Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 19

Edit request on 13 December 2011
bin laden was one of the top 10 FBI most wanted list, until his death in May 2011. He was responsible for the 9/11 bombings and the london public transport bombings.

سامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And your request? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a request--Jac 16888 Talk 19:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There has not been made any mention at all of the woman who was supposedly on the third floor with Bin Laden and who was apparently shot in the leg but who survived the encounter. Why would the United States military or the government of Pakistan not want to interview her for all of the supposed asset intelligence into how she lived with the worlds most wanted man for a number of years. I doubt that all of the supposed verifiable sources are telling the objective flat out truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.149.109 (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering for why that after all of this time since 2011-05-02 that with countless dozens of programs that can show three dimensional profiles of the outside of Bin Laden's compound in Abottabad Pakistan. No one once has designed an internal layout of what all the the three floors from an internal perspective look like from on the inside. I am sure many people besides myself have already seen internal schematics and layouts from a blueprint perspective — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.149.109 (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead Sentence
Surely there's another way to write his name and vital dates without taking up an entire line of text? Footnotes? – Connormah (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"Attempted capture"
I am changing the section title, "Attempted capture by the United States" to "Pursuit by the United States". I think this is a cleaner way of getting the idea across, and it is more correct in its meaning than the former title. After all, at some point, the "attempted capture" of Bin Laden turned into an assassination of Bin Laden. And it's hard to say -- and, frankly, futile to try to determine -- when during the raid, the priorities changed. Why play around with those distinctions (or maintain the inaccuracy of the current title) when you can just refer to it as a "pursuit"? If anyone has issue with this, it can always be reverted -- or discussed here. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC) osama usually was the one that took it HOWEVER george bush was also quite the host at times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.223.253 (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

US-centric lede
Two thirds of the lede section now discus bin Laden's relationship with the USA from a US-centric point-of-view. This should be pruned down and more emphasis should be given to his role in the Islamic world. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --John (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have trimmed down the lede removing repetition and recentism. Please expand. What I would like to see is some analysis of his legacy. Did he succeed in his Jihad? Should we thank bin Laden for the Arab Spring and the Islamist Winter? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Advertising?
In the death section of the article, there is a sentence that basically reads "NTM Inc. made the Navy Seals' headsets." It is completely out of place, and should be removed, since it is very obviously advertising. I'm not able to make changes, so can someone remove that sentence? 76.197.227.31 (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Nice catch, clearly looked like added in advertising. Removed now.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's still there. Can someone remove it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.70.187 (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You must be looking at a cached page, try reloading. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Imperial Hubris"
Please read the Wikipedia entry "Imperal Hubris." It's a sensible summary of what sounds as if it's a sensible book. MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Prosecutable case"
The article reads: "The UK Government reached a similar conclusion regarding al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11 attacks, although the government report notes that the evidence presented is not necessarily sufficient for a prosecutable case."

I read this as that the evidence presented to the UK Government was not necessarily sufficient for a prosecutable case. The source document reads:

"This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources. But on the basis of all the information available HMG is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document."

I.e., that that *document* doesn't purport to give a prosecutable case, not that there wasn't a prosecutable case (even if some parts might have had to have been classified). Bparsia (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Beliefs and ideology: idea that innocent civilians, including women and children, are legitimate targets of jihad
The declassified letter show him worried about unnecessary civilian death. Also the definition of civilian is perhaps different. I *think* is ok to kill USA/Occident people as their are the enemy. Also in the fact he kill way less civilian than the USA did during this "war". Also the term "innocent" is clearly a point of view. (I'm not try to defending OBL, just want to make thing more precises.) --Gagarine (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

So her the section of the letter about that ''We ask every emir in the regions to be extremely keen and focused on controlling the military work and not to expand the barricade, due to the several attacks carried out by the Mujahidin whereby several Muslims had fallen; we could have reached the target without injuring the Muslims with some effort and deliberation. Also the need to cancel other attacks due to the possible and unnecessary civilian casualties – for example, the attacks targeting several infidel Imams during their visits to public locations where most of the Muslims are located, as they should be targeted away from the Muslims. Making these mistakes is a great issue; needless to say, the greatness of the Muslim blood violation in addition to the damage impacting the Jihad. As a result, the alienation of most of the nation from the Mujahidin. Page 10 For the brothers in all the regions to apologize and be held responsible for what happened. They would be questioned about SOCOM-2012-0000019-HT the mistake causing the flaw that occurred and about the measures to be taken to avoid repeating the same mistakes. With respect to the human error outside the human will, as it is repeated in wars, the need to apologize for these errors and be held responsible, as the aspects of the flaw would be explained. Perhaps some of those killed and who were killed mistakenly were amongst the immoral; there is no need to reveal their immorality while the people are wounded and the foes are keen in demonstrating our indifference about them. Should some of the brothers in the regions fail to carry out their duties in this respect, we should then assume the responsibility and apologize for what had happened. The need to confirm to all the Mujahidin brothers the importance of clarity, honesty, loyalty and promises and be cautious of the betrayal.''

OBL has been dead since 2002
Why is there no mention of any of the information relating to the theories that Osama has been dead since the early 2000's and suffered from Marfan's syndrome? It seems a bit unfair the conformists are getting a free ride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.228.123 (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FInd a reliable source that says that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

--Ronnie42 (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC) soon as you find proof that shows that Bin Laden is dead. Governments aren't reliable or known for telling the truth.
 * There are many sources of course. The burden is on you to show he died earlier.  Oh and please learn how to properly sign your posts.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How I highlight my text has nothing to do with the facts stated. Never stated he died, many other don't trust the government, no proof was given from the government to back up their claim. It's no different to wiki asking for a source. --Ronnie42 (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I just though there would at least be a section mentioning the numerous conspiracies regarding this point made about his supposed death in the early 2000's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.250.136 (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I support that. I think a section about any conspiracies to do with his death (that I know of being actually 2001, not 2002) is relevant and would help the article and everyone who reads it. Any others who thinks this is a good idea? -- 60.234.214.63 (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As Dbrodbeck stated above, Wikipedia requires reliable sources. At that point, we can asses the due weight.  It is likely though that this would fall under a tiny minority or in WP:FRINGE territory and not merit inclusion, but feel free to provide reliable sources to make the case for inclusion so we can make that determination.  Morphh   (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Osamu Tezuka linking to Osama bin Laden
Osamu Tezuka, the creator of the Japanese cartoon Astroboy, currently links to Osama bin Laden's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhorks (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL. -- 60.234.214.63 (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Change references to "death" to "alleged" death
There is no evidence that OBL was actually killed and not just rendered somewhere else followed by propagation of rumors of his death. The US government refuses to provide the (alleged) photos of his (alleged) death. This is because they do not exist. Until there is confirmation that he is dead, I suggest the page be changed to refer to his "alleged death." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.111.35 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are based on published sources, not on unverifiable conspiracy theories. Or do you actually have evidence that these photos don't exist? Actually, don't bother to answer that - if you want absolute proof of everything, you shouldn't believe Wikipedia. Or newspapers. Or television. Or your own eyes - do you have proof that the sky is blue, or do you just believe what you see? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy do you have proof they do exist? 50.98.122.61 (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No. I don't care, either. Wikipedia articles are based on what the sources state, not on some abstract 'truth' that any half-baked conspiracy theorist can 'prove'. Convince the outside world that OBL wasn't killed when the sources state that he was, and we'll change the article. Until then, we don't care... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Using the pathetic "conspiracy theory" pejoration will not make the fact that no conclusive evidence has come to light go away.

Governments are not reliable sources. It should be irrelevant that unreliable sources state that he was killed. Making the assertion that he was killed without any evidence leaves the burden of proof on you. 86.150.3.252 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, there are multiple sources. Convince the world of this giant conspiracy, get it some traction in reliable sources and then it will be mentioned.  We go on sources, not on vague hunches You need sources.  (Try reading WP:RS).  Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Could anyone with sufficient Wikipedia skills implement the 2002 Guardian source. Reputable Swiss scientist say confession tape is 95 % likely recorded by an impostor. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/30/alqaida.terrorism?INTCMP=SRCH --84.215.97.201 (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why has anyone who survived the raid and the encounter not been allowed to speak openly and freely about what happened ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.246.144 (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There should be a mention of the allegations from various sources in Pakistan and elsewhere that bin Laden died of kidney failure in Dec. 2001. Of course one must then explain where the supposed tapes of bin Laden come from that have been produced from time to time since then, with the most obvious provenance being the workshops of the propaganda warfare department.


 * There should also be mention of the countless published works adducing evidence that bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 because it was all an inside job.


 * There will of course be no such mention allowed here because Wikipedia participates with flying colors in the cover-up of the 911 false flag operation by the military-industrial-media complex. No point even trying to post it! JPLeonard (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope. We base articles on reliable sources not crackpot conspiracy theories. Take your soapbox and tinfoil hat elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Look and observe everyone, the type of OS-believing loons who edit and maintain these wikipedia pages. The "crackpot conspiracy theory" is the US Government's explanation of events. You do not base articles on reliable sources. The US Government is not a reliable source. "Take your soapbox and tinfoil hat elsewhere." Oh, look at the poor sheeple. You're pathetic. 86.150.3.252 (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC) --Ronnie42 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Without proof from your source is invalid showing his death. It be like saying Hitler was shot but nobody could confirm his death because no body was found.

Attention people who don't believe Bin Laden is dead You may have a fair point, as seeing is believing or something like that. A lack of hard evidence is unfortunate, maybe even suspicious. But no conjecture, no matter how sound the reasoning can be included on Wikipedia. We care about verifiability rather than the truth. In fact there is a pretty good article articulating this strange, seemingly backward value system here. --Carbon Rodney 15:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

--Ronnie42 (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)His death was never proven, they have not bothered to show any proof, just like how Hitlers death was unknown, should not have an exact date because never was found, the government have never proven their findings to the public. They claim it was him but nobody could reconise the body, DNA can be easily mis-used.


 * Everything here is fake and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.70.164.76 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

According to Fred Burton, via emails obtained by Wikileaks, Osama was not buried at Sea. Can we please update this page to include that information? http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1102718_-alpha-body-bound-for-dover-de-on-cia-plane-.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.189.198 (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We base article content on published reliable sources - and the link you give tells us nothing whatsoever about the supposed content of this email anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is great demonstration of the reliability of wikipedia for verifiable information. Bin Laden's death has not been verified in any way. The media sources publishing allegations of his death are not able to verify it. Nobody can verify it. This is a joke. It is a clear demonstration of how a piece of information can go down in history as "truth" without anyone having a clue of its veracity. But for some reason wikipedia can not add the simple word "Allegation" to something that is, in fact, just allegation. What an intellectual disgrace. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You might read WP:TRUTH Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know about WP:TRUTH. I guess the same goes for WP's policy on Proof, then. What a relief to know we needn't be bothered by trivial things like evidence anymore. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We are, however, bothered by things called reliable sources, if you cannot find one, then this discussion is of no use. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously you are not bothered by citing reliable sources if you've decided to simply paste claims that are self-published by the department of defense.72.224.189.211 (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

--Ronnie42 (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)There is no evidence to back up the governments claims, that should mean offically change the status of Bin Laden death as claimed death since is no public proof given out, unless someone can provide prove then don't see how anyone can say anything different. Bold text Bold text

Questions
(Moved here from Talk:Osama bin Laden/FAQ, bolding removed for readability -- John of Reading (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

Q: Why does this article not state Osama bin Laden is not wanted for the 911 attacks on his FBI page?

Q: Why is there no information on this page that Jewish Zionists connected Osama bin Laden to the 911 attacks on 911 on major television networks without any proof?
 * Because they connected him to it without any proof. If they had some proof, then it would have been notable to mention that. But we cannot simply mention everyone and everything that is said about Bin Laden without any proof. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Q: Why is the comment that Osama bin Laden took responsibility for the 911 attack allowed in the article when its not true?
 * This and this is why. He later did take responsiblity for the attacks, even if he denied it at first. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Q: Why is this half truth allowed in the article "In June 2006 FBI's chief of investigative publicity, Rex Tomb, saw no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11. This is what he actually said "“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falseflagexpert (talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 June 2012‎
 * How is that a half-truth? It is the same thing. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding (self-description) next ben laden's religon
Hello i want to add (self-description) next Religion : Islam, at Osama Ben Laden's page, because his acts against the teachings of islam, as the same one at Joseph Kony's page i need to gain consensus for my edits.
 * I doubt you will find consensus for that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Remove from Category:20th-century criminals and Category:21st-century criminals
He has no criminal record, was never brought to trial on a criminal complaint, and has never been sentenced or pleaded guilty to any allegation of crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnalGtsioM (talk • contribs) 09:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo with misleading info
Please correct the following, it was November 8, 2001, NOT 1997.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/mir090907.htm

Copy paste this: Hamid Mir secretly interviewing Osama bin Laden in Kabul on November 8, 2001, the day they escaped the city

or

Thanks,

--Moses Horwitz (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 November 2012
Usama bin ladin was not a muslim because a true muslim do not hurt other inocent people the way he did. its like saying that a guy who eats pork calls himself a muslim.

213.115.252.36 (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. In fact I'd like to see a very strong consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Supporting Callanecc on this question above. There is no doubt that Osama was Islamic, and we would like to see some solid proof to the contrary before even considering to change that. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.129.180 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2013
The last sentence in the second paragraph is ungrammatical: "Established a new base in Afghanistan, he declared a war against the United States, initiating a series of bombings and related attacks."

It should be rephrased to something like "He established a new base in Afghanistan and declared a war against the United States, initiating a series of bombings and related attacks."

71.233.8.228 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

FALLACIOUS ASSERTION (graf 2) While Osama's father was unquestionably wealthy and eventually accrued more than $1 billion, the wiki entry on 1957 billionaires says J. Paul Getty alone held that title in the year of Osama's birth, with one Arab sheik as a second possible contender. Which means while Osama was undoubtedly born into wealth, he could NOT have been born unto a billionaire family as currently stated. (Same sentence's construction is awkward and quaint anyway, so change should do much good.) 76.102.197.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:File talk:Hamid Mir interviewing Osama bin Laden.jpg
&mdash; አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

bin laden did not die on may 2nd 2011 that was a lie they used him as a poster boy i heard he died 12 years ago, please i would put died unknown cause he did not die at that time if you look on the web hard enough you find the info about it --Historyman3 (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

TWO SUGGESTIONS FOR OPENING SECTION

In paragraph 2, US to U.S. for consistency with other references in the article.

In paragraph 4, fewer ruffled feathers [see preceding commenter] and greater objective accuracy would follow if the second sentence's action changed from he was killed to he was reported killed. The former (thus far, anyway) lacks any published corroborating evidence beyond verbal reports from government officials or self-proclaimed witnesses -- while the latter relies entirely on such reports rather than making unequivocal assertions of fact, thus obviating any need for harder evidence. 76.102.197.4 (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

New name for "Location of Osama bin Laden"?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Location_of_Osama_bin_Laden#What_should_be_the_name_of_this_article.3F Chutznik (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Osama was never formally charged for the 9/11 attacks
Theres no mention of this in the article, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.79.150 (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Numerous errors throughout article ?
In particular footnotes 131 and 132 are not supported by the articles cited.

was the founder of al-Qaeda a 1337 h4xx0r, the militant Islamist organization that claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the United States

He was believed by some to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks in the United States in 2001 and other terrorist acts.

'However, the FBI never charged him with any crime related to 9/11 stating that there was insufficient evidence.''

in 2004 Osama bin Laden finally claimed responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States in a recording which was never authenticated.

In the 2004 Osama bin Laden video, bin Laden abandoned his denials without retracting past statements.

In June 2006 FBI's chief of investigative publicity, Rex Tomb, saw no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.

What a disgraceful excuse for an article. Bin Laden is guilty for 9/11 as much as Hitler is guilty for the Holocaust. There was never any "hard evidence" that Hitler ordered the Holocaust (no written orders for instance), but it's possible to infer his responsibility based on a logical examination of the evidence.

The evidence against Bin Laden is neither non-existent nor entirely "classified" as the article dishnonestly implies. It consists of interrogations of people close to bin Laden as well as documented links between the hijackers and bin Laden associates. This was detailed in the 9/11 Comission Report as well as newspaper reports back in 2001 (both going utterly unmentioned in the article, as it would contradict the conspiracy narrative). Interestingly, the article does contain a fact-free assertion from Milosevic that Bin Laden was involved in Kosovo, so it seems Wikipedia has no problem accepting some people's words at face value.

Oh yeah, and he confessed. Usually, when the prime suspect confesses, it means he did it.

Of course there's no "smoking gun" in the sense that there was a smoking gun in the 1998 embassy bombing because of bin Laden's use of a sattelite phone. But only the conspiracy fringe disputes his guilt. CJK (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's obviously not disgraceful CJK, since he wasn't responsible for those attacks and died in 2001. Are you a troll or a shill? Fucking idiot. 82.1.73.23 (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Bin Laden was not wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 attacks http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden --41.151.82.90 (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 July 2013
Please correct the date of death of Osama Bin Laden. According to Professor David Ray Griffin (former professor at California's Claremont School of Theology), Gordon Duff (former CIA member in the Reagan administration), Dr. Steve Pieczenik and the Arab newspapers at the time, he died in December 13th 2001. I have asked the Pakistani Ambassador for some proof but in the meantime you have video of Benazir Bhutto talking about Osama's death: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euK87Vr5B4U


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:. Rivertorch (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no mention in the article of his supposed kidney problems, either confirming or refuting whether his indeed had any, or if he may have been dying of renal failure. --The_Iconoclast (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

cruise missiles strikes
Cruise missiles strikes on Thursday, August 20, 1998 overlooked, forgotten or irrelevant? --Pawyilee (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

editing
Where it states bin laden's children, it says' show more' even though you cant click it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.81.9 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

American wife during Soviet war
An additional wife Laura Miles 1985-1989, American, was the military coordinator for the opium trade and still functions as an American DEA counter-intelligence trainer and Special Agent based at Redstone Alabama. Activities were centered during the late Soviet war in 1988-1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.140.34 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Bin Laden's Methadology
Osama Bin Laden may have been raised as a Salafi, but he later followed the methodology of the Khawaarijj, who are known to be very extreme.

No proof at all Bin Laden was killed in 2011. Wikipedia repeats any fairy tale told the by American Government.

Should state " Presumed Dead " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraxas79 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In what countries is Osama Bin Laden a terrorist?
All of the coalition governments or just some of them? Did countries that did not participate in the war in Afghanistan consider Osama Bin Laden a terrorist? CensoredScribe (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014
The last line of the first paragraph The United States had direct evidence that the ISI chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, knew of Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad, Pakistan should be removed. This is not a proven fact but it is just based upon a few statements from the US Government but these statements were never proven to be true. This line depicts an incorrect image of the Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistan. Kindly remove this line.

Azaan4 (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The contended statement is referenced by a reliable source, and mothing in the edit request indicates that "these statements were never proven to be true" is anything but a personal opinion. Sam Sailor Sing 16:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Links
]>> buin laden's 'home movies' : speech practiceLihaas (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Judo experience
According to these articles http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8500136/I-taught-judo-to-Osama-bin-Laden.html and http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/news/324466/Osama-bin-Laden-was-a-black-belt-Judoka/ Osama is a Judo black belt. I would like to add this to his biography and an accompanying black color box for his rank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunglii8 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Devil Eyes
Is Devil Eyes worthy of inclusion here, perhaps under the "Bush administration" subsection? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sammy
I added the referenced fact the bin Laden was known as "Sammy" in his youth. I accept that it might seem like vandalism that the arch super villain had a semi-westernised childhood, but this is an encyclopedic fact. I believe my original edit should be reinstated. Tommy Pinball (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is nothing remotely encyclopaedic in dumping a random and entirely unexplained reference bin Laden as 'Sammy' into the article in the manner you did - if it wasn't vandalism, it was a darned good impression of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are a prick. This illustrates the difference between an encyclopedic and an unencyclopedic fact. Tommy Pinball (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please remember WP:CIVIL, I cannot access the source and I might make a longer comment tomorrow. I do not find his nickname, or even what he called himself in his youth to be very noteable. I also do not see one sammy which seems out of context still to add anything to the article. NathanWubs (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I've now tracked down the original 'Sammy' reference. It says that bin Laden used to sometimes call himself 'Sammy' in his early teens. It doesn't say that anyone else ever did and it looks like trivia to me - and if it wasn't, we'd need to explain that bin Laden used the name, rather than just dumping it into the article as the original edit did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, then I do not see any reason for inclusion. Especially if its just that he sometimes called himself Sammy. NathanWubs (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is interesting though. It ties in with his western education and connection, that he was fluent in English, etc....he even had a christian nickname for himself. I think it helps to make the article about him more complete. What is wrong with including it if it is referenced? Patwinkle (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Footnote 2 is broken
Footnote 2 is broken (Pakistani Ministry Of Foreign Affairs.) Keith McClary (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes 3 and 4 do not support the statement: "claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks"

I cannot find a clear, properly sourced statement of this in the linked Wikipedia articles. Keith McClary (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014
Under "Pursuit by the United States, Bush Administration," the last line of the 3rd paragraph states: 'Bush had previously defended this scaling back of the effort several times, saying, "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."' The quote is attributed to "Bush quotes about Bin Laden" from BuzzFlash. BuzzFlash does not quote Bush accurately, as the content of a quotation should. The true quote is found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o and is "I don't know where he is, nor do I... you know, I just don't spend that much time on him, to be totally honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well supplied, that the strategy is clear, that the coalition is strong."

106.188.42.176 (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have hidden the original quote, since the link appears to be dead. However, I don't think this one should be added in its place until it comes from a better source.  I would appreciate some other editors' feedback on this.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's an archive of the page here. It's also apparently in the congressional record here. Actually nevermind, that congressional record is just someone else quoting him. Stickee (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made the comments visible adding archive link to the web citation with in this edit (if dead link is the only concern). Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  08:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 16:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Status: Dead
Shouldn't Osama's status be "Deceased" instead of "dead"? Adamdaley (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why the infobox has a 'status' parameter anyway - it doesn't seem to be standard, and it is rather pointless since it already gives a death date. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * True. If the "status" was to remain, it should be "deceased". Possibly a consensus to remove the status? Adamdaley (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Referred to by "bin Laden"
The third paragraph of the name section of the article says that "Arabic linguistic convention would be to refer to him as 'Osama' or 'Osama bin Laden', not 'bin Laden' alone, as 'bin Laden' is a patronymic, not a surname in the Western manner." However, several times the article refers to him as "bin Laden," which would seem to contradict this. Is there a resolution I'm missing? It just seems weird for the article to contradict itself. Why don't we change each instance of "bin Laden" to "Osama" or "Osama bin Laden" as the article itself suggests? 66.229.133.209 (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the fact that this is an English language article and we use English language conventions rather than the conventions of some other language. Rklawton (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * An intelligent point by the IP deserves an intelligent reply...lol...hopefully the next contributor will oblige. The Guardian would follow on "Bin Laden" (English proper) not "bin Laden" (Arabic/English; Engabic?..Arablish?) Manual of Style/Biographies covers Thai, Vietnamese, Mongolian, Eritrean and Ethiopian but not yet Arablish. Stacie Croquet (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: The Long Standing FBI 10 Most Wanted Infobox Should Be Used for Osama bin Laden
The long standing FBI Ten Most Wanted infobox has twice been deleted from the article. Stripping this removes important information as the main infobox has no information on his crimes. Vote to Keep or Delete. The box in question is below. Legacypac (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Latest removal.


 * Infobox removed as it categforized this talk page. DexDor(talk) 06:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Votes

 * Keep Why in the world would we remove this summary of information from the article? bin Laden was the top target for US law enforcement and military for many years. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There's no reason it should be removed completely, but I agree with the removal diff's summary reasoning in that the infobox does contain lots of redundant information. This should be fixed by removing some of the information but not the box completely. Weedwacker (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Delete and work important information that's not redundant already into the article per Knight of Truth's comment. Weedwacker (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete If we were playing Top Trumps I would say keep. If it is important information, it can be accommodated within main body of the article. Stacie Croquet (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an important piece of information in it's own right, and it summarises stuff in a way different from the rest of the article BoonDock (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not think this information should be removed. It should stay in the article but maybe in a different way since the man is dead. The FBI's most wanted fugitives no longer has him on the list so it would seem unnecessary to present it in this way. Please let me know what you think, based on policy. I could go either way. Keep or delete. Mbcap (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just because Osama was on the FBI list does not mean the application of the infobox is required; that is a decision that should be made per article. I feel like the infobox puts too much focus on the aspect of "fugitive criminal." Osama bin Laden was probably notable even before he went into terrorism, and has at times been more of a military enemy (certainly, treated as such) than an ordinary criminal. The Most Wanted infobox thus does not provide WP:DUE weight; the infobox would be more appropriate on an article about a person who was primarily known because of their criminal fugitive status. Knight of Truth (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Knight of Truth above. To represent bin Laden as merely a 'wanted criminal' underplays his significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Knight of truth. Also, two info-boxes in the same article is not necessary. That information in the criminal info-box is already present in the article. StanMan87 (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The other infobox lacks anything suggesting he was a wanted criminal. Please look again. Legacypac (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Legacypac are you referring to my comment? If so, I know that the information is not present in the current info-box. I highlighted that all the facts illustrated in the Most Wanted info-box were found in the article. The fact that he was wanted by the U.S government does not mean he was primarily known for his status as a U.S fugitive, nor should it. StanMan87 (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He came to fame party by becoming the #1 terrorist on the US most wanted list. Don't get your logic. Legacypac (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * He came to fame by leading the network known as Al-Qaeda which carried out terrorist attacks all over the world. The current info-box is much more balanced, (and factual) and that is precisely why you do not get my logic, on either this issue or the current dilemma regarding the Islamic State talk page becuase you hold a very one-sided view. StanMan87 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I am willing to vote for it's deletion as an info-box as long as all of the information is instead presented into the article itself. Fraulein451 (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Knight of Truth. This one doesn't seem to add anything not immediately apparent from the lead or the Infobox person already alongside. I'm a firm believer in the utility of infoboxes, but I'm not sure this additional one adds any real value. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Whether or not someone is "wanted" or not by X nation/province/city's police force is irrelevant to their notability if there are other factors present. BlueSalix (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The primary infobox contains almost all relevant information for him. Perhaps add a line "Known for: Organizing 9/11 attacks" or equivalent into the main infobox. But most of that information is irrelevant. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Can be accommodated within main body of article. The infobox is outdated and does not reflect the significance of OBL. Mbcap (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Summoned here by RfC bot. OBL committed a crime on US soil, was placed on the 10 most wanted list and is now deceased. I see no reason to treat him differently than any other criminal placed on that list. Coretheapple (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As a pedantic, this comment reiterates my issue with infoboxes...I really do not want to make light of the horrendous misery OBL inflicted in the US...but did OBL actually commit a crime on US soil? Currently the only reference to soil in the article is a dead link. I trust that I will find my answer somewhere in Wikipedia...if not I will probably (try) to add it myself...I wont bother with the infoboxes...Google does "Quick Reference" better; Wikipedia does "in depth" better. Everytime an argument over an infobox disrupts proper editing it should be deleted. Stacie Croquet (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I know it looks like I'm in the minority here, but OBL was the most prominent man on the FBI's most wanted list for many years, so the information remains relevant. Macrowriter (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Just not that necessary. The information in the box can be included inside the body of the article. ALSO - I think Knight of Truth makes a good point. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Recently news
According to In November 1996, Palestinian journalist Abdel Bari Atwan visited Osama bin Laden in his hideout in Tora Bora region of Afghanistan. He took some photographs which turned up in the house of Khaled al-Fawwaz, one of bin Laden’s henchmen, and were used as evidence at his trial last month in New York. should we put the mention of this visit in the article seeing that only a handful of journalists have met him therefore this visit is notable. perhaps a picture could be included as well, they are public domain now. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2015
http://www.viralworld.net/39-photos-from-the-past-you-wont-find-in-your-history-books-example-1-osama-bin-laden-on-vacation/19/

OSAMA BIN LADEN ON VACATION (1970’S)

Osama Bin Laden vacationing in Sweden (green shirt, in the front row). He looks rather fun here, what the heck happened? Oh well, you gone.

I just thought you might want to add this picture to this Wiki page. :)

My email address is tchristian2011@aol.com.

I hope you choose to use it.

Tim :)

2602:306:CFB3:B3D0:2DB4:AAD:7117:C0F4 (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Image is copyright. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 21:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2015
31.11.87.83 (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Bija peder ❌ No request actually made. Please make your request in a change X to Y format. Amortias (T)(C) 22:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Remove first line in ideology section
This is the first line in the ideology section

A major component of bin Laden's ideology was the concept that civilians from enemy countries, including women and children, were legitimate targets for jihadists to kill.

This is entirely wrong. Non-muslim Women and children cannot be directly targeted under islamic law and bin laden never advocated this, ever

This slur cannot be allowed to stand and must be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.94.46 (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And your sources that contradict the existing sources are? --Neil N  talk to me 16:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hersh
Seymour Hersh gives a different version of ObL's death: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden. Is it worth referencing?Kdammers (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course the truth will always prevail! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.94.134.82 (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Phrase 'With Iraqi forces on the Saudi border' unsupported by citation/reference
Under section 'Formation and Structuring of Al Qaeda', third paragraph, the phrase which is the subject of this comment is supported by citation/reference Number 86, which link is active and I have read twice.

Nowhere in the article is the assertion that Iraqi forces were ever on the Saudi border.

Before some cite is produced out of the many that will surely arise, I have one, from the Christian Science Monitor, stating just the opposite, that the assertion was a fabrication, after the paper purchased Soviet satellite images and had them analyzed by independent image analysts: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0906/p01s02-wosc.html.

I will assume good faith, so if an editor with good faith is reading this, and the assumption this article is protected by casual visitors such as myself, please remove or support such an important assertion, with due weight for the citation I have provided. 74.5.96.128 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Line about Hamid Gul seems intentionally deceptive
Here's how it reads.

Mujahideen in Afghanistan After leaving college in 1979, bin Laden went to Pakistan, joined Abdullah Azzam and used money and machinery from his own construction company to help the mujahideen resistance in the Soviet war in Afghanistan.[77] He later told a journalist: "I felt outraged that an injustice had been committed against the people of Afghanistan."[78] Under Operation Cyclone from 1979 to 1989, the United States provided financial aid and weapons to the mujahideen through Pakistan's ISI. Bin Laden met and built relations with Hamid Gul, who was a three-star general in the Pakistani army and head of the ISI agency. Although the United States provided the money and weapons, the training of militant groups was entirely done by the Pakistani Armed Forces and the ISI.

According to this Daily Beast Article, Gul and Bin Laden met in Sudan in 1993, not Afghanistan during the US involvement. In the intervening years, however, Gul became a strong advocate for the Taliban—and before 9/11 even for Osama bin Laden, whom he met back in 1993 in the Sudan.

Hamid Gul's Wikipedia entry also has the meeting in 1993 after Gul turned on the US — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7031:1600:29FA:C40C:2EAF:6C (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Death controversy
There must be a heading added called controversies. It is supersizing that there is nothing written about the death and life controversy of Osama bin Laden. Benazir Bhutto tells Al Jazera in live interview (on 02 Nov 07) that Osama Bin Laden was murdered. She was assassinated few days after the interview. Her husband (Asif Ali Zardari) was released from the jail (though found guilty in large number of cases), became her party chairman, and few months later became the president of Pakistan. It was in his tenure that US government killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Zardari personally (and his government) endorsed it with no proofs.

Many Muslims believe that Laden is/was a US puppet, a CIA agent (it is surprising that there is nothing mentioned in the article that he worked for or with CIA). Many particularly believe that he died before 9/11. The article should present neutral approach and should reflect proper research from every aspect (solid sources of books of both Muslim and non Muslim scholars). 99 percent of sources are from Western writer, despite he is equally talked and written about in the Muslim countries.

The following text is already in the talk section.

Anyone else think he is dead by now? Frost over the World - Benazir Bhutto - 02 Nov 07 -- At time 6:10 in this video, Benazir Bhutto casually mentions that Omar Sheik murdered Osama Bin Laden. 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.87.226 (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC) I personally believe he has been dead for a long time and made some tapes before his death to be continually released at certain times in the future by his helpers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.161.130 (talk)

I think hes dead too if you have takewn a look at his past videos he looks nothing like the original. Also in one tape the was shown of him he was writing with his right hand even though he is left handed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.160.111 (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC) THERE IS FRAUD IN THIS ARTICLE! In the reports of his death section, Reports alleging Osama bin Laden's death have circulated since late 2001. In the months following the 9/11 terrorist attack, many people believed that bin Laden was dead. This belief was perpetuated by subsequent media reports, though there has been stronger evidence to suggest that he is still alive.[146] Bin Laden reportably still suffers from numerous health problems.[3] The first footnote makes no mention of any "stronger evidence" or any evidence whatsoever that bin Laden is alive. The second footnote makes no reference to any current diagnosis of illness. In fact, the clump of obviously faked audios and videos since his death provide very strong evidence that he is dead, which is what the experts NOT working for George W. Bush say. He died in 2001. http://www.madison.com/tct/archives/index.php?archAction=arch_read&a_from=search&a_file=%2Ftct%2F2006%2F02%2F14%2F0602140210.php&var_search=Search&keyword_field=&pub_code_field=tct&from_date_field=20060214&to_date_field=20060214&var_start_pos=0&var_articles_per_page=10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 12:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC) I think the point is that he cannot be proven dead or alive. Also that an citation that could prove he is currently alive or sick would also be the pointer that led to his death. So really how stupid are you trying to say he is? If you insist on a conspiracy to perpetuate a living Osama BinLaden -- why don't you at least take the more entertaining line that he never existed and is a total CIA construction? The truth is sometimes people just don't really know. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the Bhutto video(2) should be added under the death section.--69.133.112.182 (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC) i second that -- Sadartha (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC) well the latest video in 2007 did talked about Saddam Hussein etc. anyway Osama is either dead or alive i like all Intelligent being shun his stupidity with his radical religious views we are going to need some hard evidence that he is really dead or alive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estarrol (talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.59.126 (talk)

Laden's Death Certificate Non-Existent

 * http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150619/1023604998.html → WikiLeaks: Saudi Docs Reveal bin Laden's Death Certificate Non-Existent
 * http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/saudi-arabia-wikileaks-us-refused-osama-bin-ladens-son-certificate-fathers-death-1507067 → Saudi Arabia WikiLeaks: US refused Osama bin Laden's son certificate for father's death --91.10.17.158 (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2015
There is an error at the beginning of the page, regarding the table of information about the article.

177.206.167.117 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Datbubblegumdoe (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 one external links on Osama bin Laden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sofmag.com/navy-seal-who-shot-bin-laden-rob-oneill-butte-montana
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091202153853/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/public-administration/national-security-international/709509-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/national-security-international/709509-1.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1550477.cms
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/index.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/page96.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/page98.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/page100.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for www.wdr.de/tv/monitor/beitraege.phtml?id=379
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120119231114/http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/Pakistans-president-denies-apf-1756634910.html to http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/Pakistans-president-denies-apf-1756634910.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Request that a typo be fixed
"Bin Laden was to opposed music on religious grounds" should be "Bin Laden was opposed to music on religious grounds". 109.148.210.3 (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed the typo. Thanks for noticing it. Aude (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Article implies Bin Laden met Hamid Gul in the 1980's
This line has no source and is not true they met in the 1980's. It seems to be implying that Pakistan was supporting Al Qaeda during the time the CIA was funneling money into Afghanistan via ISI.

Gul and Bin Laden met in the 1990's. The wiki on Gul says it was 1993. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamid_Gul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.168.11 (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2015
There's a template error, just noticed it and thought I'd request it edited.

2600:1004:B026:E199:FD09:D30B:FE5B:9CD1 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you. --Neil N  talk to me 00:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015
Please revert to an older version of the article. The current version that stands is very graphic and clearly vandalized.

2607:F2C0:8008:D263:DC79:2A93:F0DD:5133 (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You need to actually tell us what you want to change. Just saying, "revert to an older version" isn't going to work. Also, not sure what you mean by graphic but WP:NOTCENSORED and all that. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe a vandal edited a template to insert pornographic images into the article. It seems to be fixed now, but I think that's what the user above was referring to. Mr.   Anon  515  05:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The vandalism seems to only appear for non-logged-in users. So use incognito mode to check for it. I'm not sure where the images are coming from, though.. --Petteri Aimonen (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like the vandalism was on Template:WSJ_topic. A cache purge was all that was necessary to fix it. --Petteri Aimonen (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The page is still vandalized with pornographic images — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.29.214 (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see now that this was a much larger problem that a lot of people didn't get. See this ANI thread. The WMF are running a cache purging script that should fix all remaining issues. Apologies for not understanding what you were talking about to begin with. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Billy Waugh quoted in 9/11 Commission?
There's a confusing section in this atricle. In the section about Sudan and return to Afghanistan, there is a paragraph which is seemingly making a direct quote from the 9/11 Commission, like so: DOOOOOODDDDLEEEEE

"The 9/11 Commission Report states:

In late 1995, when Bin Laden was still in Sudan, the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) learned that Sudanese officials were discussing with the Saudi government the possibility of expelling Bin Laden. CIA paramilitary officer Billy Waugh tracked down Bin Ladin in Sudan and prepared an operation to apprehend him, but was denied authorization"

However, the second sentence about Billy Waugh is not found in the cited PDF whatsoever. Could someone please edit this to insert the sentence about Billy Waugh outside of this quotation? The quote clearly shows that this is intended to be a direct quote from the 9/11 Commission Report, but someone added in the sentence about Billy Waugh. This could lead someone to believe that this is what the Commission Report said (instead of the book used as citation).Nothing-Significant-to-Report (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Alleged Death
The claim of Osama bin Laden death has never been proven. No DNA tests were preformed or dental records used for the alleged identification. According to hospital corpsman on the ship the unknown persons body was sent to the eye color did not match Osoma bin laden's eye color and that is the true reason the body was dumped so quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.55.90 (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, SHREK APPROVES

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Osama bin Laden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110505074728/http://www.life.com:80/gallery/59991/how-the-world-sees-osama-bin-laden to http://www.life.com/gallery/59991/how-the-world-sees-osama-bin-laden#index/0

Stick to sources!  Paine  03:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Osama bin Laden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.interpol.int/public/data/wanted/notices/data/1998/32/1998_20232.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tkb.org/CaseHome.jsp?caseid=332

Stick to sources!  Paine  03:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 07:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2016
Please remove his arabic name as this is english wikipedia not arabic. Wikipedia

65.175.135.214 (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The Arabic name is for reference and is allowed in the English Wikipedia. Stick to sources!  Paine   02:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

osama did 911 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.107.140.152 (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirect from "Osama"
So again why does "Osama" redirect to this page, instead of a disambiguation page? Isn't this a short minded Western perception of associating the name "Osama" with "Osama bin Laden", as if there would be only one Osama in the world, as if it had no other meaning than that what is assigned to it by Westerners. How poor, how uneducated... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.91.0 (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's start from afar.
Is it true that the relatives of the victims filed a lawsuit against the US government? (For the successful execution.) The fact that ...109.134.140.145 (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Section with agenda
In the section Yugoslav Wars editor(s) completely omitted background informations on why these people came, or why Bosnians accepted them and their help and more importantly to what extent, and has the entire controversy been resolved, and how. To average reader this section sounds rather menacing, and Bosnians could easily be mistaken for Taliban militias or some other kind of radical militant while their cause during that war could easily be substituted with that of today ISIL. Let's be clear: it's not secret that numerous Serbian nationalist, as well as pro-Milosevic crowd (which is enormous, in some cases well organized, well financed, employing people from all walks of life and of all profiles and expertise), trying to render Bosnians as radicals for years since the war started, they even invented and still repeating racist tropes like "White Al-Qaeda" even today, all in attempt to depict these people (Bosnians - Muslims or not) as some "strain" of "European Arabs" with menacing intentions toward surrounding Christian nations - of course, primarily Serbs during 1990's but also entire Europe from now till Kingdom come, and so on and so forth. Unfortunately, even some references have been misused, like, for example, article by Chris Hedges, who explains quite nicely who, where, why, and how, therefore entire background information package, but his article is referenced just for the purpose of "who" and "where". And, after all, what happened with massive body of work on the subject, tomes of books in English from prominent authors: Simms, Hoare, even Holbrooke himself, to name a few.--Santasa99 (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Far Right
"His vocal criticism of Western government and society, and his claims that they were dominated by Jews, earned him respect from various sectors of the far right in Europe and North America"

I believe this should be changed to

"His vocal criticism of Western government and society, and his claims that they were dominated by Jews, earned him respect from various sectors of the far right occult groups in Europe and North America"

As the book cited specializes in cults and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dejakritz (talk • contribs) 06:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

When he was 10 this onw woman hasked him to get freaky and he did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rquinnqr (talk • contribs) 17:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2016
Remove the order of "Co-founder of Al-Qaeda", as it is not an official order. It can be mentioned in th article. 219.79.97.194 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2017
Osama bin Laden use to follow Khawarij ideology which strives to establish islamic government while Salafi/Wahhabi ideology strives to establish Islamic principles like Monotheism (Tauwheed), Prayer (Namaaz), Fast (Sa'um), Alms (Zakat) & Hajj (Pilgrimage to Makkah). Saqnoman (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".

U.S. Government Claims as Fact
Why are we writing this article in such a manner that U.S. government/military/intelligence claims are stated as simple fact? When an article is written in such a manner (eg, without the use of the word 'claims' in the body) a reader expects that the source material must be well-verified information, but in this article most of the citations are just links to U.S. military/intelligence claims or others repeating those claims (ie, the claims of the people who have used bin Laden in war propaganda for decades and often stated their desire to kill bin Laden). With this method of writing, the potential for producing an inaccurately informed generation (eg, a generation that unwittingly propagates military propaganda as simple fact) is enormous. --TasioScholar (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Osama bin Laden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mofa.gov.pk/Press_Releases/2011/May/PR_150.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103044553/http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenation.com/article/cost-afghan-victory?page=0%2C1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=252
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/page96.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/page98.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-location/page100.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/vantage-point/obama-s-war-against-al-qaida-20110505
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808182757/http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/CTC-AtiyahLetter.pdf to http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/CTC-AtiyahLetter.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.memrijttm.org/content/en/report.htm?report=4338
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110506002917/http://rmc2011.net/2011/04/16/al-jazeera-leak-osama-bin-laden-captured/ to http://rmc2011.net/2011/04/16/al-jazeera-leak-osama-bin-laden-captured
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/02/spitzer-what-role-did-pakistan-play-in-the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yNEZ0PLs?url=http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/bin-laden-dead-u-s-official-says/ to http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/bin-laden-dead-u-s-official-says/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/u-s-bin-laden-lived-in-pakistan-compound-for-at-least-5-years-1.359578
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/140534/20110503/interesting-facts-about-osama-bin-laden-s-compound.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dawn.com/osamabinladen

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirects to this article at RfD
Just to notify that both redirects, Obama bin Laden and Obama Bin Laden, are discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 4, where I invite you to join. --George Ho (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Gilgit Massacre 1988
The entire section regarding OBL's alleged involvement was created by a confirmed sockpuppet User:Towns Hill on 31 Dec 2016. In it he makes the allegation that OBL was recruited by the Pakistani Army for this. As noted on the talk page for 1988 Gilgit Massacre, User:Fredepd noted that the allegation is sourced from only B. Raman, who was a founder of India's intelligence agency.

I've searched for corroborating sources, but can't find any. As noted on the talk page for the 1988 Gilgit Massacre, I thought I had found a 2009 book edited by K. Warikoo that may have offered another source for the claim, but it turns out B Raman also wrote the chapter in that book.

Regarding using B. Raman as a source, I wrote on the talk page there:"

"B. Raman was a founder of India's Research and Analysis Wing, which immediately throws his reliability as a source into question. The Hindu called him "A perfect spy" as well, which doesnt help his credibility as a scholarly source. Anyway, in his Outlook India piece, B. Raman states:

" Faced with a revolt by the Shias of the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), under occupation by the Pakistan Army, for a separate Shia State called the Karakoram State"

I can find absolutely no references to this alleged revolt aside from works which directly quote B Raman's work. I can't even find any information about this "Karakoram State" that does stem from this intelligence officer.

I found a 2009 book "Himalayan Frontiers of India: Historical, Geo-Political and Strategic Perspectives" which I thought might be a corroborating source, yet it turns out that the section was again written by B Raman. In it he states that Shias agitated for a separate autonomous state, but nothing about a revolt (which he mentioned in his 2003 article). The author's tone is also highly biased with weasel wording, which isn't unexpected given the fact that he was a former Indian government official

I also found a Self-Published book The General and Jihad: Pakistan Under Musharraf which mentions this issue, but it offers no source for its claims. Further, it states the revolt was suppressed by General Musharraf (not Zia ul Haq), and that the Shias were demanding an independent state, which is another claim I cant find support for elsewhere. Again, it is a self published book. It was written by "Wilson John," and published by "Wilson John", so it's not entirely surprising that the author confused Musharraf for Zia, and embellished Raman's claim to state that the Shias were not just agitating for an autonomous state, but instead for an independent state.

Can anyone else find information regarding this that doesnt quote B Raman/Outlook India as a source? Preferably a source written prior to Raman's 2003 article so we can be sure the source didnt indirectly quote Raman."  If no corroborating sources can be found, the Gilgit Massacre section on this page should be deleted in my opinion.Willard84 (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that another user who had been banned for sock puppety, User:Excelse, has been edit warring the page, and reinstated large amounts of plagiarized information before slightly rewording it. Willard84 (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't let us make you look at your block log, that you got blocked 3 times in last 40 days. You need to learn how to carry on discussion. This information that you are unnecessarily removing comes way before Raman, and what about ? None of them cite Raman. You should now self-revert since your demand has been fulfilled Excelse (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you still did reinstate large portions of plagiarized material, in direct violation of Wikipedia policies. Secondly, the information you posted is absolutely NOT the information we are looking for.
 * Your first source actually does cite Raman.:


 * Your second source mentions OBL in passing when making a completely different point. She also gives NO SOURCES at all, so you can't say that Raman was not cited. You have to show that her source was someone other than Raman, not that she merely did not mention Raman. For all you know, her "silent" source is Raman - and it indeed appears this is most likely given how his name seems to always creep up in sources that give citations.


 * Your third source ALSO shows no source for this claim. What also interesting is that this source (published April 2017, after the info was added to this page in Dec 2016) uses the same language noted on the Wikipedia article. Bin Laden and his "hordes," suggesting that the author may have plagiarized from Wikipedia. Which may explain why he gave no citation. And speaking of credibility, the eBook's description is given as "This book gives the involvement of Pakistan in spreading Terrorism across South Asia." The wording is poor, but reveals the authors intention to slander Pakistan.


 * Your last source last article actually does cite Raman, several times. What's even odder is that you totally didnt notice is that the author even called Raman "controversial," when he wrote "The controversial B. Raman even alleges..." Not exactly a vote of confidence when you call a source controversial, while also stating that the source "even alleges..." which really highlights that the author wants you to know that the claims are made by Raman alone, and are not some universally accepted fact.
 * The fact that 2 of your 4 examples actually do cite Raman (one of which that actually goes so far as to discount his credibility by sating "controversial"), while the other 2 offer no sources at all, shows how this theory really does come back to Raman. No one else seems to be making this accusation, and as your 4th source concedes, no one appears to want Raman's allegations to be mistaken for undisputed fact.
 * On the other hand, we have several citations regarding the Gilgit Massacre which make no mention of OBL at all. Don't you think that OBL would be mentioned if he were involved? Literally DOZENS of books have been written about OBL, so why have none mentioned this massacre?


 * 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (and this is SATP, not exactly pro-Pakistan, 8.


 * I'd be very interested to know why of the dozens of books written about OBL's life (some of which go into very great detail about his life), all seem to neglect to mention that OBL personally partook in a massacre of hundreds of Shias after being flown in by the Pakistani Army. Do you not think this information would have been posted all over the world after his capture in Abbottabad? I do. It seems like a pretty important piece of information, yet no one seems to be making this claim other than the "controversial" Raman. Willard84 (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2017
i want to write osemen HippoCrayz (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2017
I want to change dead links in this article, Razamohsin894 (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I have fixed the deadlinks with #IABOT in this edit. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2017
105.112.33.26 (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Obama bin Laden?
Why does "Obama bin Laden" lead to a redirect as opposed to a "Page does not Exist"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.140.208.59 (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Positioning of Sections and other proposed edits
If this is accepted I would prefer if it someone else did the changes Would it be better to have the sections arranged a chronologically eg.

- split "Early attacks and aid for attacks" to have the first half before "Sudan and return to Afghanistan" and the rest where it is. - move the first part of "Activities and whereabouts after the September 11 attacks" after "September 11" and interleave the rest in "Pursuit by the United States" so where he was and the reaction is clear.

- move "Whereabouts just prior to his death" into "Death"Wakelamp (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC).

- move "Osama bin Laden's full name, Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, means "Osama, son of Mohammed, son of Awad, son of Laden"." to start of the section.

- give the physical description under "Personal life" its own section or move it the top of "Personal life". - the word Umma in the section "September 11 attacks" "Our umma has known.." may need a link to Ummah Wakelamp (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Osama bin Laden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425135504/http://votebits.com/tag/osama-bin-laden-histery/ to http://votebits.com/tag/osama-bin-laden-histery

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"bin" or "ibn"
Which is right: "Usama bin Ladin" or "Usama ibn Ladin"? Everywhere he is known as "Usama bin Ladin", but in the article is "Usama ibn Ladin". 18:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2018
Please change "Most wanted terrorists list released". CNN. October 10, 2001. Retrieved April 3, 2011. [permanent dead link] and redirect to http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/10/10/inv.mostwanted.list/ SarahAnneFleming (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Nice catch! ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 12:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2018
Three suggestions:

"...followed the English club Arsenal F.C." Remove "F.C." to make it look correctly written.

The other two are in the 9/11 section:


 * After four references, there is an incorrectly capitalized "In"; it should not be capitalized.
 * "In the 2004 Osama bin Laden video..." should be "in a 2004 video..." because "Osama" is unnecessary. 2600:1011:B126:702B:E02B:FA4E:F65A:ABA7 (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Not sure about the first, you could have been clearer about the second. regards,  DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  07:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Citizenship vs. nationality
The infobox currently incorrectly says that bin Laden's nationality was "stateless" after 1994. This is incorrect. His citizenship was revoked; a government cannot revoke your nationality. The infobox should be changed so that: Without evidence of how bin Laden identified himself after 1994, the nationality tag should be removed altogether. Tl;dr: change "nationality" to "citizenship" in the infobox. 142.167.242.182 (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * citizenship = "Saudi Arabian (1957-1994); stateless (1994-2011)"
 * nationality = "Saudi Arabian"

One of the worst notorious criminals in history and no known facts about his faith?
One of the worst notorious criminals in history and no known facts about his faith?

He actually believed in Khoda, rather than Allah. And probably had a pantheistic interpretation, more like a hindu.

"Khoda Is All". Al-Qaida probably is a related term. It shouldn´t even be considered Islamic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C700:2:14A4:39B7:59DB:C491 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)