Talk:Osama bin Laden

Change references to "death" to "alleged" death

There is no evidence that OBL was actually killed and not just rendered somewhere else followed by propagation of rumors of his death. The US government refuses to provide the (alleged) photos of his (alleged) death. This is because they do not exist. Until there is confirmation that he is dead, I suggest the page be changed to refer to his "alleged death." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.111.35 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published sources, not on unverifiable conspiracy theories. Or do you actually have evidence that these photos don't exist? Actually, don't bother to answer that - if you want absolute proof of everything, you shouldn't believe Wikipedia. Or newspapers. Or television. Or your own eyes - do you have proof that the sky is blue, or do you just believe what you see? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Ronnie42 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Without proof from your source is invalid showing his death. It be like saying Hitler was shot but nobody could confirm his death because no body was found.

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

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

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

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

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

This article is great demonstration of the reliability of wikipedia for verifiable information. Bin Laden's death has not been verified in any way. The media sources publishing allegations of his death are not able to verify it. Nobody can verify it. This is a joke. It is a clear demonstration of how a piece of information can go down in history as "truth" without anyone having a clue of its veracity. But for some reason wikipedia can not add the simple word "Allegation" to something that is, in fact, just allegation. What an intellectual disgrace. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You might read WP:TRUTH Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know about WP:TRUTH. I guess the same goes for WP's policy on Proof, then. What a relief to know we needn't be bothered by trivial things like evidence anymore. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

We are, however, bothered by things called reliable sources, if you cannot find one, then this discussion is of no use. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you are not bothered by citing reliable sources if you've decided to simply paste claims that are self-published by the department of defense.72.224.189.211 (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"Attempted capture"

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

US-centric lede

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

Agreed. --John (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Advertising?

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

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

It's still there. Can someone remove it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.70.187 (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You must be looking at a cached page, try reloading. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Imperial Hubris"

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