP is not about artificial balance, and it's not about truth either. Whether it is fair that virtually every RS in existence calls OBL a terroist is neither here nor there. We can only report what they report. So. This word is definitely going into the lead. What we are left to decide is how. I have read this discussion closely, and am going to take a stab at it. Comments welcome. IronDuke  22:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got no problems with saying the word "terrorist" in the lead, but it needs to be done very delicately. If we do it the wrong way, we end up moralizing (which we can't do; NPOV is equally about language as it is about weighing the sources). What I would prefer we do is to actually build on the current (FBI list version): why is he called a terrorist, and who exactly calls him a terrorist? Keep it to the big names (FBI, Spanish police, Interpol, governments) in the lead, and smaller names (BBC, NYT, scholars) in the article text). But again, we don't need to mull over so many people; for the lead section, the biggest names will suffice. Sceptre (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you've already tried to do this. I don't think we needed a new section for it though; the beliefs section already has something to that effect. Still, it's a start. But I do think that if we offer the terrorism point of view in the article's text, we may need to offer (as showing that opinions do differ) the freedom fighter point of view. If only for including Reagan's point of view about the Afghan mujahideen. Hell, we could use public polls to show how public perception of him has changed (as in, we can say that people in Muslim countries did see him favourably, but don't any more). Sceptre (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to have a fresh section on how he is viewed in the Muslim world, feel free. That will not likely affect the lead. But as I've said, the idea that he is a freedom fighter and the idea that he is a terrorist are not even close to equivalent, and out-dated analysis from the 80's would have no bearing on it. IronDuke  23:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Splitting up articles into positive and negative POVs is a big no-no. We discuss POVs together. I'm also a bit edgy about how you've used terrorist in the lead now. As a noun, you'd be able to pass the article through FAC or even GAC if you do it carefully. As an adjective, you wouldn't have a chance. Let's write the article as if we're wanting it to be an FA (as we should for all articles), not just a normal article. Sceptre (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, add to what we have. It matters not to me. I have no idea what you mean as for the rest of it, nor am I panting after FA status. IronDuke  23:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's more of an aspirational issue. If we aim for FA-quality, even if we never get there, the article will be much better anyway. About the word "terrorist" to describe 9/11... I posted a quote from a BBC correspondent after the Omagh bombing, which comes from the BBC's editorial guidelines. Before the quote, it describes it as adequately explaining the horror without getting into ideological sidelining, and after the quote, it asks the reader if the word "terrorist" would've added meaning. It's exactly the reason why WP:TERRORIST discourages the use of the word, along with other words such as racist. When it's used as an adjective, "terrorist" is not useful at all. But used as a noun, it may have a little bit of meaning. Sceptre (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's a versy strange distinction. It's like saying "friend" is meaningful but "friendly" isn't. IronDuke  23:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've copyedited your version of lead section to make it read better. My main change (which you should've worked around) was to move his addition to the FBI lists. Because he was placed on the list for the embassy bombings, I thought it would be better to say "He was indicted and placed on the FBI's list for the embassy bombings" rather than say "He was indicted for the embassy bombings, is on the FBI's list, and was indicted in Madrid". I've kept the word "terrorist" to describe 9/11, while we talk about it.
 * In some cases, adjectives lose meaning and are so diluted. It's like the word "fascist", for example. As George Orwell famously said:

"It would seem that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox hunting, bullfighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."
 * There's something similar in the graphic novel V for Vendetta (one of my favourite graphic novels) where Adam Susan, a self-professed fascist, laments that the meaning of the word has been diluted. If we say "Oswald Mosley was a fascist", it looks like we saying he's too authoritarian but not strictly fascist. However, if we say "Oswald Mosley was the founder of the British Union of Fascists", then suddenly the word "fascist" has meaning.
 * Back to the point about Bin Laden and 9/11. If we say it's a "terrorist attack", there isn't that much meaning. But if we say "suicide attack intended to inspire terror in the American public", it has meaning. For reasons such as the word's meaning becoming diluted over time, we really need to be careful on how we use such words. Don't use such negative terms as "terrorist" (it is a negative word, even if in this case it would pass WP:NPOV) if clarity is retained by replacing or removing the word. Sceptre (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To be more accurate, terrorist is a word with negative conotations, just like murderer, rapist, arsonist to name a few. Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist, pure and simple, and I'm not going to waste time arguing the point. It had been stated earlier that there are some people that don't view Osama as a terrorist. Yes, and there are also people that don't believe that man really landed on the moon. Does that meen that Wikipedia should talk about the "alleged moon landing"? If Wikipedia has a policy against labeling someone as a terrorist, that's fine, although personaly I think it's something of a cop-out. I just hope nobody is hiding behind supposedly logical and endless arguments in the talk page with a hidden agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhenney (talk • contribs) 04:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no standard policy against using the word. There is, however, a misguided, advisory guideline (that in my opinion has been written by and promoted by partisans, which is ironic considering that is exactly what we are trying to avoid) that suggests the use of other words if possible.  There is no policy or guideline preventing the use of the word "terrorist" in this particular case.  Each article must be addressed on its own merits according to its individual issues and consensus on its talk page.  Sceptre has previously claimed that BLP is the issue here, but that is certainly not the case nor does it apply here.  Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to be too harsh on Wikipedia. Actually I think the opening paragraphs on the OBL section are excellent, although I think "terrorist organization" should replace "jihadist organization".Johnhenney (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WTA isn't misguided at all. "Terrorist" is so diluted as an adjective these days that it's useless unless we give the term meaning, and say who said it. The BBC, for example, discourage the word in most circumstances because it acts as a barrier to understanding. You can describe the horror and severity of 9/11 without saying it was a "terrorist attack". However, I think that, in its current state, the article looks good enough. The statement I was most concerned about has been moved into the article text, where it should be, and all of the claims have been attributed. Remember: we should have very few, if any, references in the lead section of the article.
 * As to the point about BLP: BLP requires strict adherence to all of our content policies and guidelines, which includes our rules about weasel words and attribution. I think it would be much better to BLP compliance for us to get rid of that statement in the lead section, move it to the article text where we can discuss who says he's a terrorist and why, and keep it to one or two "big names" (i.e. NYPD, FBI, etc) in the lead section.
 * To Johnhenney: No. That will not happen. If we describe al-Qaeda as a "terrorist organisation", it means nothing and makes us look like we're moralising. If we describe it as a "jihadist organisation", we get some meaning towards their goals: that they fight for their religious beliefs. We should only use "terrorist" as an unqualified descriptor when we have no options left - which should be rare, if at all. Sceptre (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP often gets things wrong. There's really no curing that, without turning it into something else. I think we're pretty close on the terroist thing (there is, pace Sceptre, no rule at all preventing its use -- not even a guideline). Hopefully, common sense and cool heads will prevail. IronDuke  00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we're getting close to the point where most of us can agree on the wording, and that wording agrees with NPOV and common sense. WTA strongly discourages use of the word "terrorist" (but you're right, not outright banning) because it does give, most of the time, a value judgement. For example, the Afghan mujahideen have been both considered freedom fighters and terrorists by the US government, depending on who they were fighting at the time. But, and stop me if I'm wrong here, the only thing that's changed about them is the target of their jihad. I think, to settle the RFC, we should talk about something in the lead I'm queasy about, but left in because removing it would appear to be edit warring: the use of the term "terrorist" to describe 9/11. Of course, that was what it was. I'm not disputing that. But does it need to be there? I'm not disputing that it was a terrorist attack, because I believe that it was. But I tend to leave my points of view about something like this at the door when I edit Wikipedia. I don't think the word "terrorist" to describe 9/11 adds to the article. I'm not saying that from any NPOV standpoint, I'm saying it from an FA-writer standpoint. Now, I know you disagree with me, IronDuke, but I think we should write this article as if we're aiming for FA. A great deal of writing FAs is editing the prose so it looks professional. Part of that is removing words that don't have any meaning, either by deletion or replacement. Now, the adjective "terrorist" is very iffy. What definition of terrorism are we talking about? If we were to delete that word so it reads "September 11, 2001 attacks", I don't think we lose any meaning. If we were to say "September 11, 2001 suicide attacks", we'd gain meaning: we know what type of terrorist attack it is: one where the attackers killed themselves to ensure the deaths of many more. What say you? Sceptre (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The introduction currently reads:
 * Osama bin Laden (أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن Usāmah bin Muḥammad bin `Awaḍ bin Lādin; variations in spelling differ) (born March 10, 1957) is a member of the prominent Saudi bin Laden family and the founder of the jihadist organization Al-Qaeda, best known for masterminding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. He has also been ... list for his alleged involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, and was indicted by the city of Madrid for involvement in the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings.


 * Why "September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" and not "September 11, 2001 attacks" were the other attacks, that are not listed as terrorist attacks any less so? If we list one as a terrorist attack why not all of them? eg:
 * list for his alleged involvement in the 1998 terrorist attack on U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, and was indicted by the city of Madrid for involvement in the 11 March 2004 Madrid terrorist attacks."
 * A person could view the current wording as implying that only attacks on American civilians targets are bad enough to be described as terrorist and that attacks on African and Spaniards are not. Now as an editor of Wikipedia who has participated in this conversation I know that is not true, but most readers of this article are not Wikipedia editors, and some will make this inference (particularly if they are already of a mind set that thinks that the Anglo-Americans place a higher value on their lives than others). Further one of the attacks on 9/11 was against a military target, is that not included in the list of places attacked on 9/11 (because attacks on military targets are often not defined as terrorism)?


 * Much better to drop the word terrorist and link to the article without piping it ("September 11, 2001 attacks"). --PBS (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to drop it too. It's just that dropping it when I rewrote would be seen as edit warring. Sceptre (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 48 hours of "silence" = Sceptre should ignore all previous discussion? No. The word will be in the lead, and it will not be sourced to only one reference, as though the FBI were the only people on the planet who think OBL is a terrorist. IronDuke  00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For the millionth time, we don't need "opinion[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]" (no matter if you found a million sources, it would only be just an opinion) when the nearly identical "fact[1]" will suffice. And besides, the word terrorist is still in the lead. I just removed it from any reference of 9/11 being a terrorist attack because no-one gave a good reason why it should stay ("because it was" isn't good enough) and PBS gave a good reason for removing it (i.e. we don't call the embassy bombings or Madrid bombings terrorist, so why should we call 9/11 it?). If no-one objects to a change within a reasonable timeframe, silence automatically implies consent. And I don't like your recent change: referring to al-Qaeda as a terrorist organisation in the lead. That definitely violates WP:TERRORIST. We have better words to use anyway. We should only use "terrorist" in an unqualified tone if and only if we have no alternate term available. Not as a NPOV issue, but as a stylistic issue: "terrorist" on its own means very little these days. Sceptre (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An essay? Really? That's what governs your wiki-behavior? "'terrorist' on its own means very little these days." Again: really? Someone please tell all those deluded scholars, analysts and journalists that. "I just removed it from any reference of 9/11 being a terrorist attack because no-one gave a good reason why it should stay..." Okay... how about because virtually every RS known to man referred to it as such? IronDuke  16:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SILENCE is a supplement to WP:CONSENSUS, and is widely accepted. Shouting "zomg essay, zomg guideline, zomg policy" is a weak argument because the tick means only whether something is advisory or instructional. It is not an indicator of importance or acceptance; WP:ATA is an essay that is pretty much accepted by nearly everyone, and on the other side, WP:MOSNUM and WP:FICT are/were heavily contested. Again, WP:AGF is very important to the wiki-process, but WP:CSD is not so much.
 * As for the word "terrorist" meaning very little: I'm saying that from a stylistic viewpoint. There is no clear definition of "terrorism" (ranging from a clinical legal definition, to the colloquial use of any of our enemies; I wouldn't put it past, say (I know this is a bad example), Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly to say that "every Muslim is a terrorist"), so we need to say what we mean by terrorism. We try when we say he's on the FBI's list. We can try if we say the Madrid PD indicted him on terrorism charges. But we don't if we say "He is considered a terrorist by scholars, journalists, and law enforcement agencies". They'll have different definitions, especially the journalists from the LEAs.
 * Another point is that lead sections should have very few citations. Maybe one or two, but not twelve next to each other. It looks really bad from an aesthetic viewpoint. Look at Israel, which has quite a few (some of which aren't needed) but are spaced out so it doesn't affect the reading. And if we go back to the nine citations we had for "he is considered", we would, per NPOV, have to attribute those people in the lead section's text. And that isn't good reading at all. As a reader, I'd want the article to get on with it. Remember: we need to balance the article so it doesn't miss major facts, but at the same time, it isn't daunting to read. Sceptre (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is silly season. NPOV and PEACOCK say don't use words like terrorist to fluff descriptions of what should be facutal narratives.  It doesn't say don't use words which reliable sources have used to describe a subject.  If someone is convicted of raping a child that person is a child rapist.  If someone has taken responsibility for terrorist attacks and been called a terrorist by an overwhelming majority of sources and been indicted for terrorism as the US, UN and Interpol describe it, that person is a terrorist.  Wikipedia doesn't need to be salacious.  We need to be direct and factual.  couching this characterization as "opinion" is not direct and factual. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But with 100 different types of "terrorist" by US definition (that's without the different definitions used elsewhere), doesn't it make the word next to useless? Isn't it better to state his crimes? Seraphim  &hearts;  22:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if it doesn't result in some torturous application of the language. If we say "UBL is responsible (or has claimed responsibility) for XYZ terror attacks" we might as well say "and is considered a terrorist by ABC governments".  Or something along those lines.  Sort of like the "hitler" problem, we don't need to say UBL is a bad man.  But we need to say hitler was a dictator.  Likewise I think that we should say UBL is a terrorist.  I'm not suggesting that we abandon the facts or press the issue, just that we not remove the words simply because they may stem from a value judgment (we have a long list of words to excise should that be the case). Protonk (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I always find your posts a worthwhile read and appreciate your judgement. I think my only problem with this particular usage, is that we're moving focus onto the word instead of the crimes, like we're trying too hard to say he's a terrorist. Seraphim  &hearts;  23:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! To hedge from my grumpy first post above, I do think that if we find ourselves trying to hard to link the word and the person, we should draw back.  But we have to be careful to ensure that we aren't trying too hard to imbue the word terrorist with meaning.  I'll have to think about it, but I can imagine plenty of uses in this article where the word would not be a simple epithet or empty modifier. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My take on this - looks like Sceptre's trying to cause some drama again
Haven't been following this very closely, but just based on the recent history of this page, it looks essentially like Sceptre has a problem with the article using the word "terrorist" to describe Bin Laden and is continuing to war with other editors over it. The content in question he is removing however does not factually state that Osama is a "terrorist" if that's his problem (it simply states the fact that he has been referred to as such by multiple sources and includes references), and based on melodramatic edit summaries such as this and this, I'm starting to wonder if Sceptre is really just looking to get attention by stirring up drama as he's been known to do in the past. If this is a serious concern to him, he's welcome to discuss it in a professional manner, but if he's going to continue causing a commotion like this, I'm all for him being reblocked since it looks like his behavior hasn't improved much during the three months he was recently blocked for harassing another user.--ParisianBlade (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you're just wikistalking me. Don't you think following a minor around is creepy? Sceptre (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

US attempts on bin laden pre 9/11, under clinton
i don't see anything in the article on the attempts by the clinton administration to "get" bin laden, including the famous rocket attack on the convoy that hit the wrong vehicle. any reason why?Gzuckier (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings
I have been looking at the phrase "and was indicted by the city of Madrid for involvement in the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings." and trying to find a source because if the arrest warrant involved the word terrorism we could add "and was indicted for terrorist" or whatever to that sentence. But I think there may be some confusion over this. "High Court Judge Baltasar Garzon issued a nearly 700-page indictment, naming bin Laden and 34 other men, including an al-Jazeera journalist, with involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. Garzon said there is evidence the plot was hatched in Spain, al-Jazeera reported." BUT as this source says "The [Madrid terrorist] cell was inspired by al-Qaeda but had no direct links to it, nor did it receive financing from Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization, Spanish investigators say."

So AFAICT that the Spanish warrant is for the 9/11 attacks not the Madrid attacks. --PBS (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well colour me mistaken :) Sceptre (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Formal indictment
That leads on to another problem in the next paragraph, which starts "Although Bin Laden has not been formally indicted for the September 11 attacks", but it looks as if he has been indited by Spain by Baltasar Garzon (a man who is very keen to push the concept of "universal jurisdiction" as far as possible ), so that sentence probably needs changing to "Although Bin Laden has not been formally indicted in the United States for the September 11 attacks," ---PBS (talk)

The section OBL has obviously been vandalized. Can an editor fix it? I'm kind of new so I'm not sure how.Johnhenney (talk)

Already fixed? that was fast. I was referring to the phrase 'bugs bunny" being inserted into the first paragraph. Probably from somebody who doesn't have anything better to do(like me.Johnhenney (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus, find me one RS that does not ascribe them "terrorist" status
In reply to user:Moreschi question edit history: ''"jihad" means a good deal more than this, but even in the limited sense Al-Qaeda does not qualify. Plus, find me one RS that does not ascribe them "terrorist" status...''

Reuters: see Reuters Terrorist Explanation. --PBS (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that document only says that Reuters follow a policy of not using the word; it doesn't say that Reuters actually think bin Laden is not a terrorist. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You did not ask for what they thought, you asked for one reliable source "that does not ascribe them 'terrorist' status..." --PBS (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think what's meant (or at least what I mean) is find a source that denies it. Keep in mind, however, that even if couple sources could be found, and they were reliable (which would surprise me a bit), that wouldn't mean that we'd then have to weigh the two sources scrounged up from Google against what is essentially the entire weight of scholarly, analytical, and journalistic opinion. IronDuke  19:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

An Al-Qaeda adjective

 * "founder of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda,"

or
 * "founder of the jihadist organization Al-Qaeda,"

RayAYang wrote in the edit history "please do not alter text currently the subject of intensive discussion w/o attaining consensus. I changed the latter to be more specific. However, Jihadist is inappropriate -- has many meanings" So does terrorist, many of them pejorative and frequently applied by those who oppose Al-Qaeda. So why not simply write:
 * "founder of Al-Qaeda,"

because if one has not heard of Al-Qaeda in the last 7 years, a one word adjective is not going to explain what Al-Qaeda is and as there is a link on the word that an uninformed person can follow for details it is unnecessary. I think that putting in an adjective says more about the editorial process on Wikipedia than it does about Al-Qaeda. If you really really really think there is a need to put a POV on the word in the introduction then how about placing a clause after the word which allows for a balanced point of view
 * "founder of Al-Qaeda, which describes itself as XYZ while the governments of its victims describe it as a terrorist organisation,"

Personally I think the clause is unnecessary - PBS (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Recommend this thread be moved up to the Terrorism RFC on this article. Are you amenable? Ray (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No need as it is to do with a specifically placed adjective, not the general debate. --PBS (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I mentioned it because the question of whether to describe Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization is essentially the topic of the RFC. This particular wording has been the subject of at least one back-and-forth. Personally, I think it would be a travesty to write an article that fails to associate Al Qaeda with terrorism in the first paragraph. A major case of ducking our heads under the covers and crying "deny." Ray (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One can make the link if one thinks in necessary by adding adding a clause which attributes the assertion, without the need to add terrorist as an adjective in the passive narrative voice of the article. However not using the word terrorist is not "crying "deny."" (See WP:MORALIZE). --PBS (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, PBS, could you clean up this section? I think I know what you're saying, but the typos leave me at risk of misinterpretation. Ray (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Also, "jihaist," as I understand it, is a term that Muslims might well find offensive. Jihad is a holy obligation for all Muslims, and many would resent its being hijacked by al Qaeda (and by us, using it in the narrative voice to describe AQ). IronDuke  22:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User:IronDuke who in this section has suggested using Jihad as an adjective? --PBS (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

mass casualty attacks against civilian targets
"Al Qaeda has also been associated with numerous other mass casualty attacks against civilian targets."

This sentence implies that Al Qaeda it has ONLY been associated with "mass casualty attacks against civilian targets" and that it has not been associated with attacks on civilians that did not result in mass casualties (whether that was because the attack failed or it was a more specific attack (eg the capture of a journalist or an aid worker for ransom)) and that it never attacks military targets.

How about something like "Over the years bin Laden has been associated with numerous attacks against Soviet, Russian and Western interests and their allies, including attacks which have deliberately caused many civilian casualties." Using "bin Laden" as he is the subject of this article not Al Qaeda and this introduction is meant to cover his life and therefore all of the section "Militant activity" not just that after 9/11 -- PBS (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, we should put in something noting that Al Qaeda also conducts attacks against military targets; however, this is not their principal source of notoriety, and it should be mentioned in a secondary way, rather than giving it prominent billing. Al Qaeda's military attacks are, frankly, small fry compared to the activities of, say, the Tamil Tigers, any of the factions in the various central African civil wars, and so on and so forth.
 * The "Soviet, Russian, and Western" interests overlooks Al Qaeda's violent activities against the mujahedin of northern Afghanistan, their involvement in seeking to overthrow the government of Uzbekistan, their role in perpetrating attacks in the Phillipines, Indonesia, western China, North Africa, their violent enmity for India (a bleedover of their closeness with LeT), their history with the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, their role in perpetuating sectarian killing against Shiites in Pakistan, et cetera. To characterize them as a primarily anti-Western organization would thus be inaccurate (IIRC, some scholars in the field prefer "anti-modern," but that's used in a very specific academic way and could be misleading for the general reader). To call them "militantly Islamic" would be accurate but fall short of the mark, since a good deal of their killing is directed at other Muslims (in fact, that constitutes the majority of their targets to date, and the majority of their victims), and might give a misleading view of the content of their activities. The precise ideological pedigree of Al Qaeda is an interesting question, dating back to variants of the Salafi strain of Islamic reformers, merged with other extreme strains of Wahabi Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia, mixed in with a good dose of borrowing from Arab nationalism, communism, and fascism.
 * Sorry, I got a bit far afield. Anyhow, my basic point is that they and bin Laden are best known for their mass casualty attacks, and those should receive primary billing. Ray (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." (see WP:LEAD). This is a biography article about Osama bin Laden it is not an article about Al Qaeda or groups that claim an affiliation with Al Qaeda. An important an large part of his life took place before 2001. At the moment the introduction is not balanced, the current wording "implies that Al Qaeda it has ONLY been associated with "mass casualty attacks against civilian targets" and that it has not been associated with attacks on civilians that did not result in mass casualties (whether that was because the attack failed or it was a more specific attack (eg the capture of a journalist or an aid worker for ransom)) and that it never attacks military targets." I'm open to suggestions on how the introduction can be improved. -- PBS (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose a text. We can work on it. I see us as being in disagreement over the applicability of the word terrorist to Al Qaeda, but broadly in agreement that the introductory section can use some cleanup, to describe Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda's secondary activities when not committing mass casualty attacks on civilian populations, or planning/failing to do the same. Ray (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed lead
OK there is a rough draft of the lead that "serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic.". I have tried to write a paragraph on each of the main sections in the article. Please edit it to improve it. --PBS (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much to PBS for a much more coherent intro :) I've taken his version and made some edits to it, below.

Here's a slightly altered version. Mainly I made the title section more punchy, loading in the causes of his notability and moving his family data to a secondary section. Some stylistic edits/chops follow, with an expansion of his activities during the 1990s (specifically, Al Qaeda's scope at this period was global, although their successes were few), and a mention of the embassy bombings, which first brought the organization to public prominence. Further stylistic edits follow; I thought the level of narrative detail about Taliban diplomatic situation excessive for a summary style intro-section; similarly, the details on the manhunt are probably best kept in the main article. Feel free to suggest improvements, etc. I am aware that we differ on the appropriateness of mentioning the word terrorist in the opening description of the world's most notorious terrorist; I suggest that if our discussion on that point is to center on old arguments, it be confined to the RFC. Ray (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The first 4 points will not be show stoppers:
 * Swap the second and third paragraphs around.


 * "which first brought the organization to public prominence." in the States. The point you made before about attacks on other countries has been lost, and it now only mentions by name US targets which implies that only the US is an important target.


 * "He returned to Saudi Arabia with many of his fellows in 1990, claiming to have "brought down the mighty superpower" of the Soviet Union." The body of the article does not claim that it was his claim. The other wording is better and more accurate of the general acclaim at the time.


 * "Following the attacks, the Taliban were unwilling to move against him" better to say "unwilling to hand him over to governments which had issued international arrest warrants for him to stand trial under their jurisdiction (ref the interpol warrant)."


 * Now for the difficult one. "... an organization notorious for its terrorist activities worldwide, most famously the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States." is a none neutral point of view. If you insist on getting the word terror into the first paragraph then how about "... an organization that has been involved in attacks worldwide, (the largest of which was the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, for which there are outstanding international warrants for bin Laden's arrest on criminal and terrorist charges".

--PBS (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'll discuss point by point, and then follow with yet another revision which I hope will be more agreeable.
 * 1) As for swapping the second and third paragraphs, why? I don't object, you understand, it just seems that if we want to be chronological following the first paragraph, the current ordering is to be preferred.
 * 2) If you think that the embassy bombings were not the first major attack by Al Qaeda, we can remove that sentence. However, I have not lost track of Al Qaeda's other attacks; that they conduct attacks "worldwide" and sponsor terrorist activities "globally" is prominently mentioned.
 * 3) As far as the wording relating to his return to Saudi Arabia, there were three quibbles that were responsible for my original edit. The first is factual; I do not think that Osama was the recognized leader among the returning Arab Afghans as of 1991, merely a more prominent member of a group. The second is that the Arab Afghans, although connected, were nowhere near as organized as the word "legion" would imply (i.e. there was no military command structure, nor formal oaths of allegiance, as bind Al Qaeda today). I think you're right that Osama did not make such a claim; please see the revised language below.
 * 4) The distinction on the Taliban issue is mostly a stylistic one. I prefer sentences which are shorter and more succinct in summary sections. A precise discussion of his legal status seems to be overly involved. Why do you prefer the earlier version?
 * 5) On the final point, I do not see where there is a lack of neutrality in the description. The word notorious implies that they are famous and that the fame does not generally carry a wholly positive association; I think that is a dry and fairly neutral description of their reputation. Their reputation does spring from terrorist activities worldwide, as terrorism is generally understood. I have not applied the word terrorist to the organization itself, but rather to a certain famous subset of their activities, a description that I do not think any honest speaker of English would care to deny. That being said, I've tried to make some changes in the section below, please check on the new language. I maintain the hope that constant permutation of language may lead us to a mutually acceptable version while sidestepping what may be irreconciliable philosophical viewpoints.

As always, further comments, copyedits, etc., are welcome. Ray (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I was confused between the version I meant place: "Bin Laden believes that the restoration of Sharia law will set things right in the Muslim world, and that all other ideologies—"pan-Arabism, socialism, communism, democracy"—must be opposed."

as the second paragraph.

"If you think that the embassy bombings were not the first major attack by Al Qaeda, we can remove that sentence." It is not if they were the first major attacks (like you I read the English language press) it is the weight it gives to US targets in the introduction. Initially you listed lots of other targets, to show that this was more than a US problem. Over emphasising the US also presents the POV that somehow Wikipedia considers American targets and American people are worth more than other people.

Point three, then alter the body of the article, but the point ought to to be made is that he was considered at that time (1989) to be hero and freedom fighter by many. "he became a fully fledged celebrity ... the Arab media had picked up on this extraordinary figure and eulogised his effort" and "Arab Legion" seems to be in quite a few sources.. As it is an opinion it really should be attributed, but there are plenty of sources for that as I have just shown.

"Al-Qaeda is the major target of the United States' War on Terrorism." this is an article on bin Laden, this sentence is not needed in the lead as Al-Qaeda is not the focus of the article.

All the last points revolve around the same problem you seem unable to see that using the term terrorist in the narrative voice of the article is presenting information in a none neutral point of view. Why do you want to do that when the point can be made easily without introducing such a deliberate bias? --PBS (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree there is too much weight given to the attacks on the U.S. in the proposed lead.
 * "If you think that the embassy bombings were not the first major attack by Al Qaeda, we can remove that sentence." It is not if they were the first major attacks (like you I read the English language press) it is the weight it gives to US targets in the introduction. Initially you listed lots of other targets, to show that this was more than a US problem. Over emphasising the US also presents the POV that somehow Wikipedia considers American targets and American people are worth more than other people.
 * Yes, bin Laden does appear to have assisted attacks on civilian and security targets in Egypt and Algeria (providing financing), but those attacks are associated with GIA (Algeria) or Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Egypt), not with his group Al Qaeda; whereas the embassy attacks and 9/11 are closely associated with bin Laden. 9/11 was one of the major world news events of the last few decades. The same cannot be said of giving money to EIJ and GIA.


 * This is not a case of POV and of suggesting that "somehow Wikipedia considers American targets and American people are worth more than other people". --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Two points. This is a discussion on bin Laden not Al Qaeda. The lead is meant to be a stand alone summary of the content of the article. The summary I put together was based on the rest of the article the section "Early attacks and aid for attacks" does not mention the embassy bombings (They are mentioned in the section on criminal charges). It is not a question of bias but a question of presentation. If all that is mentioned in the lead are attacks on American interests then some will read this article and conclude that it has an American bias--In the same way it would look like an English bias if in the lead of an article Martin McGuinness one only mention bombing in England (while not mentioning NI) and justifying it because the London bombings are better known and the financial cost of just one large bomb in London was more than 10,000 incidents in NI put together. The second point is that higher up this section Ray suggested that we mention that bin Laden is a menace to other states with his comment that starts "I agree, ... The "Soviet, Russian, and Western" interests overlooks Al Qaeda's violent activities against the mujahedin of northern Afghanistan, their involvement in seeking to overthrow the government of Uzbekistan, ..." --PBS (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

INTRO: "masterminding"
While a dictionary definition of mastermind might seem to allow the characterization "masterminding," the general understanding / connotations of that word do not fit. Note, e.g., that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is distinguished as the "mastermind":
 * The 9/11 Commission (caption on page 148, and the list of names, p 436)
 * Bush admin spokesperson Perino correcting a journalist for calling Bin Laden the "mastermind of 9/11".

(This is not a matter of diminishing bin Laden's culpability, but rather avoiding a misleading characterization.)

Does there need to be another word? "Organizing?" (Not enough, and still a bit misleading.) "Authorizing?" (Better, but perhaps not the right tone.) Perhaps none is needed.

I.E., I have removed the word. (The characterization was added at the end of last month diff without discussion but documented in the edit summary.) '''Comments? Questions?''' Proofreader77 (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)