Talk:Osama bin Laden

Archive 1: November 2001 Topics: Osama's return to Saudi Arabia, Name, NPOV, Freedom fighter?, Media coverage Archive 2: December 2001 Topics: Removal of picture, Name, CIA theory Archive 3: April 2002-October 2002 Topics: Name, Reorganisation, Is he a terrorist, CIA theory, Mujahideen, Saudi Arabian citizenship Archive 4: November 2002-January 2003 Topic: Removed comment about members of family, Origin of Al Qaeda, US sponsored Archive 5: February 2003-August 2003 fatwa, Picture, "explaining revert", Page protected and unprotected, Deficiencies of this article Archive 6: Long discussion on September 12, 2003, Part 1 Archive 7: Long discussion on September 12, 2003, Part 2 Archive 8: September 2003 Archive 9: November 2003-December 2003 Archive 10 (archived in advance) Archive 11: January 2004-January 2006 Archive 12: January 2006-August 2006 Archive 13: August 2006-September 2006 Archive 14: October 2006-January 2007 Archive 15: February 2007-June 2008

Opening paragraph

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

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

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

Bin Laden / Bin Ladin

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

"Islamicist terrorist"

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

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

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

It also says, "In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names..." I have provided several sources, with a standing offer to include several thousand more. Now, if we wanted to break down who calls OBL a terrorist we could, but there are so very many reputable sources that do -- it is in fact a virtually universal appellation applied to him -- that it would be odd to single out the NYT, BBC, Interpol, countless scholars, etc. Also, we are talking about a style guideline, not something written in stone. We would look very silly clinging to a guideline at the expense of a crystal clear designation. IronDuke 01:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the policy means it's ok to say something like "the NY Times has called bin Laden a terrorist". Currently, the context is that the editors of Wikipedia has called bin Laden a terrorist based on this information from these sources. I do disagree with this specific policy but I feel that IronDuke changes might be out of line with the intent of the policy. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

But then again, it appears we have a project terrorism--PatrickFlaherty (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've adjusted this again in light of the guideline discussed. ID, if you are still finding this difficult to comprehend, think how easy it would be to find reliable sources which refer to GW Bush as a "dolt", a "dupe", a "war criminal", a "lame duck president" or even a "terrorist". We do not call him these things in our article; per NPOV we report what the sources say in reasonable proportion, but we do not parrot sources where they use judgemental language like this. I hope this clarifies my edit. I may raise this at the project page as well. --John (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As the founder of Wikiproject:Terrorism, I can assure you that the name itself was a contentious choice - but mitigated by the fact we used "Terrorism", not "Terrorists". Similarly, I would not be adverse to seeing Conrad Black appear on the "Wikiproject:Crime" project, but I would be very adverse to seeing him described as "Conrad Black is a Canadian criminal...". Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

John, can you refactor your comment please? IronDuke 22:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Be happy to, after Kauffner refactors his.--John (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you that part of Kauffner's post could stand refactoring, but it isn't nearly as offensive as yours. IronDuke 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<outdent> Yes it is. We have a policy that says "don't call people terrorists". We're also not calling him a "freedom fighter", "militant", or "activist". He founded an organization that almost every single reliable source out there considers a terrorist group. I don't see what we add to the article by stating "also he is a terrorist". This doesn't make us apologists for him, we're stating facts and letting others make their own value judgments. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We have no such policy. What does it add to the article? It is the thing he is best known for. Not being "a militant" or being "a freedom fighter." IronDuke

WP:WTA. Guideline, but that doesn't make it any less relevant than policy. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

By definition, a policy is more relevant than a guideline. And in any case, WTA provides for exceptions. IronDuke 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to libel another person. Whether he's the most wanted man in the world or not, we still have to abide by our guidelines. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Begging the question. IronDuke 23:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

Okay. I hope I can get broad agreement that, if the word terrorist is acceptable in the lead, that it is not merely law enforcement agencies who have used that term. Accordingly, I am going to add some more sources/qualifiers, but thought I'd get some input before I dug in. IronDuke 01:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The word terrorist is unacceptable as a definitive statement. No exceptions. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"No exceptions?" Hm, that seems awfully... definitive. Where is the policy on that again? And speaking of definitive, that's exactly what I'm not proposing, c.f. "Qualifiers." Anyone want to respond to my actual suggestion? Oh, and a further point: I'm going to be reinstering "Islamist" (not "Islamicist"). I believe those who argue against it aren't realizing that it is far more accurate -- and far less offensive -- than the word "Islamic", which has been in the article along while. Again, thoughtful comments welcome. IronDuke 23:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please spell out your proposed wording? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 01:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure -- I don't actually have any specific wording in mind yet... hmmm... I guess it would be something like "He has been designated a terrorist by numerous law enforcement agencies, scholars, and media outlets.[3][4][Sources to come] In conjunction with several other Islamist leaders..." I'm not married to "numerous," BTW, that's just off the top of my head. But I think it has to be made clear that the overwhelming consensus of what we consider to be reliable sources label him as such. Thanks for asking. IronDuke 02:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem terribly different from the current wording. What I object to (without speaking to the opinions of the other editors involved in this debate) is a statement along the lines of "He is a terrorist..." I see no problems with your suggestion. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine to me also. What we must always avoid is saying "XYZ is a terrorist", as, famously "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter", as I think Sceptre already pointed out upthread. For balance, do we/should we include something about the sector of the world which supports him as well? It would of course need proper sourcing but NPOV seems to dictate that if we can find them then we must include something of the sort. --John (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of deaths in 9/11

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

Picture

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

1996 fatwa

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

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

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

"Osama" or "Usama"?

According to the FBI it is Usama. But here it is mentioned as Osama. Which one is correct?-- Vintei  Talk  23:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)