Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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?} 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)

Delete????

Come on you guys - Are you really saying that this article deserves to be deleted? I think that it is pretty apparent that there will soon be plenty of material to use to populate this article. KConWiki (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Take it to afd after everything cools down--Guerillero | My Talk 03:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is already getting worldwide attention plus the section on the main page of Osama bin laden about his death rumors and such can easily be merged here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of space in the original article on Osama bin Laden. I seconded PROD. This article is premature and unnecessary.--Cerejota (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no sense in deleting the article. It is just going to be re-created within an hour at most. (Sk5893 (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

I agree, there will be lots of research and analysis into this death. It will balloon to many pages within a week

Agreed, this article will be written over and over again. Do not delete and lets focus on expanding it. Iksnyrk (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely the suggestions that this article should be deleted are not being taken seriously. Articles such as Death of Adolf Hitler, Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy assassination, Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Shooting of the Romanov family and Assassination of James A. Garfield are definitely appropriate, and apparently so is Death of Michael Jackson, so this page certainly should remain.LanternLight (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I wrote this article, you guys are extremely nice. You made my...well...night :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.31.102 (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC) No need for delete, this is an article that within the next few days will rival the main Osama article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroyjabari (talk • contribs) 04:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article has been edited exactly 136 times since 03:08 UTC; that is, in 1 hour 6 minutes. Chzz  ►  04:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(reply:) So? I don't care. I honestly think no one cares. and seriously..... whats your point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.31.102 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 2 May 2011

Heya. a) please put your comments at the end of the section, b) please "sign" with ~~~~ (to put your username and date/time) (reply:) 1: im REPLYING 2: i wrote a quick comment, as i had to check on an update 3: i will not type tildes for signing, i dont have enough time for you.

My comment was mostly 'out of interest', but I wish that, instead of arguing about merger, deletion, protection, or whatever else we could just get on with making the article better. Best,  Chzz  ►  04:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC) (reply:) okay thank you for your comment.

Merge

No need to merge as this will become a big enough topic in itself. Already it passes WP:GNG with the amount of news stories around. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Reject - there is a big difference between bogus reports and his actual death. Rklawton (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge proposal withdrawn As the person who first put up the merge I am withdrawing it as I see that this will balloon over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Article now locked

Why? 86.147.217.101 (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

To stop anonymous users from vandalizing.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because of the crazy amount of vandalism and unhelpful edits. Sorry if this prevents you from adding to the article, but you can make an edit request here on the talk page. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 03:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please unlock it, no evidence of vandalism so far. We could really use crowdsourced writing right now. People from all over the world are coming here for information. Can you only lock it if there is evidence of vandalism? --86.147.217.101 (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's already been vandalized. Sorry. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think many people will have information that isn't easily obtainable on hundreds of news reports Terlob (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I do! I work for the SIS... but I guess that would be OR.

--86.147.217.101 (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's correct. However, if you are extremely intent on editing today, and don't have an account, you can create one and then place an explanation at WP:PERM/C, and an administrator will likely grant your request (if you ask me within 24 hours, I will do it for you). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand ...

Talk:Osama bin Laden's death doesn't even have any content ... can someone redirect it to this topic ? (reply:) it has content now.Ta --195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

done--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Previous death reports

The below text is from the main Osama bin Laden article, and some of it could be merged into this article. I'm leaving it here on the talk page for now. --Aude (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice. I was about to do the same. :) -Abhishikt 04:06, 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".

Merge (actual proposal)

Per Wikipedia:Content_forking#Redundant_content_forks this is pointless. Until there is enough written information to justify forking out the content from the Osama article, this should be a redirect to the Death section to concentrate effort there. No need for X of Y when Y isn't a very complete article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):But when Y is more significant and notable than X it deserves it's own article instead of one sentence in the article about X yes? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 03:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it only deserves a sentence. It deserves a lot! But the rest of the Osama article could use love, and this is a perfect time for that. Y is significant because of the actions of X. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Give it time already please, people are so eager to zap this article into dust. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because its a redundant content fork of an article that isn't big enough to warrant splitting off sections of it into seperate articles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is going to explode with details, international reactions, operation information, etc. Keep--do not merge! --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, and when it does, and its too big to fit in Osama's article, we can split it out. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 12:02 am, Today (UTC−4)

Get real. It's already linked to on the Main Page. It's not going anywhere. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The link is easy to change. Stop being condescending. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Then start being serious. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Osama bin laden article is currently at 90,000KB per Wikipedia:Article size articles should be split at 100,000KB+, this article will meake headlines, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply given it's notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am, and I have provided written guidelines accepted by years of consensus. You are shooting nonesense at me. The primary article, Osama Bin Laden, is not large enough to justify splitting sections out, at all. There are 34151 characters of prose, and that is what is counted, not the pure article size (which includes the citation templates, amongst other things) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:IAR Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Restoring my deleted comment

Thats meant to be accompanied by some reasoning. So far nothing has addressed the redundant content fork issue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well consensus so far here is against you, I would wait and see what happens in this case, articles can always be merged back and nothing needs to be set in stone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd give it longer than 20 minutes to decide a consensus (unlike the afd discussion). Wait for a day until the rest of the world hears the news. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wait. Suggest merger in a few days or a week; not now. It's developing. It's fine. Sit back and enjoy the ride, wait for the dust to settle.  Chzz  ►  04:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Since this is a current, breaking news story, it is better to wait a few days, IMO. 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) 05:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. As it is it is very hard to avoid edit conflict - put the two together and it'll be twice as bad. If you ever manage to get the edit in. Wnt (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Come on, this is notable and there's enough content. Strongest Keep. V7-sport (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Easily notable Joefromrandb (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A Few More Sources

• BBC
• CBC
• ABC
• Time
• NPR
• Al Jazeera

--TripleU (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Asia Times Online article This article alluded to intel on his whereabouts and details last week, the info ought to be integrated. AnAnthro (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

US Navy Seals

CNN just reported it was helicopter raid by the US Navy Seals. Will try to find an actual source somewhere. Iksnyrk (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added this to the article citing the ABC News report I'm listening to hear at the house. When it gets to a published source then we can swtich out the source I gave for a more reliable source. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

CNN reported the SEALs were "involved". Rklawton (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Marcinko would be appropriate, this was exactly what he built Seal Team Six for.

Bin Laden's body in US hands

Please keep discussions related to article content, WP:NOTAFORUM — Monty845 05:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does anyone know why America is holding Bin Laden's body in their possession? Are they going to play with it? What the hell are they doing with his body? (reply:) please use appropriate language at wikipedia. Probably preparing it for a suitable funeral. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC) (reply:) he doesn't need a funeral. They need to show the world the evidence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC) In this context, "hands" isn't necessarily used literally: it could mean that the body is guarded by US soldiers, but it likely doesn't mean that the soldiers are carrying it around with their bare hands, whether grubby or not. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I heard that the US was going to make a statue of the body in one newspaper article. Is this true or is this some kind of practical joke? If it's true can anyone direct me to a reliable source? they took the body to do DNA testing and possibly take pictures to show the world, they will then most likely do to the body what they do to any executed criminal If his family wants the body, it will probably be turned over to them in a few days. Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Who cares (Redacted) 74.100.60.53 (talk)

And this, ladies and gentlemen is good cause for the article to have been locked Mwheatley1990 (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No-one can edit a locked article and this one needs to be kept fresh as information emerges. This is a Wiki. — O'Dea (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Add "Operation Red Dawn" to "See also"

Add "Operation Red Dawn" to "See also."

I removed this, because there was no substantive connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. I am leaving the link to Mullah Mohammed Omar because of his close connection to bin Laden, and because he is still the subject of a closely related manhunt. Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Original Research tag

I removed an original research tag as I really can't see anyway that applies to the current article. Anyone want to point out specific sections? --Banana (talk) 04:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wait for the dust to settle and in a few days this article will be completely rewritten.--RaptorHunter (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

People need to know that the editing pace of this article right now is fast, give time for people to place in references already! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

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.

Original Research

Contrary to Stephen Colbert and general opinion, you cant just say anything you want in wikipedia. Not only do we have to source, but we can't perform original research or even create novel synthesis. Even if you, in your hearts of hearts, know something to be true, it is not enough for inclusion. Verifiability, not truth is your guide.

Specifically, references to rumors, must themselves be sourced to reliable sources. So please refrain from posting whatever you just heard on tv or read on the internet unless you willing to source it.--Cerejota (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing fact tags and OR tag unless you fix the sourcing. Otherwise, we should remove all OR text.--Cerejota (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In a section above, I asked for specific problematic sections. I can't figure out what sentences you're think are rumors. Could you be more specific? --Banana (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Read through your comment too quickly. The reference to rumors is referring to the reports before the official announcement. This should be sourced, but it's not controversial at all that these reports existed (unless you're disputing it?). The original research tag is really not for marking uncontroversial, but uncited material. --Banana (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Abuse by User:Intoronto1125

Looking back through the history, I came across a few puzzling edits by User:Intoronto1125.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden&diff=427010111&oldid=427010077
  • removed Canadian reaction without explanation
  • rearranged sections for no reason
  • removed external links, "See Also", and categories, also without explanation
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden&diff=427010463&oldid=427010437
  • reverted a perfectly valid edit without explanation
  • removed referenced sentence about Republican party leaders without explanation
  • removed link to Spanish version of this article
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden&diff=427010559&oldid=427010557
  • removed several "fact" tags
  • inserted typo ("sober" -> "silver")

Is this the kind of editing that Wikipedia accepts? My best guess is that user is editing old versions of this article which clobber more recent changes, but that doesn't explain the sober/silver typo. In my opinion, the user should be immediately banned from damaging this article any further. --beefyt (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if you feel it needs to be addressed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed User:Intoronto1125's edits and do not find them problematic when taken as a whole. Rklawton (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

When

when did this happen. It's pretty clear when its been anounced. But did it happen days hours or minuets before the statement? 82.40.4.248 (talk)

See above - or just listen to the President's speech. Rklawton (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Article about the leak

The following NYT article might help fill out the time-line regarding how this information first got out: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/how-the-osama-announcement-leaked-out/ Nick Graves (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Israel

His Excellency, Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu made a statement that should be included under International: 1 --Smart30 (talk) 05:28, 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)

unsourced

"The operation was carried out by Joint Special Operations Command forces in Pakistan working with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)"

Since fact tags are being removed, am removing entirely.--Cerejota (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lack of consequence

" The reality, however, is that the organization has nevertheless been running strong for the past ten years since 9/11, and of course longer before that..... the death of bin Laden will have little effect on the organizational hierarchy of al-Qaeda, which is sufficiently hydra-headed to ensure continuity of leadership. As it stands, bin Laden was hiding out in Pakistan for the past half-decade or so, and al-Qaeda has continued on. His death will not change anything."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rizwan-ladha/osama-bin-laden-is-dead-b_b_856111.html - source

Just for some political perspective on the event Mwheatley1990 (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Reaction

It should be noted that the Canadian election is on May 2nd.

Why?  Chzz  ►  07:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Son Killed

I have read that one of the children of bin Laden, probably Hamza bin Laden also died in the operation, I think this should be adressed. --Pencho15 (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

According to here], all that has been officially announced is that one of the sons is dead. I'm assuming it is Hamza as he is part of al-Qaeda, but I'm not sure if we should go ahead and change his article. --Banana (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

you're right, I just tought the death of a son should be added to the article, it already has so it does not matter anymore, this thing changes quickly.--Pencho15 (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Cudos (or Kudos), editors

Given the amazing quickness in which you've come together to update information here and at the main article. Incredible to watch!

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)

picture

pictures of his body just show on sky news. no pictures on his website yet tho. 82.40.4.248 (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

http://i.imgur.com/M3Yl3.jpg

I wouldn't trust this photo. It could be photoshopped. My guess is that the U.S. military is keeping very tight control over photos of his body. Anything is possible, though.

That is 1,000,000% photoshopped. A larger version is here http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t1U7M4K3jjU/Tb4dhq3F-GI/AAAAAAAADTw/Uf_Yml7kCUA/s400/osama_bin_laden-Dead-Infostar.jpg Yes, its a real dead person, but his lower face has been added later. Change in colour, tone, dpi and lighting Mwheatley1990 (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And it's been floating around for at least a year anyway.©Geni 06:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Annoying thing is that 'reputable' news sources (bbc, not sky) are reporting it Mwheatley1990 (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC

Sky and bbc are credible sources. Do you have any that suport the photo not being legit. I think it should be first photo in the article till we get one better. 82.40.4.248 (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The support would come from the fact that the image has been circulating months before he was officially dead. Rklawton (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Original source of the image, from 2009: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HhEh-2wPwVMJ:www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/04/29/osama-bin-laden-believed-dead-by-pak-int+http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/04/29/osama-bin-laden-believed-dead-by-pak-int&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera&source=www.google.com Site appears to be down, using Google cache instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.248.184 (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

BBC News just discussed the image and said it is 'not verified'. It might be worth mentioning that there is an unverified photo circulating, but I do not think we should actually use the photograph. Plus, it does look fake as hell. I imagine this will be resolved very soon, anyway.  Chzz  ►  07:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit: ah, my comment was before I'd seen that cached link - good find. OK, that confirms it's fake.  Chzz  ►  07:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea if mentioning the fake photo in the article. I think the photo will spread like crazy in the morning, it would be nice if Wikipedia could set people straight. Rklawton (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

cheers I withdraw my previous remarks 82.40.4.248 (talk) 07:18, 2 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)

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)

More sources

• "Obama and Osama." The New Yorker. May 2, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Reaction typo?

I believe there's a typo on Stephen Harper's response, I don't think he referred to it as "a Osama bin Laden". Anthiety (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing it out. --JaGa^talk 07:13, 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)

Use the Military Conflict InfoBox

...the same way its being used for Operation Red Dawn.

Interesting point. I think eventually it will be needed, but not until we know more details about the actual operation. Iksnyrk (talk) 07:38, 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)

Five Ws

According to the Five Ws (and one H), the whole story should be built around the answers to six questions:

• Who is it about?
• What happened (what's the story)?
• Where did it take place?
• When did it take place?
• Why did it happen?
• How did it happen?

Is this information present in the article? I think 50% not. Abductive (reasoning) 07:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we've done pretty well considering the limited amount of concrete information out there. Kudos to everyone! Hopefully within the next few days we'll get to answer the remaining questions too. Iksnyrk (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I bet we don't get too many answers (or the truth, anyway). The operational details will be secret for decades so as not to compromise future missions. Rklawton (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo on main page

Really? That photo? We've been through this. Unless its confirmed legitimate it should be 'alleged' photo. Or, if its not a photo of the actual event, how about a 3d image, or pink unicorn for that matter Mwheatley1990 (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy work, thanks Mwheatley1990 (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's genuine, photos of his corpse will likely be released to the general media, the way Saddam Hussein's sons were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 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)

Burial at sea

The current text regarding burial at sea reads as if burial at sea IS the Islamic practise. It is not. A burial at sea can honour Islamic practise, but it is not a specifically Islamic practise. I think it's important to clarify because the decision to bury at sea, where the body is then inaccessable, is of some significance. It would misled if people were to think this was done *because* of Islamic practise.

I've tried to edit this in, but it's impossible to avoid conflicts on every submit.

Toby Douglass (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on this topic has been going on in the Burial section of the talk page. Wing Dairu (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

Just a note -- I've created redirects for Death of Osama bin Ladin, Death of Usama bin Laden, and Death of Usama bin Ladin, which I believe are the most common spelling variants for its name. We may need to create further redirects in the future. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 08:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Cla68 (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Image

Is there any image released of his dead body? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No official photo yet, there is an unconfirmed photo that has been circulating. Wing Dairu (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, since 2009... Lampman (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point. Got a source? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The photo I was referring to is this. I was given this link by a friend after it was posted on an IRC room.Wing Dairu (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that. But what's the source that it's from 2009? And why does it say OBAMA??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably because of the name similarity. Over the course of this coverage, we've twice had a section of the talk page where someone was confused about the title of the article because "isn't Osama the president?" As for the 2009 image, I imagine Lampman is referring to the one discussed in the first Image section of this page. Wing Dairu (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently those images are one and the same. Please pardon my ignorance. Wing Dairu (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone identify a link that confirms the photo is from 2009? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Guardian. Lampman (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting info

Right now the lede says the body "was buried" at sea, while the "Aftermath" section says it "will be" buried at sea. I'll leave it to someone with definitive knowledge of this to sort it out. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's been fixed. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

The section "Timeline" should be corrected to May 1 for "operation commences" (as it is in ET) 12.47.208.58 (talk) 09:28, 2 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)

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)

Was this really asserted & contradicted?

"Obama said neither Americans nor civilians were harmed in the operation. Although three adult males were also killed in the raid — two were bin Laden’s couriers and a third was his adult son — according to a senior administration official." - Washington Post

"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." - President Obama

"This contradicts President Obama's assertion that no civilians were killed." - current version of article

Yes, according to the cited Washington Post article, Obama said "[no] civilians were harmed". But he really didn't; he just said they tried to avoid civilian casualties, not that they'd successfully done so. So, it looks like no contradiction to me. Remove, or rephrase? -- J. Randall Owens (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed that sentence as original research—none of the citations mentions any contradiction. Goodvac (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If the people living with him were members of Al-Qaeda, they weren't civilians. I think that it is obvious that the President meant that no one outside the compound was killed, as all of those living with Osama Bin Laden in his secret compound were Al-Qaeda.98.240.67.27 (talk) 12:43, 2 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)

Splinter the International Reaction?

Shall we splinter the international reaction in to another article and also add the view points of notable people like Tony Blair and George Bush and so on. View of Mps and government figures?Tugrulirmak (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say there isn't enough of it yet to warrant a separate article. Wing Dairu (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay we will wait a day or two and make list of international reactions including; countries, organisation e.g. Arab Union and notable figures e.g. Tony Blair.Tugrulirmak (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Move white house speech

Move Obama addressing under USA reaction. It would only make sense.Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the presidential address was the first official announcement of the event, and therefore carries special signifigance. Wing Dairu (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

German reaction translation error

While it is sourced by a CNN translation, in my opinion the rendering of German foreign minister Westerwelle's reaction is translated wrongly. The sentence in question is, according to the German news sources, "Dass diesem Terroristen sein blutiges Handwerk gelegt werden konnte, ist eine gute Nachricht für alle friedliebenden und freiheitlich denkenden Menschen in der Welt." (e.g. Spiegel, Tagesschau). The word in question is "friedliebend", which does not translate as "free-living" as in CNN, but rather as "peace loving". --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the proofread. Wing Dairu (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Burial at sea?

• "and was buried at sea soon after death, in accordance with Islamic tradition": I thought that burial at sea was against Islamic rules? But I accept correction. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What I suspect is that they're not wording it right. Islam requires burial within 24 hours, right? So they buried him in accordance with Islamic tradition. P.S. It was at sea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Being discussed above in the Burial section but see [17] for the Guardian's take on this. I suspect we are in the realms of US propaganda here rather than provable facts. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, they dumped the corpse in shark-infested waters, and the sharks scattered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian reaction

"The death of Osama Bin Laden is a major success in the war on international terrorism, but it doesn't mean the end of this war. A very important and determined enemy of our entire civilization has fallen, which is good news, but we will have to get ready to handle the potential risks stemming from this " said Hungarian Foreign Minister Janos Martonyi

source(s): http://stream001.radio.hu:443/mr1/0055629f_4509942.mp3 ( record of a telephone interview in Hungarian State Radio )

Dfighter1985 (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the head's-up. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 11:31, 2 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.[18] ←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.[19][20] The strangest part is that there has been no photographic proof offered.[21] When Saddam was captured, the first news reports included a photo of him.[22] 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)

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)

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)

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 [23] 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)

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)

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 unneccesary 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)

• 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)

• 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. 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)
• 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

Built in 2005 (para 2 - main text)

Main text para 2 - the house was "built in 2005" according to Reuters - the BBC right now [24] 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)

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: [25] 173.165.239.237 (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)