Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden

An article about Americans killing someone with bad English grammar...hmm..

"were", not "was".

"None of the SEALs, crew and pilots on the helicopter was seriously injured in the soft crash landing,"

English subjunctive.... 68.38.197.76 (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC) ...*were* seriously injured...

 Done

Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

typo....

"A The New York Times/CBS poll taken after bin Laden's death showed" 68.38.197.76 (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done

That's technically correct, because the paper is called "The New York Times". It looks wrong, but isn't. However, to make it easier to read I've changed it to "A CBS/The New York Times poll..." Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks wrong because it is wrong. See the paper itself, for example its subscriptions page - "Become a New York Times digital subscriber" or contact page - "contact a New York Times reporter". Similarly, people say "a Bronx resident", not "a The Bronx resident", and no fan of The Cure would ever describe themselves as "a The Cure fan". The reversed version you went with is not as jarringly wrong but still wrong. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it's technically correct. That the term "The" appears in the title makes for awkward English which most people avoid by dropping it altogether, but that does not change the fact "The New York Times" is the correct term. As well as the contact and subscriber page, you could always look at the actual paper itself to see what it's called? As it happens, I do like The Cure - also The Mission, and The Cult, and I agree I would never call myself a The Cure/Mission/Cult fan, but as that's the name of the band, I should. However, I also like a bit of The the - but I wouldn't call myself a The fan...

If reverting my edits is so important to you, please go ahead and remove the "The" from the sentence. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is wrong, always, inescapably. The newspaper itself does not follow your invented rules, which should have been a clue for you, but apparently not. If you can't understand that "A The" is an incorrect formulation, it's no wonder you don't understand when using "sic" is appropriate.

Reverting your edits is not in the slightest bit important to me. Being correct is. But if feeling persecuted is so important to you, then go ahead and feel that way, just as much as you like. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your apparent obsession with me my edits all of a sudden. I should be flattered, I suppose. You are wrong. I am technically correct. The important consideration here is that I understand the term "technically correct" and you don't. I'll explain: It means that the term "A The New York Times" is correct, but to actually use it would not be, so an alternative should be sought. And that's what I did. Chaheel Riens (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Being corrected when you are absurdly wrong makes you feel like the centre of attention, does it? 201.215.187.159 (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, but it does you. I can only assume that now you've been ousted from 2MASS and Erich von Däniken that you are looking for somewhere else to vent your spleen - I wonder at the fine line you draw between being outraged enough to comment on my edit in talkspace, but apparently not enough to actually do anything about it in the article itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"sic"

In "We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaida [sic]", the presence of "sic" is far more confusing that its absence would be. I removed it because it made me think there was a mistake in the sentence, which I hunted hard for and couldn't find. Then I realised that it referred to "Al Qaida", which is a widely used alternative transliteration and not a mistake. The editor who put the "sic" back said ""Qaida" is not the commonly known term", but it's the default spelling in many widely read publications, such as The Guardian. Google search counts suggest that the rate of use of Qaida:Qaeda is about 1:3 so it's hardly likely to be perceived as a mistake by the reader. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that it's a mistake, only that it's a variation of a spelling - and although perhaps a common variation, it is not the most common usage of the term, ergo the {{sic}} is appropriate. Also given that the ratio of "Qaeda" vs "Qaida" in this specific article is 50:3 if you include references, or 50:1 if not - the only reference to "Qaida" is in this single statement, it is correct to include the {{sic}} to show that in this instance "Qaida" is intentionally different to every other spelling in the article. Finally, as per wp:brd guidelines, please leave the original version in place until a consensus has been reached. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If you omit the "sic", no-one will take a second glance at this quote. If you put it in, you call attention to a trivial variation in spelling that does not need attention calling to it. You clearly wouldn't put a "sic" in the titles of the two references where that spelling is used, so why bother here?

You seem to be under the impression that WP:BRD requires me to leave your wrong edit in place for as long as you feel like arguing about it. It doesn't. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be a better idea to put a hidden comment there to discourage people from trying to "correct" it. I agree that it's unnecessary to place a "sic" as it will give the impression that it's misspelled. ... discospinster _talk 01:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Or another possibility is just put your preferred spelling variant there. It has no impact at all on the substance of the quote so does not need to be reproduced exactly. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, as consensus is against me, I'll agree that the {{sic}} should be removed. However, I'll also mention that the IP address is incorrect in their above comments to "just put your preferred spelling variant there" - which trivial or not, is not the point of a quote. If you quote something, you do it exactly - as per "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced", and also that "You seem to be under the impression that WP:BRD requires me to leave your wrong edit in place for as long as you feel like arguing about it. It doesn't." No, it only requires (and in fact, it's not a requirement, but merely a consideration so that you don't appear an arrogant editor,) that you leave the original edit in place until a consensus has been arrived at - as it has. Chaheel Riens (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE:

"A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting. Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment; this practice is universal among publishers. These are alterations which make no difference when the text is read aloud"

201.215.187.159 (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting - we're both quoting the bits from MOSQuote that suit our own arguments. I guess if you look hard enough you'll always be able to find something to support a particular point of view. I suppose if I sit and think hard enough I could use the above argument to support my previous insistence on {{sic}} beign inserted - something along the lines of using it to prevent any changes being made to read "Qaeda" under the consistency guidelines. Something like that, but it's Saturday night, and I really can't be bothered. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

I propose promptly deleting all (3) of the biased 'despite's...

In that section, readers ought to learn about the theories; NOT editors' skepticism. Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

How are they biased? "Despite" (which I tend to dislike too) doesn't invalidate referenced material. Neutrality includes refutations of fringe theories when they have been widely debunked or when what amounts to an Internet rumor has been refuted in reliable sources. As I noted, rewording is the usual way to deal with the issue. Acroterion (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems this article is sardonically siding with the opponents. Citations don't redeem that.

' Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations ' [[1]]

This article is already full of references to more accepted ideas, and the last one: 'despite unreleased DNA testing confirming his identity,' shouldn't be admissible. Beingsshepherd (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

While I think it could be better-phrased, you appear to be trying to leave a conspiracy theory standing on its own through an omission of cited material that refutes it. Wikipedia does not present fringe material on the same basis as mainstream media accounts. Acroterion (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It would still have a 'Conspiracy theories' heading. We haven't an obligation to demean them.

Let's just say: here are the widely accepted reports, here are the (unequivocal) *fringe theories*; then let readers decide for themselves.

Ideally, I'd like to add (with citation): Despite the U.S. administration releasing graphic photographs of the Hussein brothers' bodies...

But I assume, that wouldn't be permissible. Beingsshepherd (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Well, since none have been released, we have to work with what's available. Would you like to propose the specific language here? I have no objection in principle to your general concept, but would like to see something more concrete. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the former, I'm still calling for just a simple deletion. Have I really found sympathy for the latter!? If so, yes, I'd settle for that as a delightful compromise. Beingsshepherd (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

President was not present in situation room for Bin Laden's death per Reggie Love

This version of the event was not what Reggie Love said occurred. Reggie said he was playing cards with the President per interview posted on You Tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=B32sYF91KyM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torrey1952 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

Yep! This is nice and so what about spelling errors!?@!?! serioulsy oops haha i just spelled wrong-- :3 Well i dnot know what to put so yeah thnx this helped meh with my project! im bord im 12 years old!

OUTRO OF DARKNESS THEN REDNESS THEN WHITENESS!

• boop*