Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden

Military Conflict

We need a military conflict infoxbox. For example Operation Red Dawn has one, and that was less of a conflict than this. We could have two seperate boxes, as well. Can you let me edit?--Themane2 (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Burial at sea?

Has his body been confirmed as buried at sea? Because the language in that part of the article makes it sound like that's already happened, whereas the source says it's going too happen. The language is deceptive.(Albmic (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

I would also like to point out that the article says this "According to a U.S. official on May 2, bin Laden's body was handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition,[29] and was buried at sea soon after death, in accordance with Islamic tradition" and it has a link to a wiki article about Islamic Practice and tradition which mentions NOTHING about burial at sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.36.93 (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Two parts:

1. handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition
2. buried at sea

The one has not necessarily to do with the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the full quote "According to a U.S. official on May 2, bin Laden's body was handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition,[29] and was buried at sea soon after death, in accordance with Islamic tradition." The way it is written is absolutely saying that Islamic tradition includes burial at sea. Needs to be rewritten if that is not Islamic tradition to bury at sea.

According to this link,[1] there is indeed a prescribed burial-at-sea method that complies with Islamic law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

According to MOST sources, a sea burial is NOT common practice in Islamic funerals, and many sources even say that it's forbidden:

[2]

[3] [4] So, the article should be changed, either by shorten the citation by "in accordance with Islamic tradition." (just leave this away) or adding the doubt on that "U.S. officals" claim. Zebaba (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the wording be changed. A sea burial isn't a part of Islamic tradition. A burial of a person within a day of his death is. The sentence makes it appear to be the other way around. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 16:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is confusing. It should be changed.TDurden1937 (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)TDurden527

MSNBC has a more detailed account of the burial at sea procedures, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42859914/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/?GT1=43001

What happened to the bodies of those killed along with Bin Laden (the couriers and the woman used as a shield)? Were they also burried at sea?74.100.60.53 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

May 1st?

I mean, I don't know exactly when he was killed, but judging from the local time here (EST), I'm guessing he was killed in the early morning, so shouldn't it be the 2nd instead of the 1st? Bmecoli (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC) correct! thank you for pointing that out.

U.S. President Obama stated in the evening of May 1, 2011, that his death took place early in the morning, thus in the absence of concurrent or conflicting information, it can be extracted as May 1, 2011. This will likely be the date unless/until other news supports a different date/time. Cheers Dijcks | ^InOut 05:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ali Sikander, Al-Jazeera, was a witness to the attack and just said in an interview that it happened after 1:00 A.M. local time (C-SPAN). This makes May 2nd the official death date - and it's consistent with the POTUS' speech, too. Rklawton (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Time will tell. I realize a mistake could have been made, but it seems logical that if he (President) stated on May 1 in the evening that, "it happened in the morning", it would be logical also to assume that he meant the same morning and not a day in the future. Let's see. Dijcks | ^InOut 06:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there's a 10 hour time difference between Washington D.C. and Pakistan - and that there's going to be some time delay between authorization and bullet through brain. Rklawton (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Times should be reported local time. The article now starts in a very U.S.-centric way, which outside U.S. seems pretty funny. This should be fixed as soon as the time is actually known.

For issues of worldwide relevance, the time should be displayed as Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC), and when the event occurrs in a localised area possibly the addition of the local time in brackets afterwards. UTC remains the standard for time coordination across the globe; furthermore, EDT is a daylight-saving specific time zone. tl9380 2nd May 2011 1043 UTC.

Pakistan is UTC+5, Washington is UTC-4, since the US is using daylight saving time. So, Pakistan is 9, not 10, hours ahead of Washington. The incident happened at 1am local Pakistan time. This is 2000 UTC, not 1900 UTC, as incorrectly reported in the main article.Asbasb (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If we treated all deaths as UTC rather than local time we could end up changing a lot of people's death dates, and in some cases it might not be easy to establish the exact time of death. Bin Laden is of greater global significance than most, but it would be difficult to know where to draw the line e.g. the death of President Kennedy? PatGallacher (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This image has metadata saying it was taken at 2011:05:01 16:05:04. I don't know what time zone that is supposed to be. --Ysangkok (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Unconfirmed

This death can't be confirmed yet, even if the US President declares it. I'd suggest adding more "supposedly" to this events that are present in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.160.173.137 (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC) It was confirmed by DNA evidence. He was killed earlier in the week. Speculation is that it was a headshot by JOC forces. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/osama-bin-laden-killed/story?id=13505703

The president made it clear that he authorized the operation "earlier today". This makes the death date the 1st or 2nd. And yes, we should add "supposedly" - but only if the President of the United States is not a reliable source. Rklawton (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I second this, Wikipedia's main goal is to be as accurate as possible, why should we take the word of some u.s politician? I read newspaper reports of his death over five years ago, that went by unoticed. Why is it because the president of a nation, that's lied to its people and the world multiple times in order to pump up support for going to various wars, considered truth. When did President Obama become a man who can't lie, I would like to see the body, or for at least one person here to see a body, before we just go by what some politician says. Bill Clinton lied about his sexual adventures. Bush senior brought forth a false witness who spoke of Iraqi soldiers killing infants that brought support for our last war in iraq, who was later found out to be the niece of a ambassador to the u.s who turned out to have been lying. I just dont see why the presidents word is fact, when we have so many instances of presidents lying in the past. I for one would rather not just take a nations word on it, especially one known for lying to gain support for alternate agendas.

Can someone show me any proof of his death, without blindly trusting a U.S politician, this seems ludicrous.

I'd love to see proof that we even knew osama's dna makeup before now, to be able to do a dna test, what are they comparing it to, did we just have his DNA in a jar, for something so big, shouldnt that have been explained? something seems off. ----Phoenix

Osama has known relatives living inside America. We can compare his DNA to them.--RaptorHunter (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

At least one writeup said that they used DNA from his dead sister to make the comparison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All that could do would be to give them reason to suspect that the corpse was closely related to Osama Bin Laden's sister. Isn't it a large family? Mangajunglist (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"I believe something because someone said so. They SAID they did DNA tests." It's bizarre how easily satisfied people are by politicians. (aside: I strongly hope he is dead, but who would believe it without pictures of body)

I believe that Osama bin Laden died several years ago but the US government found it convenient to pretend he was still alive so they could use him as a bogeyman to frighten people with. The US government has now had a change of policy, and decided that a dead bin Laden suits them better, so they have staged this event. The fact that they haven't allowed any independent experts to view the body looks extremely suspicious. Biscuittin (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, here we go. After truthers and birthers, we're now gonna get deathers... 109.178.28.213 (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Biscuit can believe anything he wants, but it has no bearing on the article. "Deathers" already refers to the healthcare scaremongers, but that could change. "Ground Zero" used to refer to the target of an atomic bomb, before it was hijacked (so to speak) in connection with 9/11. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I just think it's useful to remind people that something is not necessarily true, just because it appears in print. Biscuittin (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Even al-Jazeera is reporting it. Just google [al-jazeera bin laden]. Some logic here: If the world believes he's dead, then as a practical matter, he is dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a time when most people in the world believed that the world was flat. Did that make it true? Biscuittin (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Verifiability", not "Truth", remember? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"something is not necessarily true, just because it appears in print" Absolutely. It's called bad journalism. However, that's no reason to come up with conspiracy theories that are even further from the truth. I think it's best to let the dust settle on this one for a couple of hours. Right now there are just too many conflicting reports that can't be properly verified. 109.178.243.51 (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Don't you think for that reason we should list his death as speculation, rather than absolute fact? Or at least make mention of skepticism about its veracity? 82.95.25.120 (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources. No reliable source is calling his death "speculation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

Your reliable source is the party that killed him and then allegedly destroyed the body before anyone else could identify it. This is like letting a suspect determine wether he's guilty or not.

carrots→ 18:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone posts a timestamped iPhone video of ObL walking down a street in Islamabad tomorrow, I think we've gotten as much verifiable information as we're going to, at least until the results of the DNA comparison are released. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We go by sourcing, and the sources say he's dead, and that's that. Also, they are now reporting confirmation via DNA testing, although it's not "official" yet.[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My knowledge on DNA analysis is a bit rusty (about 10 years old) but as I understand the STR is not much more than a more modern PCR, which still takes at least 24 hours, followed by some form of gel electrophoresis, which again takes several hours. Thus, if Bin Laden was supposedly killed at 19:00 UTC, how can his identity have been confirmed by DNA matching less than 12 hours later? It's not like in the CSI Miami series where you pop a sample into a machine with many blinking lights, and the person's photo comes out on the other end 5 seconds later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.192.120.58 (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't. It was through face-recognition. At least that's the latest that I've read on it. Presumably DNA samples would have been taken and then the body was disposed of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

He was shot in the head and they were still able to do face recognition? The whole story is completely unbelievable. I heard on BBC news that US forces had been watching the house for 4 years. It wouldn't have taken them 4 weeks to establish that bin Laden was living there so why did they wait so long? I believe this event is a fake which has been timed to suit some political agenda. Biscuittin (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever seen the autopsy photos of JFK? He was shot in the head and was totally recognizable. You can believe what you want, but you need to use logic and reason. For example, how would this help Obama get re-elected? The time to have done this would have been just before the election last fall... or just ahead of the 2012 election. Do you recall what happened in 1979 when Carter hastily sent a fleet of choppers into Iran to try and rescue the hostages? It was a disaster. These things take time. And while they suspected the house several years ago, it wasn't until last August that they were certain. It's not like they could just ring the doorbell and ask if Osama could come out and play. If they had gone in with all guns blazing and he wasn't there, that would have been a Carter-like disaster. They had to get all their ducks in a row before moving in. In fact, if they had done it last August, we would probably have a Democratic House still. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I do wonder where the photographic evidence of this is. Didn't anyone take pictures? Has there been anything in any sources that say why there's not a single picture? We saw pictures of all kinds of other (in)famous deaths, why not this one? Hires an editor (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources I've seen say there were pictures taken, but not released as of yet. You may or may not recall that there was a fair amount of displeasure with the release of photos of the dead sons of Saddam Hussein. Maybe they've decided to do things a little more sensitively this time, but we'll see. Meanwhile, someone pointed me to this wikileaks-related item,[6] which should help answer Biscuit's questions about why it took so long to go get him. The answer is that we were constantly being double-crossed by the Pakistani intelligence agency, who would tip off OBL every time there was a risk of just such a raid. We finally got wise and did this unilaterally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it would help Obama get re-elected. I referred to a "political agenda" but I didn't say whose political agenda. As we have seen in various countries (e.g. Britain and Norway), the political agenda of the security services is not always the same as that of the government. Biscuittin (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Somebody doesn't want us to talk about earlier reports of bin Laden's death. I see that the content of "Previous death reports" below has been compressed. Biscuittin (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably because they're conspiracist nonsense. We go by reliable sources here. Some guy speculating somewhere that something might have happened, is not a reliable source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So, the previous reports are conspiracist nonsense but this one is the real thing? Biscuittin (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources. There is no reliable source for his allegedly dying some years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So, The Sydney Morning Herald, L'Est Républicain, The American Spectator and the British Daily Mail are not reliable sources? Biscuittin (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The American Spectator? You can't be serious. That rag is not a reliable source for the time of day. And the Daily Mail is the one that got duped into running that fake "death" picture. Nope. Not reliable sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't care for it myself, but the Mail is a mass circulation middlebrow newspaper with trained journalists, a legal department, etc. Are there objective criteria sorting the "reliable" from the "unreliable" sources? Mangajunglist (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Text

Extended content

December 2001 Quoting an unnamed Taliban official, the Pakistan Observer reported that Bin Laden died of untreated lung complications and was buried in an unmarked grave in Tora Bora on December 15. This report was picked up by Fox News in the United States on December 26. Also on December 26, the Egyptian newspaper AlWafd - Daily carried a short obituary by a prominent official of the Afghan Taliban, who was allegedly present at the funeral, stating Bin Laden had been buried on or about December 13: "(Osama bin Laden) suffered serious complications and died a natural, quiet death. He was buried in Tora Bora, a funeral attended by 30 Al Qaeda fighters, close members of his family and friends from the Taliban. By the Wahhabi tradition, no mark was left on the grave" A videotape was released on December 27 showing a gaunt, unwell Bin Laden, prompting an unnamed White House aide to comment that it could have been made shortly before his death. On CNN, Dr Sanjay Gupta commented that Bin Laden's left arm never moved during the video, suggesting a recent stroke and possibly a symptom of kidney failure. According to Pakistani President Musharraf, Bin Laden required two dialysis machines, which also suggests kidney failure. "I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a... kidney patient," Musharraf said. If Bin Laden suffered kidney failure, he would require a sterile environment, electricity, and continuous attention by a team of specialists, Gupta said. In April 2002, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated, "We have heard neither hide nor hair of him since, oh, about December in terms of anything hard." FBI Counterterrorism chief Dale Watson and President Karzai of Afghanistan also expressed the opinion that Bin Laden probably died at this time. October 2002: In a CNN interview, Afghan President Hamid Karzai stated that "I would come to believe that [bin Laden] probably is dead." April 2005: The Sydney Morning Herald stated "Dr Clive Williams, director of terrorism studies at the Australian National University, says documents provided by an Indian colleague suggested bin Laden died of massive organ failure in April last year ... 'It's hard to prove or disprove these things because there hasn't really been anything that allows you to make a judgment one way or the other,' Dr. Williams said." Late 2005 CIA disbands "Bin Laden Issue Station" codenamed "Alec Station", the CIA's bin Laden tracking unit, 1996–2005 September 2006: On September 23, 2006, the French newspaper L'Est Républicain quoted a report from the French secret service (Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure, DGSE) stating that Osama bin Laden had died in Pakistan on August 23, 2006, after contracting a case of typhoid fever that paralyzed his lower limbs. According to the newspaper, Saudi security services first heard of bin Laden's alleged death on September 4, 2006. The alleged death was reported by the Saudi Arabian secret service to its government, which reported it to the French secret service. The French defense minister Michèle Alliot-Marie expressed her regret that the report had been published while French President Jacques Chirac declared that bin Laden's death had not been confirmed. American authorities also cannot confirm reports of bin Laden's death, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying only, "No comment, and no knowledge." Later, CNN's Nic Robertson said that he had received confirmation from an anonymous Saudi source that the Saudi intelligence community has known for a while that bin Laden has a water-borne illness, but that he had heard no reports that it was specifically typhoid or that he had died. November 2007: In an interview with political interviewer David Frost taken on November 2, 2007, the Pakistani politician and Pakistan Peoples Party leader Benazir Bhutto claimed that bin Laden had been murdered by Omar Sheikh. During her answer to a question pertaining to the identities of those who had previously attempted her own assassination, Bhutto named Sheikh as a possible suspect while referring to him as "the man who murdered Osama bin Laden." Despite the weight of such a statement, neither Bhutto nor Frost attempted to clarify it during the remainder of the interview. Omar Chatriwala, a journalist for Al Jazeera English, claims that he chose not to pursue the story at the time because he believes Bhutto misspoke, meaning to say Sheikh murdered Daniel Pearl and not Osama Bin Laden. The BBC drew criticism when it rebroadcast the Frost/Bhutto interview on its website, but edited out Bhutto's statement regarding Osama Bin Laden. Later the BBC apologized and replaced the edited version with the complete interview. In October 2007, Bhutto stated in an interview that she would cooperate with the American military in targeting Osama bin Laden. March 2009: In an essay published in The American Spectator in March 2009, international relations professor Angelo Codevilla of Boston University argued that Osama bin Laden had been dead for many years. April 2009: During an interview with the Telegraph, Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari raised the prospect that Osama bin Laden could be dead after he said that intelligence officials could find "no trace" of the al-Qaeda chief. Mr Zardari's predecessor, Pervez Musharraf, similarly suggested that the Saudi terror chief could be dead. Additionally, Pakistan's intelligence agencies also believe Osama bin Laden may be dead. October 2009: An article in the British tabloid Daily Mail points out that the theory that Bin Laden died in 2001 "is gaining credence among political commentators, respected academics and even terror experts" and notes that the mounting evidence that supports the claim makes the theory "worthy of examination".

Text of President Obama's speech

Below is the text of President Obama's speech. The source, from The Huffington Post, is located here: Osama Bin Laden Dead, Obama Announces. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

Extended content

Good evening. Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who’s responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. It was nearly 10 years ago that a bright September day was darkened by the worst attack on the American people in our history. The images of 9/11 are seared into our national memory -- hijacked planes cutting through a cloudless September sky; the Twin Towers collapsing to the ground; black smoke billowing up from the Pentagon; the wreckage of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the actions of heroic citizens saved even more heartbreak and destruction. And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts. On September 11, 2001, in our time of grief, the American people came together. We offered our neighbors a hand, and we offered the wounded our blood. We reaffirmed our ties to each other, and our love of community and country. On that day, no matter where we came from, what God we prayed to, or what race or ethnicity we were, we were united as one American family. We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda -- an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies. Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort. We’ve disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot. Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world. And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body. For over two decades, bin Laden has been al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda. Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will -- remain vigilant at home and abroad. As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity. Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was. That is what we’ve done. But it’s important to note that our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding. Indeed, bin Laden had declared war against Pakistan as well, and ordered attacks against the Pakistani people. Tonight, I called President Zardari, and my team has also spoken with their Pakistani counterparts. They agree that this is a good and historic day for both of our nations. And going forward, it is essential that Pakistan continue to join us in the fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates. The American people did not choose this fight. It came to our shores, and started with the senseless slaughter of our citizens. After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been gravely wounded. So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done. Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who’ve worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice. We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day. Finally, let me say to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 that we have never forgotten your loss, nor wavered in our commitment to see that we do whatever it takes to prevent another attack on our shores. And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people. The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place. Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

It is also available from the White House if a second source is needed. BurtAlert (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

First report

Hello. The New York Times writer Helene Cooper (who later was joined by Peter Baker) made the first report to my knowledge. Please keep her report dated May 1 in this article. This person took it out without comment. If you know of an earlier report, that is great. Then just show your source. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

CNN has just reported that they've found Tweets from a user who appeared to be unknowingly reporting the raid as it happened, describing the a helicopter hovering in the sky at 1 AM and a loud blast that he hoped wasn't "the start of something nasty". Wing Dairu (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I read at WP:ITN/C that CNN and The New York Times were the first two sources they had (enough to post on the Main Page). They didn't mention Twitter. Ms. Cooper had an earlier blog post but the paper wrote over it as they often do. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger?

Would it be a good idea to merge this with the main article now that he is dead? It seems logical at this point to make a section in the main article addressing the events surrounding his assassination. There are a lot of editors working on this so it'd need to be put up for consideration yes? Dijcks | ^InOut 05:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Since this is a current, breaking news story, it is better to wait a few days. All of the recent edits can be concentrated here. Then, when the activity dies down, it will be easier to make comprehensive rewrites; trim out the excessive, unnecessary content; and merge the relevant content we want to keep. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I am usually a big fan of merging, there will be documentaries, movies and books devoted to this event. It can never be merged. Abductive (reasoning) 06:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Abductive. This event will be the subject of intense interest and in depth analysis for a long time to come. It needs its own article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood. I really never thought of this event (his death) as isolated enough on its own, but that makes perfect sense especially if it expands to the level you are suggesting it will. Let's see what happens! Dijcks | ^InOut 06:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

However, it may be best to merge this article with the Location of Osama bin Laden article. Neutrality^talk 01:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Location

The 'net sez 34°08′46″N 73°13′01″E is the location of the compound. Here's a picture on Flickr of that building: [7] Abductive (reasoning) 06:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a photo of the police station, not the compound.

Google maps gives a location for PMA some distance to the Noth-West at 34° 10' 50.9298" N 73° 15' 0.507" E

Visual checking shows a classic military site together with helicopter landing pads - hence the location on the main page is wrong.

Are you talking about the site of bin Laden's compound or the helicopter crash? Also, make an account, and/or sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. Abductive (reasoning) 06:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

203.31.40.68 (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I'm talking about the location of the PMA. It stretches for some distance up the Kakul road - apparently on both sides. I was trying to identify an oversize compound in that region, but the military facilities make that difficult. (Oversize comes from news reports of US administration comments about the raids)

Well, let's confine our discussion to the location where bin Laden was living and where he was killed! Abductive (reasoning) 07:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OR. We shouldn't be using such sources - report what is stated by the media etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy, doing OR on the talk page is unpossible. This section is an attempt to centralize discussion of the location until reliable sources appear. But how will we know that they are reliable? By looking at maps and photos. Abductive (reasoning) 07:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So was he living in the police station, or living in the mansion? And was he killed in the police station, or killed in the mansion? The significance of the police station is not clear at all. Kevinmon•talk•trib 07:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Although the pic may not be of the correct building, there is some talk of the building being built on the site of an old police station. If you look around Abbottabad, nearly everything is a military or government site. The compound I point to is on the grounds of the Govt Girls Higher Secondary School, at least according to Wikimapia. This town of Abbottabad is like West Point, Colorado Springs, Los Alamos, and NORAD rolled into one. Abductive (reasoning) 07:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

203.31.40.68 (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Based on the present text in the main page "Karachi's Geo News described a helicopter crash and "heavy firing" on the evening of May 1 "near the PMA (Pakistan Military Academy) Kakul Road"" It seems possible that the actual compound location is not as indicated but closer to the PMA.

The crash site need not be near the mansion but simply en-route. Rklawton (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

203.31.40.68 (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Al Jazzera reports the compound was within a few hundred metres of the PMA

Someone has constructed what seems like a WP:OR image at File:Bin Laden 1.jpg. From that, I see the location as 34.187726,73.242548. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Folks on Wikimapia have zeroed in on 34°11′14″N 73°14′32″E as a potential location of the compound. That is the same location as mentioned by User:Marc Kupper above. Abductive (reasoning) 09:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[cricobr talking] At the moment there appear to be two places on Wikimapia which claim to be the compound: the more extravagant compound which which is currently identified in the article: 34°11′14″N 73°14′32″E, and the simpler, but also large, and more isolated compound at: 34°10′09″N 73°14′33″E. Just now I have found this image from the New York Times front page: [8] which I believe fits closer to the second of the two compounds. I believe the photo shows the compound as seen from the north. The roof lines and the protected terrace at the back fit with the satellite image. Notice also the steep hills behind the house; these hills fit with the steep hills which rise to the south of the house as seen on: [9] (map centred on the second compound). There is also an electricity pylon in the photo which may help in identification, though it does not seem to be identifiable on the satellite images. I propose that the location coordinate be altered to the second coord, as the more isolated, less ostentatious, house is the more probable hiding place, and fits better with the NYT photo.

Cricobr (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[cricobr talking] About 1.5 kms almost directly south of the second compound mentioned above is an electricity substation: [10]

Running north from that substation appears to be a line of pylons at approximately 300m intervals (the shadows at the following locations are virtually identical):

• pylon 1: [11]
• pylon 2: [12]
• pylon 3: [13]
• pylon 4: [14]; almost certainly the pylon in the NYT photo.
• pylon 5: [15]

If we are to trust the NYT photo the compound is almost certainly the second compound cited above. I will now change the coord in the article.

Cricobr (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I added a reference from the BBC for the location. "US forces kill Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan". BBC News. 2 May 2011.. shellac (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article currently talks about the compund being on an "imposing hilltop", but it's difficult to reconcile that with photos and aerials etc of the compound which seems to be increasingly accepted as the right one, which appears to be in flat valley bottom. (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/02/world/asia/abbottabad-map-of-where-osama-bin-laden-was-killed.html)66.134.170.155 (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Cricobr, good work on tracking down the power line pylons or towers.

The evidence for the second location, 34.169275,73.242588, seems much more reliable. The most telling thing to me were the piles of light colored dirt that I assume is ash from burning trash and that the Google imagery matches the illustration of the compound. This article about the compound says the source for the diagram is the U.S. military implying we could use it on Wikipedia if someone can confirm the source. another article says the CIA is the source for the image. The [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0502/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-How-the-US-found-him Christian Science monitor has one photo. Ideally there would be more photos of the area to confirm the location. Here is a blog post that seems to do a decent job of summarizing the evidence for the possible locations. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I found the exact location on Google Earth, it matches the outline shown on TV perfectly. 34° 10' 09.44" N 73° 14' 33.16" E --Subman758 (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, someone should change the bad location in the article. I can't because the article is semi-locked. Mugros (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Mugros, the location and coordinates in this and related articles have been correct since Cricobr did his outstanding analysis (above), confirmed by the diagram and maps by the New York Times, CNN, and BBC, and corrected the article at about 15:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC). The majority if not all of the early general public postings of locations on Google Maps (picked up by The Guardian and other outlets) had not been particularly close to the actual location.DLinth (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Mansion" is a misleading phrase to discuss the building in which the Bin Ladin raid occurred. "Compound" is a neutral word. As it was a residence that was heavily fortified "fortified house" is accurate. "Mansion" is filled with suppositions, which have no relevance, or accurate citation. The BBC story used as a citation, refers to it repeatedly as a "compound," the use of "Havili" is a local generalization of the residences in that district and have no direct relationship to the "compound" in question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.171.238 (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation of headshot kill?

According to CNN, Osama was killed with a shot to the head. Can anybody find additional confirmation on this? All I'm managing to find is wishful thinking prior to this event or individual blogs with incorrect information. Wing Dairu (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

BBC are reporting that based on the conclusion (erroneous) that there WAS a shootout, and that there is a photo of a man with head injurues (see above). However i cant find any actual sourced connection, although news sources are reporting it as such, although they are saying "allegedly" Mwheatley1990 (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sources HAVE confirmed that there was a firefight in the compound. What HASN'T been confirmed by multiple sources is that it was a headshot kill, which is what I'm asking about. Wing Dairu (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry yeh, I didnt make myself clear. The shootout is a matter of record now. The headshot specifically is the conclusion they have come to from the doctored photo. The BBC Breakfast live news now is expressing more caution about the photo, theyve had people write in. Mwheatley1990 (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The headshot is present in the Raid section of the page. Could somebody put a citation needed tag on that? Wing Dairu (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Burial

CNN has just reported that Osama bin Laden's body has been buried at sea, and in accordance with Islamic law. No further details yet, but I recommend adding this to the Aftermath section. Wing Dairu (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's on the banner, but they don't have an article about it yet. Rklawton (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/02/obama-to-make-statment-tonight-subject-unknown/

Add the info, he was buried at sea

In the banner, the information is present and cited, but uses the future tense instead of the past tense. Would somebody please fix this?Wing Dairu (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"623. * If a person dies on a ship and if there is no fear of the decay of the dead body and if there is no problem in retaining it for sometime on the ship, it should be kept on it and buried in the ground after reaching the land. Otherwise, after giving Ghusl, Hunut, Kafan and Namaz-e-Mayyit it should be lowered into the sea in a vessel of clay or with a weight tied to its feet. And as far as possible it should not be lowered at a point where it is eaten up immediately by the sea predators."

Worth mentioning that interpretation was taken with the US Gov idea of "accordance with Islamic Law" ? He didnt die on a ship and that is the provision for sea burials. Mwheatley1990 (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, "no problem with retaining it for sometime on the ship" may be an issue - as I understand it, the Middle East has a very practical preference for fast burials, does't it? Wnt (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Still future tense, make it past. More sources here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/may/02/osama-bin-laden-dead-live

Yes, as I understand it, tradition dictates that the body should be buried inside of twenty-four hours. However, the point still stands that, as Mwheatley has pointed out, he did not die on a ship. I recommend, however, that we wait on adding this to the article until more details emerge. Wing Dairu (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The report is on the AP wire which means nominaly idependent reports probably aren't.©Geni 08:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sea burial has been removed. References don't match up with assertion that he body was recovered by the U.S. military and is currently in its possession.[5][

Please change --86.147.217.101 (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

While it being in accordance with Islamic tradition and law is up for dispute, I'm fairly certain that his being buried at sea has been confirmed thoroughly enough to be included. Wing Dairu (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dairu, its on AP, CNN, ABC, BBC.. but this stage in they could all be wrong - they have been about a lot of things this morning. Mwheatley1990 (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Its on AP. The rest are just running the AP wire.©Geni 08:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well done - in that case perhaps sit it out? Mwheatley1990 (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no rush. In any case, the burial at sea was probably to prevent someone from building a shrine at his place of burial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems probable, seems like a logical idea; just odd they would make a point of following Islamic practice and do the exact opposite Mwheatley1990 (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sure! ;D It's a scam, folks.. simple. No burial yet, nada. Zero Thrust (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they could put him in the cornerstone of that mosque they're building near "Ground Zero". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, calm down. The talk page is for discussion about what should or shouldn't go into the article. It is not the place for sarcasm and jokes.Wing Dairu (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein was buried at his birthplace. Why? No Islamic tradition in that case? emijrp (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The UK Guardian is comparing with the US treatment of Saddam's sons' bodies, which were retained for 11 days, and also casting doubt on the "in accordance with Islamic burial customs" claim [16] as apparently this involves quite a bit more than just tipping the body into the sea. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think they got their metaphors mixed up. The burial at sea was not necessarily Islamic; the burial within 24 hours was Islamic. As for Saddam's sons, maybe the US officials didn't care. Keep in mind that was 8 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian piece doesn't confuse the two - it discusses the rules for burial at sea prescribed in Islamic law. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of Death section

I added the "Date of death" section after the official announcement was made and reported in this article, deliberately. I'm restoring it (after Seleucus's deletion) as a witness to an alternate account of events, for which it was intended. To remove it as being "out-of-date" is only to judge it as irrelevant by an implied argument from authority. An official version is not necessarily the only one that should be included. --Esb82 (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Long experience with high-profile news events has shown that the media gets details wrong at the start - and that details of the media's screw-ups end up being removed permanently as trivial an irrelevant to the subject. Rklawton (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it was a screw-up, maybe not, but other news outlets reported the same thing at the time. Other than being an error, it's also conceivable that informants leaked details that their superiors didn't want shared, and so the story was revised. Long experience has shown me plenty of examples of that, too. (By the way, "several days ago" also corresponds nicely to the turn-around time for DNA tests, and to the date when the President announced his nomination of Gen. Petraeus for CIA director, but I didn't object when the latter was removed from the article.) In any case, at present I see no basis for pronouncing it a screw-up other than, again, an argument from authority. --Esb82 (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A DNA test can be done in a matter of a few hours. I suspect that we have that capability in urgent cases such as this one. Dijcks | ^InOut 17:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Assassination

Shouldn't this be at either:

• Assassination of Osama bin Laden or
• Osama bin Laden Assassination?

125.162.150.88 (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a military operation. Things happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ya, they've announced it. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of lower-casing the "a" on your second item, as per Manual of Style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet I didn't post that, and so I've restored it. You're free to make your own suggestions, and be a good little editor and create the plausible redirects; both, please. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your IP is after it, so you "own" it. The one redirect already exists. There's no valid sourcing, so being a good li'l ol' wikipedia editor, I'm not creating the other one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

While it may fit the definition of an assassination, it hardly fits the profile of a standard assassination. "Death of" is probably also a much more accessible article title. Wing Dairu (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Assassination attempts on Osama bin Laden

125.162.150.88 (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, news reports have stated that they were performing a raid on a group of Al-Qaeda inside the compound, and his body was identified post-operation. Mwheatley1990 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a close parallel to how Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of Pearl Harbor, was dispatched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

ya, that's mentioned at Assassination#As military doctrine. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that calling it assassination implies that the Special Forces entering the building did not give him a chance to surrender. I'm not sure he deserved a chance to surrender, but it's hard to picture the military wouldn't have liked to interrogate him by any means still permitted to them. Wnt (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Until (or if) the full details become known, it's not necessarily an assassination, and besides which, the sources are not calling it that, as far as I know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Operation Vengeance

"Result: United States victory; Admiral Yamamoto killed" is in Category:Assassinations. We'll see what they have the sources say. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a peice on the BBC just now that had a congressman (i think head of the national security comittee) said that capture would have been preferable, but that he was ecstatic with the way it went; and I dont know the system well enough to know if he had any authority Mwheatley1990 (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say that unless the mission's EXPRESS PURPOSE was the killing of Osama bin Laden, it is not an assassination. Wing Dairu (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And even if it was purposeful, we have to go by sourcing. We can't just say "it was an assassination", the sources have to say that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

there are several sources that use the term. Decora (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Such as? I haven't seen any. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What, you haven't been glued to Hamas press releases the past 24 hours? This is the essence of the "balance" or NPOV problem at Wikipedia. In order to avoid an overly U.S.-centric viewpoint, when it was the U.S. who suffered the most under bin Laden's influence over terrorists, who led the war against him, and who planned and executed the mission to take him, we would give undue weight, titling privileges, and lead space, to Hamas. Abrazame (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Despite overrunning the Taliban and al-Qaeda positions they failed to capture or kill him." Thanks Captain Obvious. Wouldn't have known that if it wasn't in here... <sarcasm> tag just in case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.113.201.240 (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

$50,000,000 reward out on his head - Recipient?

That would be something worthwhile to add to the article. Does the SEAL who sniped him earn the reward? Or the first person to tip off OBL's final whereabouts? What can anybody find about what happens with the $50M reward? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have to present the body to get the reward? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that it matters to the article and not that this is any kind of "official" word, but a family member of mine is a US army ranger sniper. He has said that member of the US military acting as agents of the US government dose not quality for any of the rewards, so the Seal who actually shot him won’t get the money. It's would be like an FBI agent who catch another top ten fugitive. He wouldn’t get the money ether. As to the tipster, we will just have to see. There isn’t any mention of it. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they'll apply that money to the National Debt. (Any drop in the bucket should help.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The money will likely go to the person who provided the original tip and to the civilians who helped confirm it. Rklawton (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

They have to be careful, as those folks could become targets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that the 50 million would have just been borrowed like all other spending, so there would be no use to "dedicated" to the debt anyway! Gunnar123abc (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of death

If the operation commenced on 3:30 pm ET, May 1st, then it was at 12:30 am in Pakistan, May 2nd. Does that put the date of his death at May 1st of May 2nd? 63.227.125.231 (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We should use the Pakistan time and date, not an American one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia's standard for timestamping major events is to use the UTC date and time, followed by one or more local times depending on the area of the event or the area of its significance. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

With or without Pakistan's consent?

The Raid section has a claim that this was a 'joint operation' with Pakistani intelligence. Obama has also thanked the Pakistani authorities for their cooperation in his speech. However, a few lines below that, the article says "The raid was carried out without the knowledge or consent of the Pakistani authorities". (permalink)

I don't have the time right now to go through the references and check which is right, but a quick read of the reference given for the above sentence didn't show me anything that specifically supports the claim that it was carried out without Pakistan's knowledge or consent (it says "The United States did not share any intelligence with foreign governments, including Pakistan’s..." which is not quite the same thing). Can somebody please check and correct the contradictory information? Chamal ^T•C 09:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Pakistani government was instrumental in the gathering of intelligence leading up to the raid, but were unaware that the raid itself was taking place until after it had been finished. Wing Dairu (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been asked for clarification on sourcing by Jamesinderbyshire. The POTUS's speech confirms that the Pakistani government assisted in gathering intelligence. Other US officials have confirmed that the Pakistanis were not informed of the raid until after it had been carried out, despite Pakistani statements to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wing Dairu (talk • contribs) 12:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I know of the Pakistani government, there are elements which are pro-Osama, & others which are anti-Osama -- & more than likely most of which have no firm opinion about the man or his ideology. Based on that, I'd expect only certain members of the Pakistani authorities had any inkling of the strike, let alone were informed about it. But unless the US wanted to piss off the entire Pakistani people -- nations are very sensitive about foreign military types operating at will inside their borders for some reason -- US officials did tell someone in the Pakistani government what was happening. Even if it was the moment the assault team hit the compound. -- llywrch (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

President Zardari says it was not a joint operation, so that clears it up. Chamal ^T•C 03:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Article renaming

As this article concerns the death of more than one person (possibly 3 male and 1 female), I think the article should be renamed to a more suitable name. Let's discuss later what may be a suitable name (<X> raid of 2011, operation <X>, etc...).

Do you agree that the article should be renamed ?

• Agree Teofilo talk 09:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree The focus of all media attention now and in the future is/will be that OBL was killed. He was the target of the operation. All other casualties were basically incidental, similar to John Connally's injuries sustained during the JFK assassination. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 10:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The media are using a popular name because it helps them boost their sales. But Wikipedia does not need to boost its sales. Wikipedia should try to be as accurate as may be. Teofilo talk 10:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Yeh, I just bought several copies of USAToday.com to save for my grandchildren. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree Leave it be until or if a different term emerges. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree Keep it as it is. The media and public attention is on his death and not the operation. The event will be remembered by people as his death not operation.Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia should be based on a rational analysis of events rather than on media hype. Teofilo talk 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia goes by sourcing, not by original research ("analysis"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
      • We are talking about the article's name, not about the article's content. The article's name must be chosen on a rational basis based on the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia (which implies sorting topics in a rational way) rather than on a commercial basis (trying to boost sales by choosing a name which appeals consumers). Teofilo talk 10:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • As you can see, the rational conclusion so far is that the article title is fine so far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree Media coverage concentrates on bin Laden's death, which is the most important aspect of this operation. Other resultant casualties are merely by chance. Goodvac (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree that OBL has hired security forces "by chance". Teofilo talk 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • They are non-notable. "Collateral damage", basically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Enemies killed are not collateral damage. Teofilo talk 10:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I doubt the bodyguards and the son were targets. Maybe "collateral damage" is not quite the right term. More like "additional casualties", or maybe "bonus points." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree That would give a disproportionate amount of weight to the other deaths. The vast majority of media coverage has focused on bin Laden. – anna 10:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree Osama bin Laden is the person that makes this notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree Bin Laden's notability is the reason that this event warrants it's own article. The other casualties are not notable figures. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 10:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If the operation had failed, it would have needed its own article anyway. Teofilo talk 10:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • No it wouldn't have. It would have been mentioned in this article and this article and left at that. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 10:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
      • It would have caused a major strain in US-Pakistani relations without substantial benefit for either country and would have made enough fuss to be worth an article. Teofilo talk 10:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
        • We can't conclude that until (or if) we find out for sure the level of involvement (if any) by the Pakistani government. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
          • You may be right about that, Teofilo. But like Bugs said, we don't know what kind of involvement the Pakistanis had in this. We can only speculate. The thrust of my argument is that the only reason this event is notable is because bin Laden was killed. Had it not been killed, the event MAY have been notable enough to warrant an article. As it is, bin Laden WAS killed and it is BECAUSE of its death that this is a notable event. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 11:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
            • I have in mind Bombing of Libya (1986) which bears this kind of low key title rather than a famous-people-calling spectacular name which might have been "1986 Failed attempt to kill Gaddafi". Teofilo talk 11:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
              • But Gaddafi wasn't killed. Bin Laden was. Had Gaddafi been killed, we very well may now have an article at Death of Muammar Gaddafi, but HE DID NOT DIE. Bin laden did. Killings are more notable than attempted killings. Always. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 11:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Who am I? You can talk to me... 11:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
                • Choosing one naming style for successes and a different one for failures is a Double standard. Teofilo talk 11:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
                  • So, should there be an article called "Non-Death of Gaddafi"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
                    • Having such a double standard means that by looking at article names you can infer Wikipedia's reaction. It sort of means that Wikipedia is happy with some events and unhappy about other events. I believe that Wikipedia should only quote reactions, but should not have an official "Wikipedia reaction". This is the difference between Wikipedia and news organizations. News organizations have an editorial stance. Wikipedia should have no editorial stance. For that reason I think Wikipedia article names should always be boring while newspaper headlines are attractive. Being boring is a quality from Wikipedia's point of view. Teofilo talk 11:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
                      • It's not a double standard at all, because the two events have entirely different consequences and significances. Saying it's a double standard is like saying giving the articles MILF and Milk different titles is a double standard. Two completely different things ought to have two completely different titles. And who said anything about an official Wikipedia "reaction"? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 11:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
                        • Compare also the boring Wikipedia name Apollo 11 with New York Time's headline Men walk on Moon. Teofilo talk 11:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
                          • Right. "Death of bin Laden", nice and boring... as opposed to "We Got Him!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree If bin Laden hadn't died, this article would not exist. Also, while Eva Braun's death is mentioned, the article is still titled Death of Adolf Hitler. Consistency is a good thing. Wing Dairu (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This all reminds me of a story that Mort Sahl used to tell. He was a guest on Air Force One, and during some air turbulence, JFK told Sahl, "If this plane crashes, your name is going to be in very small print!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree As noted above it is the death of bin Laden that is the notable event. Assassination of Benazir Bhutto is appropriately titled even though 24 others were also killed. Shooting of the Romanov family is appropriately titled even though non-Romanovs such as Anna Demidova and Eugene Botkin were shot with them. Several others died in the airplane crash discussed in Death of Zia-ul-Haq but that article is appropriately titled. JFK Jr. did not die alone in his plane crash but John F. Kennedy, Jr. plane crash is appropriately titled. LanternLight (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

zOMG, please stop using {{agree}} and {{disagree}}! :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? You operating on dialup or something? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Disagree The names the military gives to operations are meaningless. Osama bin Laden's death is the reason this article exist.--RaptorHunter (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree This entire discussion, along with at least two others on the Talk page, appear to be nothing more than attempts to end-run established processes and remove an article that already went through an AfD, for reason(s) unknown. As was stated by the closing admin at the AfD, the precedent was set with Death of Michael Jackson. Now, can we please quit trying to get the dead horse to pull the cart? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree With a caveat, though. Since the death of Osama is broken down into two parts: the operation in which he was killed, and the reactions afterwards, this page is either lacking, or misnamed. Since we have another article on the reactions to the death of bin Laden, my thought is that it should either be merged with that (thus making it fully encompass the death of Osama bin Laden) or renamed to the official name of the operation (thus being a more accurate description of the article). That being said, I wouldn't say to do anything with it right now. Let's let things die down a bit, and take a look at this again in a couple of days. Homo Logica (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

Please discuss your reservations on conspiracy theory here. The section which I have added is well cited from major news outlets including Reuters, Wall Street Journal, and Guardian. Jalal0 (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the section which I have added.

Bin Laden Sea Burial Conspiracy

Many have questioned the wisdom behind immediate burial of Bin Laden in a ocean. Ocean burial is rare in Islamic Fiqh, and only carried out in exceptional circumstances. The fear of Bin Laden land burial being marked is irrational as well, since the Wahhabi/Salafi tradition rejects burial in marked grave. Even Saudi kings are buried in unmarked graves. This has fueled fear of conspiracy theory regarding the factual death of Bin Laden. In addition, the immediate burial at sea has also been question, the 24-hour rule has not always been applied by the US in the past. For example, the bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein – sons of the Iraqi dictator – were held for 11 days before being released for burial. People in Egypt have even argued that Bin Laden died long time ago, and the current death rehearsal is gain political gains, such as Obama re-election and US exit from Afghanistan. In addition, no video footage of a dead Bin Laden has been made publicly available. And the only picture released of his mutilated face has inconsistencies, there was odd pixilation and blurring and his face was darker in some areas than others. And according to Reuters technical analysis, the picture is in fact fake. MSNBC technical analysis gives a verdict of the photo being fake.

A good deal of it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I've reformatted the section into a collapsable table. The section itself should not be included, it relies largely on original research, adds undue weight to the article, is full of weasel words and is mainly filled with speculation. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, undue weight. And typically off-the-wall conspiracy theorist logic. Doing this now won't help Obama win re-election. The right time to do it would have been 2-3 days before election day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I wont buy the argument that it is an original research, as the article has been cited. How about we wait for more verdicts from other users and moderators to flow in before we make a final verdict whether to keep or discard this section? Thanks too. Jalal0 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not wikipedia's place or purpose to advance conspiracy theories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What sea is there in Afghanistan? USchick (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Who said the burial was in Afhanistan? They might well have dumped it into the Indian Ocean. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the news stories he was taken to Afghanistan and buried at sea. USchick (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The operative word there is "and". They probably whisked him out of Pakistan ASAP, took DNA samples or whatever, then flew the corpse over the Indian ocean and dumped him like a barge from New York dumping garbage into the Atlantic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the "help re-election" nonsense, the picture was not "released", it was cooked up by somebody on the internet. Some creative sort took a stock photo of bin Laden and tinkered with it.[17] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Maybe this section should be titled "Controversy" instead of Conspiracy theory. Questioning the wisdom of some of the decisions is not a conspiracy, and the sources are sighted and represent neutrality. USchick (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you strip away the conspiracy theorist part of it, there won't be much left. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no controversy. Just some rogue nutcases. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the "controversy" is simply unanswered questions. Some have been answered since the announcement, and I expect more answers are forthcoming. Considering they kept this operation a secret since last August or so, there may well be some more behind-the-scenes work to be completed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There will always be controversy surrounding high profile cases, so there should be a section simply for neutrality. Another controversy is that the Pakistani government did not know about such a large building in the middle of their training area. USchick (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly an oddity. The suggestion is that Pakistan was, in fact, engaged in hiding bin Laden. My guess is that they've tried to play it both ways. By being left out of the loop on this mission, they can whine and moan about the US having breached their sovereignty, etc., etc., while secretly breathing a sigh of relief that the son-of-a-[witch] is dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is true they buried him at sea – given the short time frame – they most likely dumped him of a helicopter. I do not know if this meets the requirements for ocean burial in Islamic Fiqh. I would guess burial at sea would require being lowered from a ship. Do we know the name of a ship? Somehow this reminds me of how the Argentine junta handled its political opponents: burial at see – while still alive. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly Islamic rules prescribe putting him in a clay pot or something, to make him sink quickly (maybe they brought some ex-Mafiosi in as consultants). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not generally one for conspiracies, but the immediate disposing of bin Laden's body does strike me as odd. There are skeptical people quoted in reliable sources, so that skepticism is worthy of mention.[18][19] The strangest part is that there has been no photographic proof offered.[20] When Saddam was captured, the first news reports included a photo of him.[21] If the US had the time to conduct a DNA test and a proper Islamic burial, surely they had time to take photographs. The longer it takes for those photographs to appear, the more suspicious it seems. Fnordware (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This source says the burial happened on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson in the North Arabian Sea at 2 a.m. Washington time.

• Osama Bin Laden: Navy SEALS Operation Details of Raid That Killed 9/11 Al Qaeda Leader

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment on conspiracies and controversies

I think that in order to maintain NPV we need to have a Controversy section, in which controversial topics are placed (and possibly later deleted) as they come to light (or potentially put to rest). I would not object to a subtopic on conspiracy if:

1. it is well cited, and
2. the conspiracy being reported is one that has been reported elsewhere and not OR, or an original conspiracy theory which I suspect is probably as banned as OR on WP.

Peace, Dave
You can help!
00:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Operation

ABC reporting that is was a KILL mission, capture was not the option when Osama was identified. Flew in by helecopter from afghanistan, and he was dispatched by two shots to the head (BBC re-report) Mwheatley1990 (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would think that if everyone there had thrown up their hands and said "We surrender!" then it would have been a different story. But that was not likely. In fact, they fired some rockets, but displayed all the skill of Galactic Empire storm troopers in so doing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

ABC is reporting that there was a surrender option, MWheatley, as per the link above. It states they gave him a chance to surrender but he did not. I'm guessing at this point they may very well be reporting different things. I'm sure it will clear up once the dust as has settled.Jbower47 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

SEALs not "soldiers"

We need to make sure the SEALs are not also called "soldiers" on this page. Soldiers are only in the Army just as Sailors are in the Navy, airmen in the USAF, etc. TexianPolitico (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just checked the definition of "soldier" in the Oxford English Dictionary: "soldier [...] 1. one who serves in an army for pay; one who takes part in military service or warfare; spec. one of ordinary rank and file; private". The second part of that definition, "one who takes part in military service or warfare" is the one relevant to the point you make. If there are others who agree that the word "soldier" should be avoided in favor of another term, I can sympathize, but your statement that soldiers "are only in the Army" is false by the above definition. I propose to maintain the term for now. 82.176.209.52 (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

TexianPolitico is correct. SEALs are sailors, not soldiers, implicitly by their service, explicitly by JSOC, by custom within the military community, and by courtesy at their request. Calling them "soldiers" is as incorrect as calling members of an Army SF A-Team "sailors". TreacherousWays (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because soldiers might not be sailors doesn't mean that sailors can't be soldiers. The generic use of the word should be correct. 75.95.47.110 (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Generic use of the term soldier without regard to the service branch of the personnel involved is incorrect as far as military correspondence in the Armed Forces of the United States is concerned. Without even considering the whole capitalization nonsense started back in 1994, a statement such as Soldiers killed Bin Laden indicates to those who versed with military correspondence that it was an Army operation on the ground, when such is not the case. Asking for respect to protocol improves clarity for those who require it. Jun Kayama (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How did the team of Seals get out of Pakistan?

The Wikipedia article says "The helicopter they used to breach the mansion walls suffered a mechanical breakdown and could not fly the soldiers out. The SEALs burned the helicopter to secure intelligence[10] and carried out bin Laden's body on foot.[21]"

I'm sure the team then did not make their way back to Afghanistan by foot. So presumably there was a backup helicopter that took them away. If someone knows of a news report of that backup helicopter (or helicopters or whatever), please add it to the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Reuters, there were three helicopters [22] USchick (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Reaction to Osama bin Laden's Death -new page-

Hello editors.

I would like to propose that we form a split artile where we present the goabl reaction to Osama bin Laden's death. On this page the reaction is covered very briefly. On the page I am proposing we should be able to cover the reaction of government figures rather then countries also. For example the structuring should be in a table like format:

Region:Europe

Country:Turkey

Highest to Lowest ranking official and reaction:

• Presidents reaction
• Prime minister's reaction
• Minister reaction
• MP reaction

We give their name, picture, and quote them and if available show a video.

Then we move on to the next country, then the next region. At the bottom we compound the reactions of international organisations Then terrorist groups

Some sourcing for this is already on BBC and we can have foreign langauge speakers to trawl through their national news papers to get indivicual responses from the governmental figures.Tugrulirmak (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree, reaction should be on a new page. Jalal0 (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You may want to include the reaction of American Muslims, who were dancing in the streets in Detroit. They consider bin Laden to have been a great source of harm to them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually it'd be better to keep these reactions to a minimum, i.e. no extensive verbatim quotes, keep it in prose not list form, ditch the flags, don't list every last country on Earth. We have a fetish for "International reaction to" articles that places these statements far out of proportion to the coverage they receive. We're not a news site and not a directory of opinions and reactions. Fences&Windows 15:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I thought the same thing and made the split. Sorry if it was premature (more discussion needed). --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the subject is valid and the split is useful. It helps to show that the whole world doesn't think the same way as the U.S. - the world has a diversity of opinions, and this particular event was global and divisive. Rklawton (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This also provides the opportunity to expand on the various reactions, as opposed to having 50+ "one-liner" quotes. For now, I have just copied over the existing details from this article, but I hope to see the various sections and reactions expanded. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

Please change "Every since" to "Ever since". 204.210.242.157 (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the whole section "Allegations of Pakistan's shield for Osama bin laden", needs to be cleaned up for spelling, capitalization, spacing, etc. 204.210.242.157 (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's already gone. a_man_alone (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Firefight

The article reads that the firefight lasted 40 minutes. The media (ABC News) is reporting that the firefight only lasted a few minutes, but the operation lasted 40 to give the SEALS time to search the compound for computers and documents. All things considered, the media version sounds more plausible. Rklawton (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So should the article be changed to indicate the operation lasted 40 minutes? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The subject of the article is not encyclopedic.

I appreciate the achievement, but whether the death of a man is encyclopedic password?? I think that this article should be deleted. Information about death can be given in the article on the subject password. Thinkign this way we should crate separate article about the birth and death each person on wikipedia. NONSENSE --Danielchemik (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article has already survived an AfD. We've also got other articles like this one. It's also likely that this event will become the subject of books and movies. So no, the article stays. Rklawton (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are hundreds of other Wikipedia articles on specific deaths. There is nothing unusual about this article. There are 70 separate articles under Category:Assassinations, plus more under categories such as Category:Abraham Lincoln assassination, Category:Kirov murder and Category:Yitzhak Rabin assassination. Category:Murders has 155 articles, plus more in Category:Unsolved murders, Category:Craigslist murders and Category:Murder-suicides. Another 90 can be found in Category:Deaths by person.LanternLight (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether to create an article on a given subject often depends on the amount of material. As predicted at the AfD, the amount of material is growing, and would have overwhelmed the main article quickly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned in the AfD discussion, it's a Death of Michael Jackson situation all over again. A very-high-profile individual dies in a very-high-profile manner. If this was a WP:BLP1E matter, I'd be all for sending it on its way, maybe even as a speedy. But it isn't. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am still waiting for Funeral of Osama bin Laden. Deaths are notable, even funerals! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If it was done at sea under cover of darkness, there might not be that much to write about. Unless maybe they get some snapshots of the body going in, and the sharks recoiling in horror. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The less evidence there is about the "funeral", the more people will write about it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Only if they're trying to push a WP:FRINGE theory or otherwise go outside the verifiable source requirement. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Carried out on foot"

What's the meaning of "carried out on foot" in the "Raid" section? The remark is in the context of the helicopter crash. But surely the body was ferried away in another helicopter? The citation is from the UK's Daily Mail, one of the UK newsapapers distinguishing itself by running the fake picture of Osama's corpse long after it had been identified as a fake here and disseminated on Twitter. I'm loathe to delete "carried out on foot" unilaterally but nevertheless suggest it ought be deleted. FightingMac (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the phrasing used by the news networks, but for purposes of context, it might be better to say something like "carried out of the compound on foot". --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a good bet they didn't walk him all the way to Afghanistan and then to the ocean. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That would have made the burial-at-sea thing uncomfortable and tricky to videotape.

Dave
You can help!
00:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Extended content

Vandalism

You already noticed the vandalism? Somebody has to revert the Ubuntu stuff... --Pilettes (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears on the "Reaction" article as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It was in the template {{Osama bin Laden}}. I reverted that and protected it, since it's high visibility. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Uncited "The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip condemned the killing of a "Muslim and Arab warrior".

Can someone please add a link or ref for the following: The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip condemned the killing of a "Muslim and Arab warrior". or remove it. I could not find any mainstream source of this statement.

Thanks

Merge with "Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden"

I noticed there is a new article titled "Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_death_of_Osama_bin_Laden. I propose that this article should be merged with the present article under the already existing section "Reactions". I agree in having a separate article on the the death of Bin Laden but I believe that having a separate article dedicated only to the reactions to this event is redundant. (Lucasaraceno (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

Merger proposal

Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden --> Death of Osama bin Laden

This is an unnecessary content fork. It is a part of the "Aftermath" and should be in that section, rather than its own page. Most quotes will be nearly identical, and can be summed up without being included at length. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep separate article this article already has 62 citations and far more information than could be reasonably accommodated in the Death of Osama bin Laden article. {Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 16:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge back in — The number of citations doesn't really matter (it's the prose that matters). I highly doubt that the reaction should have been split out, and would argue that the reaction is not itself notable. In either case, to create a truly encyclopedic article on OBL's death, the reaction should be here and not there. --Izno (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: This article already has more than 60 sources and will likely be over 100 in the near future. This provides an opportunity to provide more in-depth coverage of the various reaction, both domestic and international. The main article (Death of Osama bin Laden) will be too long with this information included. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

60 sources is really not that many, not enough to justify a content fork. Right now, this article is under 24K and the "Reactions" article is under 35K. That is not onerous at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Simple reason, the articles are long, and will get longer over the coming days as the news develop. So its better to split the articles into smaller meaningful sections. Jalal0 (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that editors Tugrulirmak, Jalal0, and Rklawton also approved with the split in an above discussion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't mean they were right. Per WP:SPLIT articles don't have to be split when they reach 60K in prose only, not counting references. These two articles combined are under 60K WITH references, many of which are surely duplicated, so the merged size of this article might be around 50K including references. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not listing their names to claim their opinions were right. I was just making sure that all opinions were taken into consideration and directing contributors to the discussion above. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - while it may not be onerous at present, bin Laden hasn't been dead a day yet. It's obvious that both articles will continue to grow considerably. Rklawton (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Reactions" articles are generally pretty run of the mill. They should be kept short and sweet. The fact that this article will grow is certain, but that doesn't mean the reactions section should grow at all from what it is now. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a run-of-the-mill event. Reactions will vary and will likely comprise globally reported events (riots, acts of terror, and so on). Rklawton (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right that it's not a run of the mill event. That's why the death deserves its own page. But the reactions to the death? That's pretty run of the mill and WP:ROUTINE. EVERYBODY will be flocking to a microphone to make their statement. Do you suggest every single one of them is notable? This page should summarize the tone and tenor of them, that's all. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The reaction section in this article is very shallow. It represents the view of some government officials from some countries. In the specilised article we can give room to detailed quotes from even ministirial figures which would give the reader a wider perception to the whole event.Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an argument for expanding the section here, not keeping a separate article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

But we don't need "detailed quotes from even minstirial [sp] figures". That falls under routine coverage and not every comment about his death is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep topic is not a content fork at all and describing it as such is a misuse of the term. This is a well-justified detail page for a topic that is getting a tremendous amount of attention and reportage. Ronnotel (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I think there is more than enough information to justify a separate article on the reaction. I agree with Rklawton that there will likely be much more to add soon. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Definitely different Articles becauseone is not likely to change while the other may end up having more details. So, different articles, at least until all details are released for Death of Osama bin Laden.

• For reference of a similar discussion, please see Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting/Archive_1#Merger_of_Reactions_to_shooting_of_Gabrielle_Giffords. A "reactions" article was split out of 2011 Tucson shooting and it was merged back in. Same main points apply here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from but we must appreciate that this is a global event with a wider global audience all of whom will give different reactions to this. For example the Yemni government may say that they support the operation where as the Yemini opposition will most likely say they dont. This is my oppinion any way, we need to give merit to a global event.Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said at that pages' talk page, scale of local vs. global isn't enough to make this different. According to size guidelines, the article shouldn't be split. If it really gets that long and it's all worthy info to include, I'd support a split. At this time, it's not appropriate. I'm really surprised by the number of keep votes here, but I want to point out that most of those arguments are against policy. These articles should be merged, and if it's really warranted to split them, it'll happen in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I concur with Jalal0 and Rklawton. The reactions clearly deserve its own article. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 16:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, for now. This is a developing story, & putting reactions into its own article will help manage the flood of information on this event. A year from now, when we all have some perspective, a merge proposal might prove to be appropriate. -- llywrch (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge back in — The presidential speech and reactions from US citizenry and politicans should be merged back into the original as they are imperative to the understanding the importance of the Death of Osama bin Laden Iksnyrk (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, these reactions are imperative. The main Death article should contain information about the speech and reactions from US citizens and politicians, preferably as a summary of the more detailed information that appears on the Reaction article... --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I withdraw my support for Merge now, and would like to *Keep it now. The presidential address and us reactions are now included in the article. I propose we remove the merge tag too as the consensus is leaning towards keep. --Iksnyrk (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• SHELF IT FOR NOW: I thought the same thing, to merge, but maybe we should shelf it for a week or so and see where this goes. We can focus on adding content instead of trying to decide where the content will end up. Eventually it will become clear as the "news/editorial" aspect of the text is adjusted in to encyclopedic syntax. This takes time, especially when there is a lot of editorial and embellished content being added in the heat of getting it to "press"! Dijcks | ^InOut 17:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Let us focus on expansion of both articles for now. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep or split Although it is similar to the death article. It is its own article. Besides, it we merge it to the Death of Bin Laden article, it will be too long and would have to be split anyway. IF we did split it, it could be a international reaction page and keep the US and Pakistan reaction in the death article Nhajivandi (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The reply from U.S. officials and president and Pakistani should be merged back in as it shows why the event is significant and gives a dimension to the domestic reaction of a unilateral mission and to a mission preformed on their soil. But the international reactions should stay put on the forked article.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with this. Please keep the US reactions on the main page. It's imperative to understanding the importance of the Death of Osama bin Laden Iksnyrk (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Re-merge This material should not have been separated from the main article as the size of the combined prose was not at all onerous. Comments here that the article "will grow" are jumping the gun and editors cannot predict how much bigger the Reactions section may grow. In fact, it is arguable that the main wave of initial reaction is already largely spent and well accounted for. How many reactions is it necessary to record? How notable is every reaction already recorded, and should the list, indeed, be trimmed, since there is a good deal of overlap anyway, with nations stating broadly similiar and not very notable sentiments? Nations will not continue to state reactions indefinitely and most have been voiced already. This fork should not have been created in the first place. — O'Dea (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

THIS is exactly on the money. I'm shocked by the overwhelming tally for keep, but thankful that a tally isn't what determines the result of these discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep If this article were to be merged, then it would be too long and too difficult to read so it is best to not merge it. 63.245.95.2 (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for now There is no hurry to do anything here I would wait a week per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep "Reaction" sections are little more than coatracks for quotefarms. Very little of value is said, and it takes up a lot of space. I'm glad to see it in its own article. --JaGa^talk 17:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

But by your logic, it's not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia at all. Why is it appropriate in one large quotefarm of an article? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the status quo at least keeps that quotefarm from overwhelming what's important in this article. If you could get the article whittled down to a handful of paragraphs, then I would support a merge. Not before. --JaGa^talk 17:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's too stringent as far as length is concerned. There's nothing wrong with the length of the article as it stands, if a whittled down version of "reactions" were to be merged. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think the reaction article doesn't need downsizing, then it's large enough to stand on its own. There's no need to merge it here to make a huge article. --JaGa^talk 05:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Merge Unnecessary copy paste article.--RaptorHunter (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge back in It will (or should) eventually get merged back in anyway so might as well get on with it. The article is not long and the reaction section should be edited to our usual high wikistandards to ensure brevity and context. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is not long, it will be if merged, making editing hard due to lagging when performing edits. 63.245.95.2 (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and summarize It's a good compromise between deleting most of it, and leaving it in to clog up the article. A summary of one or two paragraphs should be added to the article though, since some reactions are indeed notable (e.g. Iran stood out). Lampman (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge, for the moment. Keep, at this point in time. I think that it is a matter of size. When the "Death of Osama bin Laden" page (with the reactions) exceeds 100K, it makes sense to have a separate reactions page, and that approach accords with our approach on similar articles. When the "Death of Osama bin Laden" (with the reactions) is shorter than 100K, it makes sense to have them as one page. As they are each 36K at the moment, merger would be in order ... but once it increases to 100K, splitting would be in order.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point, separate articles makes sense, as the size of the two articles together has increased to over 100K.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep for now and consider a merge when things calm down. The danger is you'll end up with something too Amerocentric in the main article, That's OK for now, but it will have to be more balanced eventually. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge, both articles are not that long. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep they've been expanded. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep even if merged together at a later time. Things are moving too quickly to try to merge them now. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. As per some other comments above, let's more time (1-2 weeks) so these articles can mature before we decide on how to best proceed.»NMajdan·talk 18:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep quite a significant event that will elicit a lot of reaction around the known world. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: the reactions page seems significant enough for now, and honestly *will* grow as this is still a developing situation. --Brandon (TehBrandon) (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Article is well sourced, and very well written. Will just keep getting bigger. ℥^nding·start 22:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Both of the articles are long enough to exist separately. -Abhishikt 22:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• So I'm watching the Yankees-Tigers game, and the beat writers got statements from Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, Mariano Rivera, and others, about their reactions to the death of bin Laden. Like I said, EVERYONE will have a chance to say their peace. That doesn't make their statements worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge: Wikipedia is not a compendium of quotes; that's Wikiquote. The prose on its own doesn't warrant its own article. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: We have enough simultaneous edits without having to compete with all the people who want to get their country's reaction in print. Keep a few major comments and link to the reaction page. Once the dust settles we can consider a merge but not now while it's still hot.
• Merge NOT WIKIQUOTE. 'nuff said. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:48am • 01:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep With a caveat. Since the death of Osama is broken down into two parts: the operation in which he was killed, and the reactions afterwards, this page is either lacking, or misnamed. Since we have another article on the reactions to the death of bin Laden, my thought is that it should either be merged with that (thus making it fully encompass the death of Osama bin Laden) or renamed to the official name of the operation (thus being a more accurate description of the article). That being said, I wouldn't say to do anything with it right now. Let's let things die down a bit, and take a look at this again in a couple of days. Homo Logica (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Both are long enough and well-sourced to keep as separate articles. Jgera5 (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep As merging it will make the article too long and cluttered. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep pending future review The best way to go about major stories like this is to work on them separately because they are essentially about different things. Let them both develop at their own rate and then when the frenzy has subsided, it can be revisited as to whether a separate article is necessary or not. Otherwise, valuable data can be squelched in the name of preventing inessential material from blowing a section out of proportion. Balance and redundancy and overstatement and misstatement et al hopefully gets fixed; and the small section of one article that is covered at the other gets to evolve somewhat independently, too, even though there is usually cross-pollenation. Abrazame (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Trim and merge The reaction article is too long and, IMO, contains too many quotes -- far more than we've had for any other event, to my knowledge. Trim the reactions, leaving the most notable and news-worthy ones. Replace a good chunk of them with an overview stating something along the lines of "his death was received favorably by the governments of many nations, including...", then merge it into the main article. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Don't trim until it's determined which statements are merely redundant iterations of generic statements and which are state-specific or particularly telling. Favorably and unfavorably is precisely the sort of partying vs. mourning black-and-white contrast we need to avoid. I suppose you haven't seen International reactions to the 2011 Egyptian revolution. People tend to work with what they have, and if a statement has some bland, generic thumbs-up or thumbs-down, they don't investigate if something more relevant was said. Err on the side of too much on-point and well-sourced material at first, and then determine what to pare back once the article has stopped growing. Abrazame (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep for now The story is barely developed and is likely to keep receiving a flood of new messages in the coming days and weeks. What's the rush? It can always be merged after traffic has slowed if needed, and then can be much more easily refined. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 03:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for now Both are full, good articles at the moment and I don't see the need to rush to merge them this quickly. - Uhai (talk · contribs) 04:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Too detailed to merge.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep separate articles - There was a reason to separate the subjects to begin with. "Reactions" was getting too big and going in its own direction. Alandeus (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• comment this article is already over 80K and is almost too big already, and should perhaps be split further. On the use side Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden got 75000 page views yesterday[23] compared with this article's 832000 page views[24] and over 4 million on Osama bin Laden. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I keep telling people to read WP:SPLIT. 80K including references is not long enough to justify a split, not by a longshot. Let it get to 100-120K of PROSE (ie., not including references) before you talk about splitting this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Isn't it a stupid idea to put an article like this up for merge, I think so. The article is most defintely notable, and will, without doubt, expand. mauchoeagle _(c) 21:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for now - I would normally say merge but these two articles are expanding faster than the universe right now, when it dies down and the news ages we can revisit this. Most of each article is copy/paste from news sources and such, it will be easy to summarize but only when the edits calm down. DesertPhox (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Close as no merge There is currently an almost full no merge consensus here, I feel this should be closed now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Presidential address

I maintain that a separate article for Reactions is necessary, however I agree with Muboshgu that details of the Presidential address belong on the main Death article. Therefore, I will be removing the Obama speech video and wikisource from the Reaction article. That being said, I think further detail about the gatherings throughout the US in reaction to the speech/death belong in the Reactions article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

CNN Live Blog

Please change this citation (currently #31) to Osama Death from Obama Death.

"Obama Death"? I am unsure where did you get that idea, but I do not think it's possible to change the citation without any viable source. 63.245.95.2 (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The citation for this link: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/02/obama-to-make-statment-tonight-subject-unknown/ Was incorrectly titled "CNN liveblog of Obama death". It's now been fixed.

Done. Please all editors watch out for editors writing "Obama" when they mean "Osama", this is the second one corrected by me alone so far. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually suspect 99.99% of them did mean Obama... Nil Einne (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fox News actually said "Obama" in their "breaking news" crawl last night. I'll leave it as an exercise for the student to figure out if it was a typo. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of specific details is questionable in this (and most) blogs. The USAF has not had MH-53 Pave Lows in its inventory (in any component) for three years. The only CSAR helicopter is the MH-60. The CV-22 replaced the MH-53 in the CSAR role.--Reedmalloy (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering about this myself, considering the Wikipedia entry on the MH-53 indicates the helicopter was retired in 2008.Biturica (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Order of Sections

Seems to me it would be appropriate if the article followed some sort of chronological order. Details of the raid, followed by Obama's address, followed by a Reactions section summarizing details of the Reactions article, followed by Aftermath sections. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Precise location of the compound?

How or why is the exact location of the compound important in this article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems notable to me, as many RSs focus on it. Also, it is especially of moment given its proximity to Pakistan's West Point, and the local police station, as is also reflected in the RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it feeds into the accusation that Pakistan was actively hiding and protecting OBL. I'm sure more will come out on that in the days to come. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Practice Raid

Hey so I am an inexperienced wiki user and can't figure out how to edit the page, however ABC is reporting that the gov't actually built a replica compound to train for this mission. Source here: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/khalid-sheikh-muhammad-capture-osama-bin-laden-courier/story?id=13506413&page=2

Please add. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.70.238 (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You can't edit it because the article is semi-protected and you are editing from an IP address not a signed-in account. That news page at ABC is pretty cool and has unique stuff not on the other networks. Note also the claim from Pakistan cited in it that it was a "joint US-Pakistan operation", something the US deny and the claim that Pakistani fighter jets were scrambled to shoot down the helicopters. The Pakistani government's position that they had no knowledge of or complicity in Bin Laden's upmarket hideaway becomes less and less believable by the day and the marvel is that they are still classed as "allies". No doubt there will be much media commentary on that in the days to come that we can source. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would advise jumping to conclusions later, after there are more data. If the Pakistani government did not know of the raid then it would make sense for them to scramble jets if their systems picked up on the US's visiting assets. Right now I have read assertions that a) they gave us intelligence, b) participated in the raid, c) knew nothing of the raid until it was over, and d) knew where bin Laden was all along and just didn't tell us. The truth is in there somewhere, hiding in the lies.

Dave
You can help!
01:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Built in 2005 (para 2 - main text)

Main text para 2 - the house was "built in 2005" according to Reuters - the BBC right now [25] have local residents saying it was built "about 10 years ago" - interesting because of course it would mean OBL was there for a long time. Also note in the BBC article that residents talk about "armour plated cars entering and leaving regularly" - now who could possibly drive in armour plated cars around an army town other than government officials, ISI, etc? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the security situation in Pakistan? Probably anyone rich enough to own one... Another interesting point. The house I live in is I think over 40-50 years old. Strangely enough, I'm not that old. Who knows what magic made that happened? Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume yours doesn't have a 7-ft high security barrier around it to allow a tall guy to walk in the grounds unobserved? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No but that isn't particularly common where I live and it's also not something I look for in a house. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that Google Earth shows no house at that location in 2001, and a house, but incomplete grounds (the western walled area, where garbage was burned off, not there) in 2005. DylanTusler (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

People saying he didn't die

POLITICO is now reporting that some conspiracy theorists are spreading rumors that bin Laden's capture and/or death was faked. Cindy Sheehan is one of these, as is Alex Jones. The source is here: [26] 173.165.239.237 (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose those are the same folks who say we didn't land on the moon, and that Obama wasn't born in the USA. As soon as they get shown up for being stupid, they move right on to the next goofy idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe more should be done to find sources to dispute this operation. Some may call it original research, but it should be noted that no man of this stature was killed and buried so quickly- in less than 7 hours! Oday and Qusay, who were of much lesser importance took 11 days before burial. Americans criticized Pakistan for letting people know too soon that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured because intelligence chould have been collected to lead to more important figures.

But for the greatest terrorist by far of them all, they released his location and death in 7 hours. Im sure that they could have found the location of other leaders such as Mullah Omar or Ayman al-Zawahiri with the information at the bin Ladin compound if they had not released any information. And burial at sea in less than 7 hours?? None of this makes sense from any military protocol released to the public. 194.254.137.114 (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense considering who's calling the shots. Rklawton (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful...you're getting close to WP:SOAPBOX with that comment. That said, he's dead until someone comes up with reliable, verifiable sources that say otherwise. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lawton, I ask you to look at this yourself. The government's version just cannot be believed. There are too many sources against the possibility of bin Ladin killed. Besides what I wrote, do you believe that a sample of bin Ladin's tissue will be flown to the US and tested to near certainty in a day? Or that they killed him and buried him in less than 7 hours? Or that US forces would not secure and throughly search the compound for clues to Ayman al-Zawahiri or Omar? This entire operation is beyond reason. 194.254.137.114 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you ARE soapboxing. Please stop. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Should 194.254.137.114 be blocked as a troll? Rklawton (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say only if they continue soapboxing or pushing fringe theories. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's typical of conspiracy theorists, when they don't understand something or don't have all the facts, to argue that the problem lies elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sheehan and Jones are in no position to know any inside facts, so while they may be raising interesting questions that need to be answered, any claims they might make are based on nothing, and hence are irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

PLease, lets not regurgitate these idiotic conspiracy theories, V7-sport (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not soapboxing. These are all valid points which cannot be disputed. Another admin should look at this. If I add a comment in the article that it took 11 days before Qusai and Oday was buried, would it be soapboxing?? 194.254.137.114 (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I may refer you to the Admin noticeboard, Lawton, for your threats. This is the talk page. How can I be banned by adding something to talk???194.254.137.114 (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's soapboxing when you're pushing a particular point of view on the article Talk page instead of discussing how to improve the article. See the text boxes up at the top of the page? They aren't just decorations. Oh, and you might want to pay a bit closer attention to whose signatures are at the end of what commentary. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sheehan may not have insider information, but she believes that the events described are illogical. It's fair for Wikipedia to mention her opinion and reasoning without supporting it. Fnordware (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And I believe they ARE logical, and I have as much info as she does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, get yourself mentioned in a reputable source and maybe the editors will include you too. Fnordware (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And so it begins. Idiocy ascendant. Because of this drivel, there will eventually be an article titled something like "Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories". --Hammersoft (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have yet seen a single statement against what I have written. I believe in the government account of almost every other previous incident, but this operation and its aftermath goes beyond any comparable former event of its nature.194.254.137.114 (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Zygorthians using their Mk III death ray vaporized Osama bin Laden. I've yet to see a single statement against what I just wrote. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hush. That weapon is classified. It's an upgrade from the old Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide if something makes sense, if it's believable, etc. This is not a political forum. We do not report on some elusive and arbitrary "truth". We indicate what other reputable sources say, in due weight. That is the end word on it. Rants on conspiracy theories, even civil discussion of the issue in general, doesn't belong on the talk page. This page is for discussing changes (the specific the better) to the article, NOT to discus personal opinions about it, to discuss your take on its believability, etc. Reputable sources, verifiability. Reputable sources, verifiability. Reputable sources, verifiability. Repeat it like a mantra:) It's perfectly possible Obama went over there by himself, got a previously dead Bin Laden out of a secret CIA freezer, and staged the raid with some fireworks and mimes. The subset of "possible" is near infinite. Possible is not probable. Even probable is irrelevant to verifiable.Jbower47 (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. There are no reliable sources disputing the official story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In cases like this, reputable sources don't report what happened, they report what the government (or whoever) is saying to them. The reporter wasn't actually there. So one reliable source tell us that Obama says bin Laden was buried at sea and another reliable source reports that Cindy Sheehan doesn't believe it. They can both be included. Fnordware (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless Sheehan and Jones were there in the situation room with the Prez, et al, then their opinions on the matter have no more value than yours or mine. If anything, less value, because they are publicity-seekers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with those who say this must be driven by RS sources. No doubt there will be RS discussion of the timing and form of "burial", which will quite possibly point to a desire not to have a shrine to a martyr. But we are charged with sticking by the RSs, and not engaging in non-RS-supported speculation in the article (or, even, on the tp).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• The BBC [27] are today relatring reports that it is a look-alike not the real ObL who was killed. 212.137.36.228 (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your link doesn't have the look-alike content anymore. Can you provide another? Fnordware (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's quite possible that this "deather" conspiracy theory will take off much like the "birther" one did. Until it proves its lasting and pervasive nature, though, let's leave it be. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Uploded picture of the hideout

File:Osama bin Laden hideout.jpg Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section missing

Why this article doesn't has a controversy section? The are available sources questioning if he is really death, if the dody was buried at sea, etc. This section should be here. 89.155.35.179 (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Along with every other fringe crackpot theory, yes. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It'll happen. We just need reliable sources indicating that the controversy has become notable. Right now it appears to be entirely in the domain of the usual conspiracy theorists and hasn't yet moved to the mainstream. No doubt it will once the main stream media has gotten tired of repeating themselves. Rklawton (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Here are some reliable sources: [28][29] Fnordware (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Blog's aren't reliable, and ibtimes isn't an indication of notability. Be patient, it's inevitable that the conspiracy theorists will get their name in lights (so to speak). Rklawton (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What? "the reveler, who identified himself only as 'Nick'" isn't a reliable source?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

He is a reliable source on his own beliefs and the International Business Times is considered reliable, no? Fnordware (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• CBS News: [30] Fnordware (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Bingo. Rklawton (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The idiocy of humans never ceases to amaze me. I'm reminded that one person wanted a nuclear bomb to be blown up on the surface of the moon to prove we actually landed there. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
      • These are the same folks who were saying a week ago that Obama was not born in Hawaii. Having been shown how stupid they are, they move on to their next round of stupidity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Cindy Sheehan was ever a birther.[31] Truthsort (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It amazes me how ridiculous Americans can get some times. After the flat out lies Bush told, we had the same kinds of idiots crying that they were "conspiracy theories, akin to 9/11 truthers" for pointing out that evidence clearly suggests they didn't have WMD. Now we have one of the worlds most hunted men who was attacked and killed on the sovereign soil of a nuclear armed nation and people are shouting "omgz guys yous just saying its a conspiracy" to drown out genuine criticisms? Pathetic. Again.

Before he was even officially verified as Osama bin Laden by those who retrieved his body, his corpse was dumped into the ocean. Hilariously, the government even attempted to claim it did so because of "adhering to Islamic burial rites", which only the most moronic of diehard flag wavers could possibly buy into. This is suspect. Why wouldn't it be? Even the claims of "trying to stop his body being a shrine" doesn't work since they could have disposed of his body after complete verification. Ignoring the small already existing problem that they've released where he was killed, defeating the purpose.

I hope Obama, as he has been suggesting, actually releases further verifiable information that confirms Osama's death (perhaps even sooner if leaked) so that any actual unfounded conspiracy theories are shut down. But UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, questioning clearly suspect actions and handling of the situation of a man who has been repeatedly suspected of already being dead for years by sources from around the world, after the US government has already been caught releasing "new" videos of Osama that were later shown to be years older, is NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY. It is raising valid questions.

Hell, a controversy section should be included regardless of the questions surrounding his death, such as the claims of assassination (illegal both internationally and by US domestic law), the claims of deliberate killing of his family at the compound and so on. Get your patriotic heads out of your asses and edit like neutral Wikipedians. 203.206.14.221 (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

He was officially verified as Osama bin Laden by DNA testing and by other people present with him in his complex. I agree with a controversy section, but it can't have things about how the U.S. dumped his body in the ocean ASAP to prevent him from being positively identified when most reliable news sources are saying it was him for sure and that he was already identified. When you find a "genuine criticism", let me know. - Uhai (talk · contribs) 04:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Raising questions is fair. Jumping to conclusions is conspiracist junk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Pakistani helicopter crashing into 2 houses

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/latest-on-the-osama-raid-tricked-out-choppers-live-tweets-possible-pakistani-casualties/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.77.117 (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Chage PST to PKT

In the summary box in the upper right, one of the times is listed as PST. Clicking the link shows the page for Pakistan Standard Time, abbreviated PKT.

 Done and thank you. Rklawton (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Kill not capture

There have been contradicting reports about weather the mission was to kill bin Laden or if capturing him alive was also an option. The initial reports indicated that the mission was "kill not capture."[32] But a spokesman later said bin Laden would have been taken alive if they had the opportunity.[33] Fnordware (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If he and his guards had thrown up their hands and said, "We surrender", it's likely they would have taken him in. Instead, he chose to be killed. Are any of those sources "official", or are they "anonymous"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No Mention Of Pakistan- American Editors Trying To Hog Entire Operation

Why is there NO Mention whatsoever of Pakistan in this operation?? Its been made clear by the president of the US and the secetary of state Clinton that Pakistani intelligence was vital to this operation, Ofcourse im sure the American editors here would like to downplay the Pakistani role to help nurse there battered ego post 9/11, Also why is no mentioned made in the casualty section for the downed US helicopter?

Pakistani intelligence should be added to the combat info box.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/latest-on-the-osama-raid-tricked-out-choppers-live-tweets-possible-pakistani-casualties/ S Seagal (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan should be added to the combat info box because they arrested the rest of the people including two of his wife and the others present: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/bin-ladens-wives-children-arrested-in-raid--1-son-killed/2011/05/02/AFwSTuZF_blog.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Seagal (talk • contribs) 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The opinion piece you link to is pure speculation about rumors that ends up with a question. The other piece is a blog that doesn't make it clear whether the Pakistani forces were involved in the raid, or — as they happened to be right next door — showed up to see what the fuss was about a few minutes later. Please don't accuse editors of things. If it turns out Pakistan was instrumentally involved, I'm sure someone or their ego will come upon a reliable source that credibly states that. Abrazame (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Proof Pakistan arrested people at the house:

http://english.sina.com/world/p/2011/0502/371338.html http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-05/02/c_13854992.htm

Since Pakistani forces made arrests at the house they should be included S Seagal (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, edit requests and change suggestions are accepted much more willingly when you aren't implying nefarious motives to other editors. Please keep the Good Faith wiki directive in mind. Secondly, calm your horses. This is a developing story, and we have multiple, conflicting accounts. Don't cry POV just because someone goes with a known reputable source instead of yours, until the dust has settled and we have a better idea of what happened. Coming in all guns blazing, making nasty comments about the rest of us is not a way to represent your point of view. Please try to be civil in your requests, and please exhibit some patience with current events articles.204.65.34.246 (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And as I already noted, the fact that the Pakistanis arrested people related to bin Laden does not mean that they were involved in the operation that killed bin Laden, it may be that they were tipped off by the departing Americans or it may merely be that they arrived there in response to the hubbub. Please be sure you are reading your source thoroughly and reporting it accurately. The two sources are actually the same report, which states that the Pakistanis arrested them in "a search operation", which almost certainly means it was not at the site and not a part of the American operation, but rather an attempt to track down whomever may have fled the compound or other locales after the fact. Abrazame (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Free good photo to add

- http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/in/photostream

- - - P050111PS-0210

- - President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. Please note: a classified document seen in this photograph has been obscured. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

- - This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

I've uploaded that to Wikimedia Commons at File:Obama and Biden await updates on bin Laden.jpg. Goodvac (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Added to story. jengod (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

POV-title? Huh?

I notice someone added a {{POV-title}} header to the article. I wonder if they'd be good enough to explain their reasoning for adding it. The article reads as reasonably well-rounded (for one that's only a couple of days old), balanced, and comprehensive as to the extant information. And there's certainly nothing non-neutral about the article title, is there? His name was Osama bin Laden and he died, and the article describes the circumstances of his death. Someone want to try and clarify this, please? Anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller? Bueller? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, there was some madness when the article started this morning, and then it got locked and people came here to contribute and its turned out okay - that confused me too Mwheatley1990 (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was created on May 1st 9:08 EST for what it's worth. To see that in less than 24 hours, we have all this info, is a sight to behold. Iksnyrk (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede needs love

If someone has time, writing skillz and the power to temporarily lock the item, I think the now-five-graf-long lede of this article could use some more concise phrasing... jengod (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Title dispute

I don't consider the title "Death of Osama bin Laden" to be expressive of a neutral point of view. By using the passive voice, it de-emphasizes the fact that he didn't simply die, he was in fact killed. To talk about his "death" rather than his killing is to suggest that nobody actually actively killed him. A much more appropriate title might be "Assassination of Osama bin Laden", in line with other articles about the killing of influential figures. Owen (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above. But to reiterate, Assassination is a non inclusive term that means that the sole purpose of the mission was to kill (not capture) bin Laden. Death, on the other hand, is an inclusive term that adequately fulfills the neutral POV (even if or if not it was an assassination). Iksnyrk (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A sentence needs a verb to be passive voice. "Death of Osama bin Laden" does not have a verb in it. Troodon311 (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when were Wikipedia article titles required to be sentences? Fnordware (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I never said they were. I was just pointing out that the title does not use the passive voice as claimed by user Owen Troodon311 (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you see a passive verb in your writing, kill it. It was probably up to no good. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if it was just passing through? -- llywrch (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename to Assassination of Osama bin Laden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Times

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

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

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

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

Legal qualification

Could there be a section with the legal qualification of this event, such as wilful or premeditated murder? (Any sources or links thereto?) 178.41.75.206 (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No RS support for that. That would be OR/POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh, why adding reliable sources would be WP:OR/WP:NPOV??! 178.41.75.206 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the best that I could find and probably the closest to the subject matter: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/02/was_killing_bin_laden_legal 178.41.75.206 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This was a military operation ordered by a head of state. The stated objectives were to "get [bin Laden] and bring him to justice." That implies a live capture if possible. By common legal definitions, "murder" doesn't apply. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was asking simply because the Pakistan penal code does not seem to go into such detail... The fact that it was ordered by some head of state (esp. one that has no legal authority in this matter) is completely irrelevant. Also, is your "implication" WP:OR? Note that a U.S. national security official said that the team that had hunted down Osama bin Laden had been under orders to kill him, not to capture him. (Reuters: "This was a kill operation," the official said, making clear there was no desire to try to capture bin Laden alive in Pakistan.) 178.41.75.206 (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that statement is contradicted by Homeland Security Adviser John O. Brennan. (QIF WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE BIN LADEN ALIVE, IF HE DIDN'T PRESENT ANY THREAT, THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED WERE ABLE AND PREPARED TO DO THAT.) As long as there's a question regarding the actual ROE, I think we should presume Brennan was speaking officially and the unnamed "national security official" that talked to Reuters wasn't. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the official propaganda does not rule out (or contradict, when speaking strictly) the actual orders as stated above... ;-) 178.41.75.206 (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the best RS information is as Alan states. And furthermore, even if bin Laden were killed intentionally, it would be incorrect to conflate that to murder -- that is a legal determination that the killing was illegal. That is certainly not the consensus position of the RSs. Even if some people think abortions in the U.S. are, in their POV, "murder", that does not make it so. Same here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, it would be incorrect to conflate this not to be a murder, esp. based on the irrelevant (and therefore false) "arguments" that it was somehow "authorized" by the U.S. president, who had no relevant legal competency in this matter. Well, I naturally pinpointed the qualification to murder, as that was the closest that I could find in the Pakistan penal code, which should be the most relevant here, based on locality. This is supposed to be a serious discussion about proper legal qualifications, not about some irrelevant anecdotal examples. (E.g. in my country, from the legal point of view, only a human being can be murdered, and fetus is not legally a human being, so it cannot be a murder.) I am not really sure about the consensus of "reliable sources", as I have seen no relevant ones, but from the mass media, I have heard some strong criticism, even outrage from Muslim and esp. Pakistani sources. And, really, I do not consider political statements parroted across the "media webrings" to be a relevant legal qualification, all the less a reliable proof of consensus on this matter. So, in short, I offered the best that I could find at the beginning, I am yet to see any sound arguments in favour of the legality of this (not mere moral judgements!) extrajudicial killing – the term which, arguably, fits the description most appropriately, but which, according to Wikipedia, also suggests illegality. Note that I was interested in the legal qualification, and "murder" seemed the best fit; from the point of view of its political qualification, "assassination" seems to be the closest term. 95.103.211.80 (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Alan is correct here, but (even more important for wp purposes) is that the RSs are in general not calling this a murder.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is why I founded this section, to serve as a placeholder as more and more legal opinions and qualifications unfold in the coming days. And, perhaps, we should also review the relevance of reliable sources to this issue... 95.103.211.80 (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also killing enemy combatants is never murder, it's called killing enemy combatants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djkernen (talk • contribs) 01:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I am to take the definition from Wikipedia, then Osama bin Laden was most likely a civilian, nowhere near the term "enemy combatant", unless you subscribe to the extreme U.S. POV, and not the general world-view, of course...

Please step down off the WP:SOAPBOX before it breaks. If bin Laden hadn't opted to fire on the commandos, he might have survived, and having not survived, the terms "murder" or "assassination" might have applied. As it was, he DID fire on the commandos, making himself a combatant. QED. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I will gladly step down off the WP:SOAPBOX after Djkernen and you, as I find your arguments to be tenuous at best. To me it looks like Osama bin Laden acted in self-defence against an armed commando trying to break into his house, unless, of course, the armed commando acted on a valid warrant (and there was one, issued by the hero of African liberation), or was otherwise "bound by law", and its members were properly marked as a competent authority. (In fact, according to a White House statement, Osama bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot, although this is also somewhat irrelevant to the legal basis of the U.S. action, but it does turn some zealots' statements into a bitter farce.) Alright, enough of the taunting, all that I aspire for is a serious and rigorous legal analysis of the U.S. action, but not nonsense in the style "it is good for America, therefore it is right", or anything to similar effect. Perhaps you will agree that Djkernen's remark was totally unhelpful in this regard, hence my response. 95.103.211.80 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

/\This./\ Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Sohaib Athar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sohaib Athar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sohaib Athar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How does that relate to this article? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

He's the guy who unwittingly live-tweeted the assault on bin Laden's estate. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) So...shouldn't that go on HIS article? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I put it here too because editors interested in OBL may not know about that page (it's brand new) and may be interested in the discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Reasonable thinking by Mu. Hopefully, that AfD will snow close quickly, and this can simply be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Date

Wait. did he die on May first or second?

We need to use UTC throughout this article to prevent this kind of confusion. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thus, UTC would be the 2nd. Around 1 in the morning, correct? Silverseren^C 00:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The operation commenced at 0300 local (Pakistani) time on May 2, but they're... *looking* ... five hours ahead of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). Washington is 4 hours behind UTC because of Daylight Savings Time. So by Pakistani time, bin Laden died May 2, but by Washington or London time, it was still May 1. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggested additions or changes to the article

• Infobox:

"Death of bin Laden" —> "Death of Osama bin Laden"

• Is it really necessary to include EST & PST timezone information, esp. in the lead, isn't it rather confusing? What makes EST & PST so special and noteworthy in this context? 178.41.75.206 (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, as I said above, most of the US is on daylight time...Smarkflea (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the "PST" reference is supposed to be PKT, for Pakistani time. It's completely illogical to reference a military operation in Pakistan to California time... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

NPV Needed for Last Paragraph of Lede

I think it would be best if we could balance out the pro-Geronimo reactions at the end of the lede, either by quoting a negative reaction or by providing the official reaction of the Pakistani government. There are two opposing quotes from Pakistan here. Adding them in would sound more like Wiki and less like CNN. I would do it myself but would want to hear discussion 1st.

Thanks

Dave
You can help!
02:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but one problem is that that would not actually balance it out, because throughout this event's articles a false contrast is being drawn between the overstatement about celebration on the one side to the absolute lack of acknowledgement of support from Middle-Eastern, African, South American and Asian quarters. It isn't as black and white as the U.S. and NATO threw a party and the Middle East wailed and moaned, even if that is what some are choosing to project.

Another problem is that we're not here to present pro- and anti- statements just for the heck of it, we're supposed to cover the notable positions. The international reactions section is primarily focused on official state responses, and the fact is that Pakistan's official response is not opposition to the American mission or the death of bin Laden, but support of them. That terrorist groups and nations in opposition to the U.S. in general decried their mission and its successful outcome is a given; we should note that, but they're hardly appropriate for the lead. Abrazame (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Which infobox should be used?

Should we used {{operational plan}} or {{infobox military conflict}}? User:Themane2 kept on forcing the use {{infobox military conflict}}. I was told by several editors earlier that {{operational plan}} is better because this was not exactly a battle and there weren't clear "commanders" in this operation. Any thoughts?—Chris!_c/t 02:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell all of us the specifics of how they differ?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, {{infobox military conflict}} allows you to include more specific info about a battle like commanders, combatant, strength... {{operational plan}} does not.—Chris!_c/t 02:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Operational plan, without a doubt. Military conflict implies a military operating against another military or state; this was not that. Abrazame (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree the operation box is more appropriate than the battle box. Cla68 (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Prodego ^talk 05:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Human shield misinformation

State department has since clarified that neither UBL, nor any other household occupant, used a woman/wife as a human shield. This seems like clear misinformation meant to tarnish a reputation, and should be removed in line with NPOV. 98.237.115.154 (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you got a reference that we can use? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The 9:10 PM update at [34] says the reports of using a human shield are inaccurate, but that's the only reference I can find. I'd suggest waiting for more sources to confirm, especially as the source in that article is anonymous. 184.56.92.166 (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How is it possible to "tarnish the reputation" of a man personally responsible for thousands of murders? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV means nothing if it only applies to a commitment to be neutral about people we do not find distasteful. Shall we say that Saddam Hussein was a closeted homosexual, or that Stalin's pathology report showed that he lacked testes? UBL did not use a human shield, yet we are going to perpetuate the misinformation that says he used his wife as a human shield? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.115.154 (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't say that no women were used as human shields, but states clearly that ObL didn't use one. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8489658/Osama-bin-Laden-was-not-armed-and-did-not-use-wife-as-human-shield.html Ketil (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is another article in The Telegraph from yesterday: Osama bin Laden killed cowering behind his 'human shield' wife With today's retraction the first story can definitely be called misinformation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

USAToday also clarifying the situation,[35] but the "tarnishing his reputation" stuff posted by the OP is hilarious. The article should reflect current sourcing, for the purpose of accuracy, not for preventing "tarnishing the reputation" of a mass murderer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Great job

It's barely one day into this article and it looks really smooth. Thanks to every contributor for making Wikipedia look so good. —  AjaxSmack  03:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph of "Locating Osama Bin Laden" a complete train wreck at time of writing. It's so poor I can't work out what was meant in the first place to make a copy edit. How can the contributors involved have left in that state? FightingMac (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Courier man's real name

Please correct the courier man real name as Sheikh Abu Ahmed. We can also consider adding details how this courier man was located. For more details, please see, Phone call by Kuwaiti courier led to bin Laden Jalal0 (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I got the name from a video of the Wikileaks document aired on CBS Evening News. Cla68 (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Majority of the other news outlets, like Wall Street Journal, San Fransico Chronicle and The Associated Press have given his name as Sheikh Abu Ahmed. Please see Sheikh Abu Ahmed google news search. Jalal0 (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have the sources to back it up please go ahead and make the change. Cla68 (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note: the proper English expression is "courier" not "courier man". Tvoz/talk 07:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not the courier's real name. The pseudonym given is "Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti". "al-Kuwaiti" just means "a man from Kuwait". So "Sheikh Abu Ahmed, a man from Kuwait" is the same name as the pseudonym. The name given in the Wikileaks files of Faraj al-Libi is "Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan". This is the real name also given in a CBS article. Unfortunately the referenced article gets it wrong and should be deleted as incorrect and confusing. However, this is basically "original research" even though it is obvious. What is the procedure for getting rid of an incorrect reference from a reliable source? --Mujokan (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Same as any other information discovered in an article, I'd say...simply delete the erroneous material and note the reason in the edit summary. It's not like the major news outlets get it right every time; if they did, there'd be no such thing as a "retraction". --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all still pretty confusing. In the section Identity of the courier we learn that:

1. the real name of the courier is Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan, and
2. his real name is Sheikh Abu Ahmed.

Both are sourced from reliable sources, but it seems to me that (assuming there is one specific courier whose trail led to the discovery) they can't be both correct. An earlier statement that there were conflicting news reports was removed. I don't see reliable sources stating that these two monikers (Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan and Sheikh Abu Ahmed, aka Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti) refer to the same person; they either use one name or the other. For all I know, the suggestion that they are different names for one person is an inference drawn by a Wikipedia editor. In fact, I see two (non-RS) sources that also signal the existence of conflicting reports: Another Version of the Osama Bin Laden Courier Story; In aftermath of bin Laden raid, new intelligence, shifting accounts.  --Lambiam 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Abbottābad vs Abbottabad

Why does this article use "Abbottābad" when the article is at Abbottabad? "Abbottābad" isn't even listed as an alternate spelling in the Abbottābad article. --JaGa^talk 06:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Abbottābad, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan is how it appears on Google Maps. jengod (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Then the article name should change, but this is the en-WP, so surely it should be the conventional en spelling? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of diacritics can be controversial, see the talk page of WikiProject Vietnam. It should be up to Wikiprojects relating to various countries/languages to establish best practice. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Consistence, use same name as city naming here in Wikipedia: Abbottabad. --Kslotte (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fork or rename?

Parts of this article are getting so detailed it might be worth considering a fork to a separate for some of the material, i.e. details on the hunt and the raid. jengod (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a fork for Operation Geronimo is in order -- Iksnyrk (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur. The information for the military operation is overrunning everything else. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fork of Operation Geronimo section

Information about Operation Geronimo is expanding at a astonishing rate. In order to capture all verified information, I suggest we fork the raid information to Operation Geronimo.

Do you agree or disagree?

• Agree -- Iksnyrk (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree - This article is only 84K, and that includes references. A full 100K of prose (not including references)is acceptable for an article per WP:SPLIT. No need to split so quickly. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree - suggestion is premature. Let's see where this article weighs in next week, and when things aren't quite so WP:RECENT. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree - per Alan the Roving Ambassador. --Kslotte (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral – The operation merits its own article. It is is however too early to split the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Normal refs

Would help out our newbie editors if we were not using the non normal references format. Not the best idea to introduce the most complicated referencing type at this time in a new and very active article.Moxy (talk)......................

US helicopters involved.

I think there is a bit of confusion about the types of choppers involved in the operation : the assault team was inserted via US Army MH-60 Blackhawks and not via HH-60 Pavehawks, the latter being used by the USAF in case a search and rescue operation is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.128.253 (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there information

Why the SEALs were given vs other Special Forces?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, 'Special Forces' is a particular type of Army personnel. Special Operations Forces (or SOF) is the more correct term. And why the SEALs? Heck, why not?

Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan

I took it upon myself to cut this sentence "In 2007, US officials discovered the courier's real name, Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan, and, in 2009, that he lived in Abbottābad, Pakistan" from the "Locating Osama Bin Laden" section because it was not helpful and confusing, was not supported by its first citation, the second a CBS News video cast I didn't sit through, and appears to be a misundestanding of a Wikileaks item mentioned in some newspapers, for example here.

However he and the Wikileaks item does seem notable for the article, especially because of the fascinating suggestion the US brought the raid forward for fear of the Wikileaks item compromising its security.FightingMac (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, it's been stuck back with the first reference removed and the CBS video cast retained. But it's not right amd it's not helpful and what is worse whoever put it back didn't mention it in their edit summary. But I'm not getting into an edit war over it. Did my best. FightingMac (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

See also the section #Courier man's real name above.  --Lambiam 23:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Name of operation

Was it also computer generated as with Odyssey Dawn?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This page should cut-and-paste moved?

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

Closed there is already a move discussion open. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden → Death of Osama bin Laden/edits 1 –

• And cut-and-paste move back to name Death of Osama bin Laden? Cut-and-paste moving a page is normally considered a Bad Thing: see Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. But since the first news of the death, the page Death of Osama bin Laden has already had over 1700 edits, and at that rate, before the current edit rush slackens off about such a major and controversial event, it may well get near or past the danger limit of about 5000 edits in one page's history where temporarily deleting (e.g. for a history-merge or a history-split) or moving needs a special permission which I as an ordinary admin have not got, as moving or deleting a very long edit history used to sometimes make Wikipedia's system jam: see the incident with the page Apple (refs:Talk:Apple/Archive 2#Old cut-and-paste moves affecting this page and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 44#Page deletion revision limit). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You know far more about such things than I do, but it seems that this page is only likely to need a move or histmerge a few times in future, at most. In such cases I imagine it wouldn't be that hard to find a steward to perform the job. I think it would be nicer to keep all the history in one place. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• {ec}*We can ask a STEWARD to move or delete if needed. At this point there is no need. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Add to Google Earth?

I would like to suggest adding the coordinates of the bin Laden compound to Google Earth, so that this article appears in that application.
I have seen how to do this at this wikihow article but don't know whether this is a common practice, and also don't have the experience to do this myself.
DylanTusler (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This has already been done. The {{coord}} template was added to the article yesterday, but it may take weeks for Google to update its index. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction about drones

• The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, using drone-derived intelligence, developed "what amounted to a detailed four-dimensional 'map' of the bin Laden compound and its occupants and their patterns of living and working."
• Deploying drones was apparently not a feasible approach, in part because the compound's location was "within the Pakistan air defense intercept zone for the national capital

Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The second one seems silly, you'd think the risk was much higher of sending in helicopters. My guess is that they either wanted to be sure they got their man, or that they actually did try to capture him. Blowing the house up from above wouldn't do, and as the house was pretty large, I'm not sure one hellfire would be enough. Ketil (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama wanted eyeball confirmation.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I see what Socrates2008 is saying: why if drones would get spotted on radar, shot out of the sky, and spook bin Laden out of there during a bombing mission would they not be so discovered and destroyed and the rest in prior intel-gathering missions? My guess is that camera-only drones are smaller and lighter and perhaps even faster than those heavy enough to carry the bombs. My guess isn't good enough to go on, but it was the sources that said what the article reports, and your guess that they contradict, I'm just offering a possible explanation of how both could be correct. Abrazame (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Surveillance drones such as the Global Hawk are not necessarily smaller or lighter that drones capable of deploying munitions like the MQ-9 Reaper. Drones aren't also the only reconnaissance platforms either (see Key Hole) and it's not like the Pakistani Air Defense network can stop those from functioning in orbit. The decision to execute a hard raid rather than an airstrike suggests economy of force was highest in consideration, especially since using JDAMs in a residential neighbourhood close to Islamabad is bad form. The Wired magazine article is questionable in some of its assertions, but until more verifiable material is released, any word on the motivation behind why the White House chose a hard raid as far as anyone not directly involved in planning and execution speaking of it is conjecture. Jun Kayama (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.218.224.53, 3 May 2011

The article states that bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed. It cites an article from the guardian as support for this statement. The article contains no information that supports this proposition. As a result, particularly because the statement is somewhat inflammatory, proper sourcing should be found or that sentence should be deleted entirely.

Additionally, other accounts, including the official account, state that bin Laden "resisted" the SEALs. What this means is unclear, and so it is possible that he could have been armed.

Either way, this should be dealt with.

98.218.224.53 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Here's the relevant sentence from the source: As the raiding party closed in on the last unsecured room in the compound, Bin Laden, who according to the White House had no weapon, was shot dead.. Make sense? --John (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• If bin Laden was unarmed, in what way did he resist arrest? Biscuittin (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not require the possession or use of weapons to resist arrest. Furthermore, this was a military operation, not apprehension of a fugitive by law enforcement, so the whole notion of arrest as related to this incident is entirely misplaced. Jun Kayama (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Split into subsections

I created two subsections for the locating of bin Laden, one regarding the identity of the courier and one regarding the location of the compound. I gave the timeline as best I can make it out from reading accounts on the web. I tried to give references for everything.

I think this split makes the article easier to read and understand. I added one piece which may well count as original research, though I did reference two Wikipedia articles to make my case. This is that Sheikh Abu Ahmed from Kuwait and Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti are the same name. This seems obvious to me, but it may not fit Wikipedia policy.

Hope this is OK. --Mujokan (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like I screwed up the reference syntax though it looked OK on the preview. Will try to fix it now. --Mujokan (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a useful edit to me in what continues to be a problematic section. I think you're wrong to rely on the CBS story regarding Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan as the real name of the Abbottabad courier (or rather one of the two cited so far in news stories). The Guardian story here I cite in a section on al-Khaliq Jan above says this

Buried in a document from 2008 released by WikiLeaks last week are notes from the interrogation of a Libyan, Abu al-Libi, who had apparently been with Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

According to the document, Libi fled to Peshawar in Pakistan and was living there in 2003 when he was asked to become one of Bin Laden's messengers. The document says: "In July 2003, detainee received a letter from [Bin Laden's] designated courier, Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan, requesting detainee take on the responsibility of collecting donations, organising travel and distributing funds for families in Pakistan. [Bin Laden] stated detainee would be the official messenger between [Bin Laden] and others in Pakistan. In mid-2003, detainee moved his family to Abbottabad (Pakistan) and worked between Abbottabad and Peshawar.

and I think it's clear that it was al-Libi who moved to Abbpttabad and not al-Khaliq Jan.

Perhaps you can follow an earlier contributor who remarks the identity of the courier remain unclear?

Good edit nevertheless, I think. A decided improvement on the section's illiterate and confused condition earlier this morning. FightingMac (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Abu Faraj Al-Libi indeed lived in Abbottabad at one point. That doesn't preclude the courier also living there. This name is also mentioned in the Miami Herald and Daily Mail references I added as being the correct name of the courier living in the Abotttabad compound where bin Laden was staying. I am confident that the references giving the "real name" of Abu Ahmed as being "Sheikh Abu Ahmed" will be proved mistaken in time, so from my point of view I'd like to leave it as it is. --Mujokan (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On reflection I think you are right about the courier not necessarily living in Abbottabad, so I'll change that. --Mujokan (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It is FightingMac who is employing original research here, in connecting a dot from a person named in a raw intelligence dump to a differently-named person as reported in current reliable sources. None of that is "clear". If the two are one and the same it should be proven by a different source, not a conclusion leapt to by a Wikipedian. Abrazame (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cause of helicopter loss

I see we currently state that the helicopter was lost as a result of a stall. The Guardian has it that it was fired on by RPG before the crash. It seems there is some doubt over the cause; could the article reflect this? --John (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hardly strong enough evidence to merit a mention, I think. The article does not source the origin RPG claim, nor does it even state that the RPG struck the helicopter. In contrast, almost every other account of the engagement goes with the version put out by the U.S. - the copter stalled and landed safely. We should stick with that unless more sources pick up the RPG meme. Ronnotel (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Helicopters don't "stall". They can encounter a phenomenon called "settling with power", or "vortex ring state", in which they settle in their own downwash, but with an experienced pilot this is extremely unlikely. It actually takes some doing to enter this state, i.e., descending nearly vertically, then applying progressively more collective pitch and power in an attempt to arrest the rate of descent. In most cases all that is needed to escape the vortex ring is apply lateral cyclic and fly out of the vortex ring into still air. Density altitude may have been a factor, as Abbottabad is at 1,260 m above sea level. News reports so far suggest the U.S. military is unsure of the reason the machine crashed. It could have been mechanical failure. —Quicksilver^{T @} 22:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There was something said about the wall interfering with the operation of the chopper, but that sounded like a mere hypothesis. They were concerned with the mission and didn't really have time to get out the wrenches and try to fix the thing. If they're allowed back in the reclaim it, then maybe they'll be able to figure it out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename article to Operation Geronimo

Rename article to Operation Geronimo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.146.10 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. "Death of Osama bin Laden" is not a proper name for a critical battle during the War of Terror. DarthBotto _talk•cont 16:07, 03 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree to renaming too, but should be put to a vote. Gogu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.191.148 (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

 Disagree The article focuses on the death of a single person. Using your logic, Death of Adolf Hitler should be renamed to Battle of Berlin. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Wikipedia policy is to use a the commonly-used name for article titles, not some obscure military codename. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UT

Agree. Look at operation red dawn. Operation geronimo seems a teer more encylopedic name to me.

Operation Geronimo is only one of the topics covered in the article. --Mujokan (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree to change the name of the article to Operation Geronimo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liepaja1941 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME, I assume there aren't much headlines like "Operation Geronimo was successfull". --Kslotte (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

by that logic operation red dawn should be renamed something like the capture of sadam hussien 82.40.4.248 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That would probably be sensible - not many have heard of "Red Dawn". We seem to be suffering from the mainly US male fixation with slick-sounding military codenames and cool weapon systems in this article enough already without renaming it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not from the US. It's not a macho thing either. The reason names like theses are used is because they are official names. When the US puts all it's documents away on this thats what the file will be called. Thats why we should use it to we're writing an encyclopedia not a news paper. 82.40.4.248 (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose at least for now. The operation name is not in wide use at present. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose as per above. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Very very strong oppose I believe the current name is the name that best sum up what this article is about. Renaming to Operation Gernaimo would provide confusion, etc. Also, this article focus on Bin Laden's death and not the operation that was carried out that resulted in is death --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time!  19:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: It doesn't make sense. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 19:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose and there is a serious case for moving Operation Red Dawn to Capture of Saddam Hussein. PatGallacher (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I would support a re-naming to "Killing of ..." It is more precise, and reflects what the RSs say.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Do other articles on this similar nature start with "Killing of..."? I'm on a shitty computer that won't let me examine with autocomplete. I know some start "Death of", others "Assassination of", but I'm not aware of "Killing of". Again, since the intent wasn't necessarily to kill (as they would've taken him in alive if he surrendered), I think "death" is most appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose, Operation Geronimo is only one part of the Death of Osama bin Laden. -- Iksnyrk (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose per Wikipedia naming conventions - at present, "Operation Geronimo" is not at all the most commonly used description, and it has no inherently obvious meaning. Leave it as a redirect however. Further, I agree with User:Epeefleche that the better name here would be Killing of Osama bin Laden. If he died of natural causes, "Death" makes sense - that is not the case here, and the active is generally preferable to the passive. Tvoz/talk 22:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME Death of Osama bin Laden is used more often. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Although Operation Geronimo gets around some issues about other targets and goals of storming the compound, it is not a clear winner. The proper military name should be something like the Abbottābad Raid or the Raid on Abbottābad. Battles and raids are named by their location; compare Dieppe Raid; Raid on Entebbe; Battle of the Coral Sea; Battle of Midway; it's not Custer's Last Stand but rather the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Using a code name such as Operation Geronimo is inappropriate; the purpose of a code name is to hide what is going on. For now, sticking with the current generic WP:COMMONNAME is better than choosing a weak codename. The name issue can be revisted later. Glrx (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate refs

Can somebody screen the article for duplicate refs? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   → To be or not to be? 18:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

Is it possible to create a timeline of the actions that took place. Not only the raid of the compound but also the address made by Obama to the american people, the burial of bin Laden and so on. Also there are times in the Exif-Datas of the White House images, which perhaps also could be "translated" into an timeline which only uses one time zone. Good idea? --Pilettes (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if properly sourced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, it was just a suggestion for someone that is possible to do this. Honestly I am to confused by UTC, EDT, Pakistani time, PM, AM, 24h, May 1st, May 2nd and so on... But it would be quite informativ to have such a timeline. Alone to have the times here in Wikipedia in a chronolocigal and consistent would be very helpful to reconstruct the whole action and to see how many time elapsed between the several actions. --Pilettes (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the action was on the ground in Pakistan, I would keep everything in that time zone, and maybe provide a quick note as to its relationship to UTC, for anyone who wants to convert it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There totally should be a timeline on this page, but my feeling is that's a project for two months from now, once when the "fog of war" is lifted, when the edit pace of the article has decreased, and we have a bit more clarity on what happened and when. jengod (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support future timeline. Rklawton (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support using PKT (Pakistani) time with a brief note regarding it's relationship to UTC. Rklawton (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Good idea! Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 21:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with these sentiments, but I don't think it belongs in the lead sentence, or even the lead section. It is not clear what the time is referring to - the beginning of the raid? the end of the raid? the time of bin Laden's death? Also, it slows down the flow of the introductory sentence and is too much detail for that placement. Move it to the body of the article, but clarify what exactly that time represents. Tvoz/talk 22:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious error message

I am seeing a mysterious error message: ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named secretteam; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

Me and User:Geniice have checked the page but couldn't see any glaring errors. If anybody can fix it, please do! Also do tell how this is fixed as this error have eluded me for minutes! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   → Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It means a reference titled "secretteam" was removed from the page, but another shortcut reference tag is calling for the now missing reference. If someone can find it, it can be readded. Often, a bot that patrols for orphaned links may salvage it from an old revision. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Section on effects in the U.S.

Does this section look fine:

==Domestic political effects in the United States==

In the United States, commentators and analysts have discussed the possible political effects of bin Laden's death. Statistician Nate Silver of the New York Times predicted that significant near-term improvement in President Obama's approval rating, but cautioned against overestimating the bin Laden death's long-term impact on Obama's prospects for reelection in the 2012 presidential election. Later, Silver cautioned against underestimating the electoral implications of bin Laden's death. A Washington Post/Pew Research Center poll taken shortly after the event showed that 56 percent of Americans say they approve of Obama's performance in office overall, the highest rating for Obama since 2009 and nine percentage points higher than an ABC News/Washington Post poll found the previous month.

The successful operation also seemed to burnish the reputation of the CIA and its director, Leon Panetta.

After the operation was announced, Obama was praised even by Republicans who have been sharply critical of him, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, former New York City mayor and presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani, and Republican real estate businessman and potential presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. Michael D. Shear of the New York Times wrote that the bin Laden raid complicates the Republican message in the 2012 message, as it might undermine the assertion that Obama was weak and indisive, a charge leveled at the president during the Middle East and North Africa protests in 2010 and 2011.

---

This seems an appropriate length and covers enough ground. One user reverted on the article page and has an objection; I would appreciate it if that user could explain his or here objections here. Neutrality^talk 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider a section on the domestic repercussions in the US of this event as inappropriate to the article. Wikipedia is an international project, al-Qaida has operated worldwide, and the suggestion that the effects of this event on poll ratings US etc is of any great significance is to give it undue weight. This article is long enough, without going into speculative off-topic details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We don't know the domestic political effects, and even when we do, it's unclear that it fits the scope of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We surely do know the domestic political effects through the comments of prominent members of Congress and through opinion polls. All of these are relevant to the meaning and effects of this operation. There have been several dozen articles in major newspapers about the impacts of this. This is perfectly within scope. Neutrality^talk 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's too early to know what the real impact is. Everybody thought G.H.W.Bush's re-election was assured by the Gulf War victory. Guess what. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Much of this edit is written in a subjective, speculative way. "Seemed to burnish" the CIA and Panetta? If Obama gets a bounce, he gets a bounce, but per WP:CRYSTAL, we shouldn't talk about one unless there is one to talk about. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It is sourced to the New York Times. Neutrality^talk 00:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How many helicopters actually used

The raid was carried out by 20 to 25 helicopter-borne United States Navy SEALs from the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU) under the command of the Joint Special Operations Command, led by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). According to The New York Times, "79 commandos and a dog were involved."[64] Additional personnel on the mission included "tactical signals, intelligence collectors, and navigators using highly classified hyperspectral imagers."[32]

mentions 20-25

but the below sentence says 4

The SEALs flew from Afghanistan to Tarbela Ghazi Airbase in northwest Pakistan.[65] The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, a U.S. Army airborne special operations unit nicknamed the "Night Stalkers," provided four modified Black Hawk helicopters, two of which were intended to be backups.[56][60][32][66] The raid was scheduled for a time with little moon luminosity so the helicopters could enter Pakistan "low to the ground and undetected."[67]

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   → For the people, of the people, by the people 20:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph says 20 to 25 SEALs, not 20-25 helicopters. Kevin (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

20-25 SEALs used, not helicopters. 20-25 helicopters would be ridiculous. Side note, did the SEALs arrive in one helicopter, or 2? I know one stalled and they put her down, but was there another dropping the SEALs off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.86.147 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

4 choppers, as noted in the quoted segment above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As for the side note: Given 20-25 personnel it requires a minimum of two MH-60s to transport that number. Unless stated otherwise, it should be considered the load plan for the chalk had only two birds loaded, with the other two providing overwatch. Jun Kayama (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Leaked autopsy photos

Can anyone verify if there is in fact a leaked autopsy photo, and if so post it? It would be public domain as a work by a US government employee. There have been several going around and noone seems able to verify whether they are legitimate of fake. Somedaypilot (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any leaked autopsy photo and all "leaked" works are very suspecious since they are hard to be verified as true --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   → Shake 'n Bake 20:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No photos have been released yet, but one is likely to be released soon. We'll know when an authentic photo is released and we will add it, no matter how gruesome it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

They have to weigh the appeasing of conspiracists vs. the likelihood of it energizing the enemy - a factor the typical conspiracist is too stupid to consider, or to even think about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a year old Photoshopped photo out there, but it's obviously bogus and predates the events described in this article. Rklawton (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently 2 years old. Yeh, they took a stock news photo of OBL and another picture and blended them together with all the deftness of a kindergartner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of death

Shouldn't Osama's date of death be listed as May 1 as he was actually killed that date? *duplicate message asked at Osama bin Laden --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Gotta catch 'em all! 21:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

He was killed on May 2 local time. This has been discussed already, over and over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/BB. Agree w/BB. Agree w/BB.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Kudos! Article praised on NPR

This article was praised to the skies on NPR this morning. Here's a transcript. Everyone who worked on it should be proud, you pwnd twitter! ;-) And whoever knows which template to use to say "this article was mentioned in the news by ..." should probably put that up at the top of this (talk) page, too. Good on you, everyone!  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was in a blog so I don't know if that counts. Here is the template if it does (feel free to modify of course)BurtAlert (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Added quote and expanded some parameters. Goodvac (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also added at Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2011. Congratulations to all editors! -SusanLesch (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved it up to the top of the page. Great job everyone! BurtAlert (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi. This article is not titled Operation Geronimo. With all due respect to the Navy SEALs it concerns a previous attempt on Bin Laden's life, and it concerns him, a human being. So until the government releases video of his death or burial at sea, please leave a picture of this person up top. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should use OBL's picture at top. And when we get a photo of him dead, we should should replace it with that. Rklawton (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

India told US about Osama's likely presence close to Islamabad

I think this piece of information does belong somewhere in the article. But I'm not sure where?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-had-twice-told-US-about-Osamas-likely-presence-close-to-Islamabad/articleshow/8156230.cms

NEW DELHI: It now turns out that Indian agencies had twice warned their US counterparts about the presence of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden in an urbanized and heavily populated area not very far from Islamabad – once in mid-2007 and again in early 2008 when they specifically mentioned his likely presence in a cantonment area. -Abhishikt 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

2007, eh? By an amazing coincidence, 2007 is when Pakistan's government floated the idea that OBL was likely dead. This belongs on the conspiracy theory page as a counter to that nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

People keep adding the "military conflict" infobox for Operation Geronimo. Consensus so far on this page has been that the "military/civil operation" infobox is more appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Operation Geronimo should be separated out of this article

Operation Geronimo should be separated out of this article. A large amount of information is beginning to come out about the military operation, and it's only going to increase over the next few days. The section on the operation is already to the point where it is too much to comfortably fit into this article. Also, the fact that this article has 2 infoboxes is even more evidence that the military operation needs its own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section?

I have a reliable source reporting on the conspiracy theories disputing this so called "burial at sea". [36] [37] Notable anti-war activist Cindy_sheehan is publicly questioning the official story. It is seems very strange that only hours after killing him, the US would hide the body deep in the ocean leaving absolutely no proof that it was actually Osama. The pictures of his death haven't been released. Test results can be forged and it seems amazing that the DNA testing was done so quickly. If reuters and the la times is reporting the controversy then Wikipedia should report it too.--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)