Jump to content

Talk:Osama bin Laden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ansell (talk | contribs) at 00:53, 3 May 2011 (→‎May 1 or May 2: May 2, maybe American editors preferring US time instead of local (Pakistan) time.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Add

Former good article nomineeOsama bin Laden was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
March 26, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:Pbneutral

Archival

Due to current events, I have manually archived all comments prior to 1 May, to Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 17.  Chzz  ►  05:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death

They Killed Goldstein, Viva Oceania! [1] Can we give some credence to the fact that he might be dead? It has been speculated a few times and the main dates are pinned down to July or December 2001, with a few other dates suggested. Angelo Codevilla, of the American Spectator, says that there has not been a credible sighting of OBL since 2001 and that all the subsequent video and audio are very clearly not him (due to voice and appearance). Then, professor David Ray Griffin wrote a book entitled Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive, which provides a strong case and a date of death: 13 December 2001. And then there is the fact that OBL denied involvement four times* after 9/11, before suddenly arising to claim responsibility (on Griffins asserted death date). He appears very differently in the video published on that date, and unlike his [wahhabism|religious beliefs]]. Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto both claimed he died years ago, for kidney failure (2001) and assassination (2004?), respectively.

I would like to take the example of Alois Brunner, who is believed dead (he would be 99 now), but its unknown when. Here we have some dates and can then note that these are speculated or unconfirmed, but have some shadows of evidence to ground them. At some point, it will have to be recognized that he is dead. Why wait until 2057, when he would be 100 and the odds are ridiculous? I am willing to do the work on this, but I would like some support and comments from others to see if I am thinking realistically.

Please put a talkback on my talkpage if you reply. I tend to forget that I posted on a talk page.

*These articles I cited also make the case that OBL wasnt even involved in 9/11 and Codevilla suggests it was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I would love to get that more prominence in this and the 9/11 article, but there is so limited citing on it. I dont know why people dont even think of this possibility. The government cant because they would have to admit they were wrong, but independent sources certainly could speculate more about it.

Metallurgist (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose he might be dead, seeing as the US military and its Commander in Chief are both saying he was killed. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live blogged, death was after 1AM 2 May 2011, need's updating. Here and Usama bin Laden page. http://twitter.com/#!/ReallyVirtual

Here is another source that indicates it was 2 May 2011 after 12:30 am local time (3:30 pm Eastern). Pakistan is Eastern Daylight Time + 9 hours. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/01/usama-bin-laden-dead-say-sources/ 214.27.58.2 (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I am psychic... Metallurgist (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Fox News story from December 2001 talking about his "peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication" [2]. Here is an article from CNN discussing the possibility of Osama bin Laden's failing health from January 2002 [3]. Another article from CNN January 2002 where the president of Pakistan says Osama is most likely dead as he was unable to get proper treatment for his kidney failure [4]. User:Churdtzu —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

So he died in 2001 from lung ailments, in 2002 from kidney failure, and both 2004 and 2009 from a gunshot, in addition to being killed yesterday? Wow, he's like Elfego Baca. But I don't think he's coming back from this one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If bin Laden is dead, habeas corpus ("show me the body").--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That means "I have the body" and you're misusing the term here. Besides, his body is apparently in Davy Jones Locker. =p They should release images though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Scottandrewhutchins - no trolling. If you persist, you will be blocked (again) from editing. Rklawton (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no independent evidence is being provided, and without that I'd tend to not accept the US government & military as a credible source. At the very least the language about his death should be changed to "the US government has announced that" or "ABC News is asserting that unnamed sources have told them", and so on, reporting what's being said instead of what's being asserted to be true, at least until there is independent proof. Because apparently, OBL has been considered "dead" before, and the US government and military don't have a good recent track record of honesty. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting President Obama to possibly confirm his death

President Obama is about to speak on TV, possibly to announce Osama's death. Will update as soon as the announcement is official. Safiel (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is saying they have outside confirmation. But I agree we should wait for the President's statement. 75.93.212.49 (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBC has confirmed it... Piandcompany (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the burlington free press, the United States Government has his dead body and president Barck Obama will adress the nation on Sunday, May 1.Mrwaco29 (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Page text.[1][reply]


Practically all media sources report and confirm his death, but an official confirmation would be nice. JorgeGuberte (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Osama Bin Laden was killed one week ago today; 5/01/2011, which put his death at April 24, 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wannabeme22 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Ki4mor, 2 May 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} He has been killed, all over the news add a death date. Date of death is not May 2, but May 1 Ki4mor (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood Moxy (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't of killed bin laden. instead we should of made him live off the fecal matter of every united states citizen for the next 20 years or how ever long he would have lived. That sorry sack of poo doesn't deserve all this attention. Everyone remember USA is the greatest nation in the world and now it's time to bring our boys home! Leave those people in shambles they hate us anyway it's our turn to be the bad guys for once. If I had my way we would have dropped the biggest bomb possible on those people and got rid of them all a long time ago! No one else should die because of this A-hole I hope he rots in hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.146.220 (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comma between 1 and 2011 in his death date at the top of his InfoBox needs to have a space after it.

Small thing, but it's kind of annoying. Can someone fix that? 96.232.165.52 (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Someone fixed that. Mastercampbell (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 161.253.105.39, 2 May 2011

Please change the age of Osama bin Laden to reflect that he died at age 54, instead of it saying that he was born at age 54 and died at age 0 (code error). 161.253.105.39 (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed by another admin. –MuZemike 03:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request by Marlith

Please add a {{current}} to the page header. Marlith (Talk)  03:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Steven Walling 03:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from CaesarGermanicus, 2 May 2011


CaesarGermanicus (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Um...... Osama's death was reported last night. Why hasnt this signifigant event been written yet? This seriously concerns my trust and support of Wikipedia.[reply]

Sincerely, CaesarGermanicus

  • Also, the official news of this event is just over 12 hours old, and new news/data is continuing to come in. There is NO other encyclopedia that brings current events (including encyclopedic content) to print both reliably and as quickly as Wikipedia does. One must allow the collaborative effort to come through with a bit of patience as reliable sources come available. Show me another encyclopedia (or even a news channel/source) that has such fresh data. Dijcks | InOut 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Rockclaw1030, 2 May 2011

I have seen the news and would like to post on the fact that Osama is now officially dead.


Rockclaw1030 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Osama bin Laden is confirmed dead, per ABC News, NY Times, WSJ, and oddly TMZ. It's official! —Terrence and Phillip 03:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection reduced to semi. —DoRD (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we lock it

In light of the current media happenings, I think we should lock this before it starts getting vandalized. 98.26.81.41 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears that the article was protected a few minutes ago. --joe deckertalk to me 03:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, at least move to semi protection so we can update it. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 03:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Semi protection would be fine. The admins are obviously not keeping pace here. Per FOX, US has the body, confirmed using DNA from family member. Per AP, Place of death was islamabad, he was living in a mansion. Cause of death is a bomb per CNN —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong place; this request belongs on WP:RPP. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  05:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

another source for Bin Laden's death

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/01/usama-bin-laden-dead-say-sources/ says he was killed by a bomb

CNN is reporting he was killed outside a mansion in Islamabad, Pakistan--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


BBC is reporting it too.

UPDATE http://twitter.com/#!/ReallyVirtual

Remove section

I suggest that this section be removed: Reports of his current whereabouts. Thoughts? Jujutacular talk 03:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or just rename it. Rklawton (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename it, yeah. Don't delete it -- it's useful because that information had an impact on political discussions of the time. The historical significance of where people thought he was hasn't disappeared with his death. --Aquillion (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in shock. I found out playing Millionaire on Facebook of all places, one of my fellow players was watching NBC when they announced it. As for this section, I say let's hold on until the major spurt of activity dies down a bit. I agree we can't discuss his current whereabouts anymore; it's in U.S. custody in a coffin, or some disgraceful wrapping. CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
His current whereabouts, or at least his dead body, is currently in US military custody. It should be merged with his death section. —Terrence and Phillip 03:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait until we have more details. That section might still be worthy of inclusion, with a rewrite. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a terrorist

Osama bin Laden was killed by a rocket fired from a drone about 3pm Nz time.President Obama is going to give a press statement in 15mts.

We got that already. CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears he was killed on a day prior to the announcement. We'll wait until the date is confirmed before we change it again. — BQZip01 — talk 03:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama said OBL was killed outside of Abbottobad (not Islamabad as stated in the article on Wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.151.176 (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

noticed a problem

Resolved

there's 2 "Death" sections, might want to condense that--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed  Chzz  ►  04:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Bin laden needs it's own article

Resolved

Just a thought but the rumors of Death and the real death of osama should have it's own article here linked to this page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We only have two sentences so far. When we get more information you can create a new article.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Death of Osama bin Laden  Chzz  ►  04:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Dylankd, 2 May 2011

Obasa Bin Laden

Dylankd (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "Childhood, education, and personal life"

At the end of the second paragraph, if this man is deceased, shouldn't it say "He also wrote poetry" Instead of "He also writes poetry"?

Greisen (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Greisen[reply]

DEATH DATE IS WRONG

Several users have claimed the death date of 1 May is incorrect. For now, the only evidence we have is that Obama stated "today" in his conference. The date will not be changed until someone provides a reliable source showing a different date. Thank you.  Chzz  ►  05:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The died-on-date listed is wrong. It says May 1, 2011. That is WRONG. He died one week ago according to press reports, and it is just now being revealed today. [5] GOOD RIDDANZ (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw this. Please fix. HankyUSA (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current date is consistent with presidental speech.©Geni 04:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Obama, he died today; I'd say much more a reliable source than various press. --BignBad 04:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did Obama today say he died today? The 'LIVE' broadcast I heard said he died several days ago and they only revealed it today once they confirmed it was him with DNA testing.

Edit request from Wannabeme22, 2 May 2011

Osama Bin Laden was killed one week ago from this day 5/01/2011


Wannabeme22 (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current date is consistent with presidental speech.©Geni 04:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

death date

I would like to point out that he probably died on the 2nd of May Pakistani time.

He was killed on the 24th, according to reports. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EXACTLY! THANK YOU! 04:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
According to what I heard on CNN not long ago, he died eight hours before but they only announced it now. I haven't heard of him dying a week ago as others said. We'd best sit on the presumed death date (today) until otherwise is confirmed. CycloneGU (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, according to Obama's speech on CNN, he died today. --BignBad 04:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The President said "Today, at my direction, the United States carried out that operation... they killed Osama Bin Laden and took custody of his body." Source is Al Jazeera report, but was available in any video on 1 May 2011. Victorianist (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Early reports said the 24th, but that alleged fact disappeared after the speech. It would be nice to find out the precise LOCAL date and time for whatever "today" means in this case, and its UTC equivalent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "one week ago" quotation was about when the US received the information that Bin Laden would be holed up at the compound. It didn't go anywhere. People mis-heard.

|}

I've got the relevant part of the speech quoted verbatim below. Rklawton (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

latest on death

Two days ago OBL aged 54, was killed by a small team of US special forces at a luxury compound 50km north east of Islamabad ,the capital of Pakistan.The body is in the custody of US forces.Pakistani special service forces have been watching the villa for some time -some reports say a month.It appears that President Obama was informed before the US team stormed the villa and killed OBL in a firefight(not a drone fired from a Predator drone as previously reported).It took 2 days to make a postive DNA identification using a sample provided by one of his many sisters.

According to CTV News, Obama tried to make it clear that none of the people involved were American. I think we should avoid saying who was involved at all until we know for certain exactly who actually was involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.129.43 (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you watched his actual statement he said Americans were involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.93.125 (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is reporting that it was a helicopter raid by US Navy Seals, and "that the entire operation only took around 40 minutes" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.61.188 (talk • contribs)

Fox is also saying it was Navy Seals and that it took around 40 minutes. Although they're saying that it was around 40 men and 4 helicopters. --98.27.245.226 (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

To quote from the article on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (before the table of contents):


That article includes citations. Seems like this might merit mentioning in this article? TerraFrost (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it actualy happens no. Try Death of Osama bin Laden.©Geni 04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Nuclear hellstorms? we've had those already, but not in Europe and not because of Al-Qaeda. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

President's speech

Verbatim excerpt: "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 targetted operation against that compound in Abbotabad, 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 fire fight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body." Rklawton (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This makes it clear that OBL's death date was May 1st. Rklawton (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This also makes it clear that this was an American operation. Rklawton (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding this as a reference, as I haven't seen it mentioned yet. Official transcript of Obama's speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/02/remarks-president-osama-bin-laden nerdqueen (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Speech cannot be all that accurate. If he was killed today, how the hell were they able to extract DNA and have the results analyzed in a laboratory so quickly, as has been reported?

Suspicious

"...along with lifelong friends Anthony Kardous and Enos Fingy" seems suspicious. Google results show mainly Facebook pages and the like.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.222.77 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 2 May 2011

Fixed, thanks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death on May 2nd?

Obama's speech was made on May 2, around ~9:30AM Pakistan time.

So unless his death was kept secret for about 10 hours, current evidence seems to indicate he actually died on May 2nd local time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzemla (talk • contribs) 05:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was kept secret for awhile (read the speech), but it's not clear if it's more than 10 hours - so it's possible OBL died on the 1st or the 2nd local time, so we'll just have to wait and see. Rklawton (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was announced in Washington in the evening of May 1st. The speech was at around 11:30pm EDT on May 1st, which is May 2 3:30 UTC, and Mr. Obama said "today". Unless/until reliable sources are provided to show another date, it will not be changed.  Chzz  ►  05:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He said "today" because it's nonsensical to say "tomorrow"... But good point about UTC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzemla (talk • contribs) 05:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a local tweet from Abbottabad complaining about the strike helicopters at 1am local time, meaning there it is very likely that OBL was killed in the earliest hours of May 2. 71.184.69.63 (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://twitter.com/#!/ReallyVirtual 71.184.69.63 (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jazeera via C-SPAN broadcast a report from a local producer that also put the attack at after 1:00 A.M. Rklawton (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From this link :http://www.whtc.com/news/articles/2011/may/02/bin-laden-killed-in-dramatic-night-time-raid-near-/ , "Senior Pakistani security officials said the operation, carried out at around 1:30 a.m.", obviously this is PKT, making the day of bin Laden's death 5/2. With this information I believe the date should be changed as soon as possible to reflect the correct date; as not to spread misinformation. Rayne117 (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support good source and consistent with other witness reports. It's also consistent with the POTUS' speech where he only says that he "authorized" the attack in the morning of the 1st. Rklawton (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1:30am on Sunday.. that's the May 1st. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Osama-Bin-Laden-Terror-Chief-Tracked-Down-In-Pakistan-By-CIA-And-Killed-By-Crack-US-Troops/Article/201105115983664?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_1&lid=ARTICLE_15983664_Osama_Bin_Laden%3A_Terror_Chief_Tracked_Down_In_Pakistan_By_CIA_And_Killed_By_Crack_US_Troops Morphh (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lock the Page

Until things settle down and more official reports have been published, this article should be locked from editing.Inter16 (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how Wikipedia works. See WP:PROT. It's a wiki; anyone can edit. Anything lacking reliable sources can be removed. Discussions can happen here.  Chzz  ►  05:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently only semi-protected to prevent vandalism from unregistered and new users. Applying full protection would prevent legitimate, regular users, who do follow Wikipedia's rules and guideline, from updating this article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point

The "see also" link, Osama bin Laden as destructive Cult leader, links to a minor comment in a somewhat tangential article. The idea is interesting (personally i agree), and with more sources, could be incorporated into the main body of THIS article, but i dont think this works as a "see also".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Ssshanemjlll, 2 May 2011

The folowing should be edited as parts of the aritical are not needed and should not be included.

 Not done Sorry - not sure what you mean - could you elaborate if the problem still there .Moxy (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death

Main article: Death of Osama bin Laden
Wikinews has related news:

On May 1, 2011, President Obama announced that Osama bin Laden was killed earlier that day by "a small team of Americans" acting under his direct orders, in a covert operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan, 32 miles (51 km) (or 93 miles by road) north of Islamabad,[2][3] affirming earlier confirmation by US officials to the media. The site is just a few kilometers from the Pakistan Military Academy in Kakul.[4] DNA from bin Laden's body, compared with DNA samples on record from his dead sister,[citation needed] confirmed bin Laden's identity.[5] The body was recovered by the US military and is in its custody.[3]

The as the crows fly is not needed to convey actual distance and is a nonprofessional entry


Ssshanemjlll (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not sure what your saying - could you elaborate if the problem still there.Moxy (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 69.42.2.248, 2 May 2011

Fox news said his birthday was July 30, 1957. And they have his name as Usama.

69.42.2.248 (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

declined. We've been getting a spectacular number of errors from fox news about this and Osama is the generaly accepted spelling.©Geni 06:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News has a reputation for being rather slip-shod when it comes to fact-checking, it's unsurprising that they got the wrong birthday. As for the spelling of his name, it boils down to different ways of translating Arabic script into the English alphabet (witness various spellings of the Islamic holy text - Koran, Qur'an, Kuran, and Curan). "Osama" is the most commonly used spelling, and I'd just as soon go with the BBC spelling rather than FOX's. Badger Drink (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Usama" is a variant transliteration, as with Kadaffi's name, of which there are several spellings. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is needed

This article is likely to be hit by a spate of steady vandalism. I suggest we put it under protection immediately.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Looks like it has been done. Page is now semi-protected Mastercampbell (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Even *I* am tempted to edit in something along the lines of "the bastard was sent to Hell" and even cite Dante's description of what Canto he wound up in. Rest assured this particular article will be in need of protection for a significant period of time. Kudos to whichever admin turned it on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.148.141 (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image being used on the page at the moment is disputed in terms of if it is fair use. See the original page. Are there any images that are guaranteed free from any copyright?

'Bin Laden' vs 'Osama bin Laden'

The article suggests:

Strictly speaking, Arabic linguistic conventions dictate that he be referred to as "Osama" or "Osama bin Laden", not "bin Laden", as "Bin Laden" is not used as a surname in the Western manner, but simply as part of his name, which in its long form means "Osama, son of Mohammed, son of 'Awad, son of Laden". Still, "bin Laden" has become nearly universal in Western references to him.

Considering this, I think we should change all instances of 'bin Laden' to 'Osama bin Laden'.

Mastercampbell (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But his name is an anomaly, as "bin Laden" is used like a surname even by his family -- e.g. in the Saudi Binladin Group. -- tariqabjotu 07:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have little comment on the linguistics here, but two points: 1) Most Western media used "Bin Laden" as a shorthand. 2) This article currently alternates between "Osama" and "Bin Laden". Obviously, we should pick one and change the others. I don't know which is absolutely right, but currently they are different by section. Ocaasi c 17:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Bin Laden" just means "son of Laden", and is colloquially acceptable in English-speaking populations as shorthand for "Osama bin Laden". In certain US states, Pepsi is, in the vernacular, a type of Coke. Here in Encyclopedialand, however, one must be more careful; for it is on here we may appreciate that Coke and Pepsi are competitors, and it is on here one may discover that "Osama bin Laden" is, itself, shorthand for a longer string of tribal specifiers. Just as "Hussein" was not Saddam Hussein's last name, but rather the "first" name of his father, "bin Laden" functions only to identify Osama's ancestry; it does not denote the man himself. To call him just "bin Laden" is, fundamentally, as nonsensical as referring to Ivan the Terrible as just "the Terrible", or to Mack the Knife as just "the Knife". It's gotta be "Osama" (his given name) or "Osama bin Laden" (his given name plus some ancestral information); it can't be just "bin Laden" (the ancestral background of a nameless subject). Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death

Wasn't it already May 2, considering local time in Pakistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.181.125 (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: "According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, the attack on Bin Laden’s compound north of Islamabad seems to have happened at about 1:10 am local time, which would be 4:10 pm Washington time." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.245.63 (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to a press release from Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated 2 May 2011, he was killed "in the early hours of this morning." see: http://www.mofa.gov.pk/Press_Releases/2011/May/PR_150.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noiseball (talk • contribs) 10:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who killed him?

Several different news channels are reporting several different descriptions of who exactly killed Bin Laden. So far I have heard, "A small group of American soldiers including Franco Milazzo", A navy seal team, Marine snipers, and the 101st airborne. Anyone know who actually killed him?Editforpeace (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buried at sea

Here is an article about it copied from ABC News Radio [6] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

best we can tell it all comes from a single AP wire report quoting an un name offical. Its got a high enough WTF factor that we should wait for further info.©Geni 08:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Any word on images released to shut up most of the conspiracy theorists? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Hopefully soon. I'm somewhat surprised no images have been released and that the U.S. military disposed of the body before showing it to press. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible that they are trying to handle things more sensitively for the family than they did for the Husseins. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would make the most sense, don't want people saying we're hoisting him around like a trophy and all. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

foto of bin Laden

Please change the photo of benladen - File:Osama bin Laden (CIA photo).png on more qualitative: File:Osama Bin Ladin Digitally Aged 2009.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scythian23 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is he really caught?

I ask this, because he is still on FBI's top ten most wanted list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.146.118 (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They'll probably remove it in a few weeks. It is probably not high on their list of priorities. Some lucky serviceman just got himself a fat stack though. ;) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence, beyond statements from US officials. Strangely, no picture has been made available, and the alleged DNA test seems to be awfully quick - but perhaps it could be performed onboard a carrier or something? Most likely there are legitimate reasons for the lack of evidence, but we'll see what surfaces the next few days. Ketil (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He’s on the FBI’s website. I agree with Flinders: changing the page is probably pretty low on their priority list right now. Heck, it’s not even 8:00am in Washington DC time yet, so it could just be that the IT or PR people who update the website aren't even in the office yet. Give them a couple hours or days and they’ll get around to it. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 11:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ketil, you want a photo? Here is something I found: http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/02/6568249-we-think-that-bin-laden-death-photo-is-a-fake

WIERDGREENMAN, Thane of Cawdor THE CAKE IS A LIE (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FBI most wanted now lists him as deceased. doomgaze (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death vs date of announcement

It appears there's some confusion over the date of the death, and I think some of this is due to the announcement. Obama's press conference started before midnight EDT on May 1; however, it appears that the strike happened in the early morning hours of May 2, since Afghanistan is 8.5 hours ahead of EDT at the moment. It would seem to me that the correct date would be May 2. However, due to the above problem, appropriate sources are difficult... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 10:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is May 1st, 2011. Obama announced it at 11:30 and the news did at 10:30. That's still May 1, not 2nd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.142.87 (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, there is a time difference of 8.5 hours. Bin Laden was killed on May 2 in Pakistan while it was still May 1 in the US. Time travel is indeed possible! :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 12:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a distinction made between the two. His death date should be listed as the 2nd, but the date of announcement in the US should be the 1st. Riverawl (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the announcement date from the intro section where it's most visible, in favor of the date of death. It's still in the "Death" section, and I think it should remain there, but that probably needs to be clarified. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 12:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Yazzackie, 2 May 2011

Please change his date of death on the primary description from may 2, 2011, to may 1st, 2011, his actual date of death.

Yazzackie (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it appears it was May 2, local time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's what the source claims, but May 2 in Pakistan seems to be pushing the chronology a bit. He is dna tested, and then allegedly flown 1600 kms to the coast for burial at sea, all in a few hours. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not impossible; it's not unprecedented for US army/air force transport to cover the travel to the sea in a few hours. We do have independent verification of a raid; that is, the Twitter user in Abbottabad who, in his words, live-blogged bin Laden's death without knowing it. Sceptre (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it would be easier to display Western time, maybe add the Local time as well? It doesn't work very well to just have one, especially when there is no label of the time zone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazzackie (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a global project, why would we use "Western time?" It is standard to list when an event occurs where it happens. We might use UTC for things spanning time zones, etc, but in this case, local time is correct. (For the record, I'm in EDT, and thus in "Western time" myself.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Killed Americans. Killed BY Americans. He dies on our time. Not his. Needs to be changed to the 1st. 71.79.250.247 (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was the corpse found really Osama's?

I was wondering if the corpse was just a look-alike. 218.186.17.249 (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was, Obama and others will have egg on their faces. However, it seems like his death has been accepted by both friends and enemies. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Egg on their faces? I don't get this. So the Taliban has confirmed his death? 218.186.17.249 (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the image that was published in few non western media channels? I wonder if it's really this of Osama after he was killed or just an image that was released after extensive processing. --Gilisa (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is strange that they took custody of the body anyway. Why not just leave him behind? --91.125.243.64 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent them from building a shrine around the body. That's as obvious as can be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure they have confirmed it. I was just watching BBC News and they quoted a Taliban spokesman saying that "if" the USA had indeed killed Osama, then there will be retribution against the US and Pakistan. Note my emphasis. doomgaze (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what DNA testing is for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The photo floating around the web of his "corpse" is a fake. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a stock photo of bin Laden that some internet geek doctored. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

needed info

Don't forget the info from the article by Matt Appuzo of the AP showing that in 2005 a multi-million dollar compound was built and that's where bin Laden was when they got him. Where did the money for that come from, honey stores? 4.249.63.135 (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipeda should not be so sure about the death vents. These informations came from the same environment who lied about the weapons of mass destruction and on numerous other things. I think it's pretty clear that if there isn't a body, there is something to hide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.182.19 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text under "Impact on United States civil society"

This text is extremely opinionated and seems to be below certain quality control standards I thought were applied to this web site. Where do facts end and opinions begin? Under this section it seems. How does one go about disputing the neutrality of a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.233.182 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the above post. This section of the article is not unbiased. The quotes from the CBC journalist are appropriate and show a valid viewpoint. The criticism of Fox News is not and smacks of a liberal bias. This section needs balance. 99.108.181.74 (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[RETRACTED] Zephalis (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC) "Liberal bias"? You do know that Fox News is the most right-wing (conservative) television news in the U.S. right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephalis (talk • contribs) 15:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism of Fox News. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I misread it because the grammar is bad. Should've been one sentence ("is not and" is bad grammar, esp in a new sentence, on a new line [from the word appropriate]) Zephalis (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this paragraph is extremely POV in its commentary on Fox News. (And I personally hate Fox News with a passion!) There's far too much irrelevant material regarding Fox News that has nothing to do with bin Laden. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. You'd think that Fox News had single-handedly passed the Patriot Act and led the troops into Iraq. It's an anti-Fox editorial that needs to be filed down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section is a clear example of systemic bias, treating his impact on US civil society as more important than any other country. PatGallacher (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Not done[reply]

Osama death date

Osama Bin Laden died on May 1st, 2011 not May 2nd. Please correct this.

 Not done See above. Rklawton (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Location

34°11'15.82"N 73°14'33.12"E - Is the supposed true and factual location for where he is said to have been killed ?

It's possible. I checked it on google maps. It's a split-level building with a wall around it and kind of a courtyard inside the gate. It's also not far from the PMA building. So it kind of fits the profile. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard the exact location on the news, or even the nearby street name. However, they have zoomed in using Google Earth, and what i am seeing appears to be extremely accurate both from their outside shots of the building and from the nearby pool that I saw in the Google Earth view. CycloneGU (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More location discussion here: http://ogleearth.com/2011/05/finding-osama-bin-ladens-abbottabad-mansion-with-google-earth/ Dog Food Danny (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Samkozlov1, 2 May 2011

The death date for Osama Bin Laden is a day off. The actual date that he was shot (and killed) and the day that he was announced dead was May 1st, 2011; not May 2nd, 2011. Please allow me to edit the date.

Samkozlov1 (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done see above. Rklawton (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he died 18 hours ago as I type. The media has reported #ReallyVirtual on Twitter as the first to unknowingly report the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound. Seven hours later (11 hours ago as I type), he noted that ISI confirmed bin Laden is dead while others made the connection on his Twitter. See @ReallyVirtual. Death date and time were 18 hours ago, that must be the death date we use. I think that was about 5:00 p.m. EDT, which I think is after midnight in Pakistan, so May 2 is correct. CycloneGU (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It scares me to know that people treat Twitter as an independent and valid source for information. Especially when the tweeter has some random name and is just some random person that could live anywhere. Unless he tweets photographic evidence that Osama was there and that the building is not there, it cannot be used as a credible source. Zephalis (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Credible source? I never said that. But nonetheless, it documents a first-person account, and the media has used that user's postings in its reports, thus I would make an exception based on that. CycloneGU (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First posts about death

At 4 p.m. EST a Twitter feed from Sohaib Athar, an IT consultant in Abbottabad (the city where bin Laden was found) gave first hand accounts of the attack.[7][8]

The first posting on Wikipedia was on Sunday, May 1, 2011 10:35 PM EST, 6 hours later.[9]

Wikipedia history:

  1. 02:37, 2 May 2011 User:Kylelovesyou [10] unsourced
  2. 02:39, 2 May 2011 User:Muboshgu reverted.[11]
  3. 02:43, 2 May 2011 User:Drivingmad unsourced [12] followed by several posts in next two minutes.
  4. 02:46, 2 May 2011 User:Merrill Stubing CNN REPORTING IT LIVE 1045PM EST BREAKING BIN LADEN IS DEAD[13]
  5. 02:47, 2 May 2011 User:Muboshgu reverted.[14]
  6. 02:47, 2 May 2011 User:Themoodyblue unsourced.[15]
  7. 02:48, 2 May 2011 User:Safiel reverted. (removed Category:Living people using HotCat)[16]
  8. 02:49, 2 May 2011 User:TitaniumCarbide added Template:Recent death.[17] Flurry of unreferenced edits and first vandalism follows.
  9. 02:50, 2 May 2011 User:WikipedianMarlith first source.[18]
  10. 02:52, 2 May 2011 User:Basket of Puppies NYT source added.[19]

Errectstapler (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chew-choo, chuwarin! We’ve got him!15:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Date

He died on '2 days'. 'May 1' or 'May 2' depending on your time zone and UTC zone.15:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:TIMEZONE I'd say it should be May 2 then, as that was/is the local date. --Skysmurf (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this assessment. CycloneGU (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request by 86.161.216.49 (talk)

He was killed by headshot twice. It also needs to be added in the Obama Admin section that Obama successfully defeated Osama. 86.161.216.49 (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the first, the second isn't encyclopedic. Khukri 15:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look up "Osama shot in head" you'll find lots of news reports about it. 86.161.216.49 (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If There Was Any Doubt - Not Anymore

CNN just reported that the DNA has confirmed that it was bin Laden who was killed yesterday - or today Pakistan time. CycloneGU (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the sources are in the intelligence community, they would hardly give information to the free press unless it was on the understanding of anonymity ... that's just the way it works. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan[reply]

Death Location

Several locations have been suggested in the press. See some discussion here: http://ogleearth.com/2011/05/finding-osama-bin-ladens-abbottabad-mansion-with-google-earth/ Dog Food Danny (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This matches military photos: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=34.169293,73.24261&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=37.136668,72.509766&ie=UTF8&ll=34.168707,73.243339&spn=0.009481,0.017703&t=h&z=16

Photo source ABC news: http://abcnews.go.com/International/slideshow/photos-inside-osama-bin-laden-kill-zone-13508190 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.89.128.5 (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert and Administrative Freeze Request

Due to the volatile nature of the situation, I believe we need to revert the page to 2011 Apr 30, and put it under Admin lockdown until the dust settles. There are people who use Wikipedia as an unbiased source for information and at the moment, this article is in shambles. Administrative lockdown was used during the 2004 Bush Jr. election resulting in the most unbiased article about G.W. Bush available at the time. I don't want to see Wikipedia being referenced and discredited just because a few editors take Twitter as the ultimate in journalistic tools. "Reporting" needs to be done on Wikinews if anything with maybe a link to there from here.

A statement should be issued on the page addressing concerns, something along the lines of:

Due to the lack of factual evidence surrounding the announced death of Osama bin Laden, this page has been frozen due to evidentiary and neutrality disputes. For more up to date information please see the Wikinews article, <insert wikinews link here>

Zephalis (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Declined - this article is developing much like all our other high-profile, breaking event articles and conforming with Wikipedia's standards and best practices. Rklawton (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu stuff

why is there a lot of ubuntu stuff in this article?

Marta del setenta y ocho (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

I see the date is in American mm-dd-yyyy format; however, Bin Laden was a Muslim Saud national (both the Islamic and Saud calenders use international date formats). WP:DATE dictates that if a subject has strong national ties then the date format adopted should follow the national date format. Is there any particular reason why the American date format has been adopted here, before I correct the format to the version tied to his nationality? Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date is fine as-is. Not worth the hoopla to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy and guidelines determine what is fine and what isn't, not your personal feelings on the matter. I will ask again: is there a policy based reason for the current date format? Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reading WP:DATE, I can't find a whole lot of policy one way or the other. Given that this is a truly global event (the Americans may have "done it", but the rest of the world actually cares too) I'd say the international format is more appropriate, but that's just my opinion. --Skysmurf (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could see a case for him having "ties" to the US...as in, he wouldn't be famous if not for blowing up the WTC and being a focus of a war. But I think your rationale makes more sense based on how we treat other such subjects, I say go ahead and change it if you'd like. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly support such a change as per WP:DATE. doomgaze (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with above-expressed comment regarding this having ties to the U.S. Also with the guideline that directs that we shouldn't go about edit-warring on existing date format when there is a legitimate reason for them. As the guideline states: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has ties with pretty much every country in the world, not just the U.S. of A... --Skysmurf (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, Skysmurf. But before Osama really got into the news by turning two tall building into a lot of dust, his other major thing he did that made him truly notable was flattening some US embassies. There is clearly a very strong tie to the U.S. here so it’s more fitting to use U.S. spelling and time conventions. Greg L (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured, I'm not going to edit-war over this. And I certainly won't deny that there are strong U.S. ties. But I do think the reasoning is flawed (as in the "so" part of your argument). If the date format is to remain as it is, the "don't change unless really necessary" policy is in my opinion a much better argument than the "We're Americans, it's our thing so we format it our way" line of thought. --Skysmurf (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I try not to edit to please myself. I am American but when writing articles like Kilogram that have no strong association with America, I am first in line to go with Euro-style date formatting. In the case of date formatting and which dialect to use (colour v.s. color), Wikipedia adopted a trade-off between ensuring contributing to Wikipedia remains fun (it’s a hobby engaged in by volunteers) and doing what is purely best for the likely readership. It’s certainly a gray area in many cases. In this particular case, it seems that the strong tie to America is sufficiently well established to make it more than a 50/50 flip of the coin. Osama had been given clearance by a leading Muslim cleric that it was quite certain that God would be pleased by the killing of up to ten million civilians by means of weapons of mass destruction. Were Osama to have found the means, he would have certainly done so. If it were ten million people in Germany, I’d be first in line to say “There is clearly now a much stronger national tie to Germany, so let’s use their date-formatting method.” But that’s certainly the hard way to get the article to read most naturally for the likely readership… Greg L (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

conflicting news information

Some sources say that bin Laden was killed in airstrike; others say he was shot. How do we know which is true? --Ixfd64 (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones say it was an "airstrike"? I don't see that at ANY of the major news outlets... 132.3.65.68 (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me, either. While anything the POTUS says should be treated with suspicion, the leaders of the military are a different matter, and they have confirmed to the press that the official report is correct. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)HammerFilmFan[reply]
Pre-POTUS speculation included air-strike. I haven't seen any sources after the POTUS' speech that maintained it was an air-strike. Rklawton (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden

An article related to this topic, Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit location request (this is a photo recon confirmed google maps location)

This matches military photos: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=34.169293,73.24261&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=37.136668,72.509766&ie=UTF8&ll=34.168707,73.243339&spn=0.009481,0.017703&t=h&z=16

Photo source ABC news: http://abcnews.go.com/International/slideshow/photos-inside-osama-bin-laden-kill-zone-13508190

Location listed in artical is incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.89.128.5 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious The Telegraph Google Maps location of Bin Ladens' compound

The Thelegraphs' location of Bin Ladens' compound seems to be bogus, because the Google Maps / Earth images of the area are from 2001 according to Google Earth, and the compound was built in 2005 "at the end of a dirt road". So, it can't be visible on Google Maps / Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.131.84 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

number of hilicopeters

i was told 4 not 2 hilicopters —The preceding comment was added by 174.31.200.69 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

6.3 Obama administration

On 02 May 2011 (03:30 UTC), Obama released a statement saying that his soldiers had killed bin Laden. This should read: On 02 May 2011 (03:30 UTC), Obama released a statement saying that American soldiers had killed bin Laden.

as the solders, while under the command of the US military and thus under the commander in chief, belong to no indivdual American citizen and the pronoun "his" implies direct ownership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.8.81 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Changed, it did read as if Obama personally owns our troops... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinated?

Should this go in assassination categories? Many of the foreign press, including CNN International, the Jerusalem Post, the New Zealand Herald, are calling this an assassination.24.61.213.154 (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not until, or if, a preponderance of reliable sources start using that term. Keep in mind this guy had declared war on us, so this could be considered an act of war. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, since the US isn't at war with Pakistan and Osama Bin Laden hold no elected office, then I don't think any of the definitions for casualty of war/execution/assassination fit. I wonder if we should just go with "Bin Laden was murdered"? Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Murdered? lol. Need I remind you that he fired at the military troops rather than give himself up.
Technically, it qualifies as an assassination due to the fact that bin Laden was "hold-up" as a political fugitive. He was not able to actively involve himself in any "wars" in recent years as a trade-off for being in seclusion/hiding. This comment is somewhat off the cuff, as I am not a bin Laden expert. Nevertheless, by definition it seems more like an assassination than a casualty of war. Dijcks | InOut 18:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He had the choice to surrender. He chose to be killed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Murdered" strikes me as a non-starter suggestion. Without even getting into what the word means and the legal connotation, we can just take a look at the RSs -- it is certainly not a term of choice of the RSs to describe what happened. Wikipedia doesn't engage in POV and OR and insert a term that one or more editors think might be a nice one to use, when the RSs don't share that view.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Qaeda had declared war on us, one way or another. He was effectively a "king" who ordered the "assassination" of 3,000 Americans. Just because they don't play by conventional warfare "rules" doesn't mean that somehow it's not a war. And until, or if, a preponderances of reliable sources call it "assassination" or "murder", it's not wikipedia's place to do so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with BB. Well said. From what we now know at least, I don't see this ending up anything other than what it is now called by the preponderance of RSs -- killed.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I think a call could be made for using the word "assassination" but, personally I like "killed" better. Assassination has a certain negative connotation of the persons who were involved, hence our military. No thanks on that one. Also the word suggests that the person being killed was possibly worth protecting. bin Laden was not. Also, those 3,000 Americans?, They WERE Murdered, NOT assassinated. Regardless of political or religious motive, he orchestrated the murder of innocent people. Let's stick with the word "killed". The word "murdered" is an insult to those (and their families) who were actually murdered by this man. Dijcks | InOut 19:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll presume "sleeps with the fishes" is a non-starter. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand this date thing.. Observe:

I think it's safe to assume that bin Laden was killed on either May 1st or 2nd, UNLESS conspiracy theories come to prove otherwise yes?

BUT, if the president stated in his national address that, "earlier this morning", and given the president's physical/geographical location, AND the time in which he made the speech (started approximately 12:15am (GMT-4) East coast on May 2nd) , it is safe to assume that he was talking about earlier, on May 1st yes? So, even if the time in Pakistan is 9 hours ahead (GMT+5) of President Obama's geographic location (GMT-4), does it not make sense that the killing took place on May 1st? NOTE: ANY time in the "morning" of a given day (hence May 1st) in the U.S.A. Eastern time, would still also be that day in Pakistan, (hence May 1st).

Consider the TIMELINE: May 02, 2011 at 12:30 am,(GMT-4) President makes announcement. He states that "earlier that morning" (Obviously May 01.) (for him, which was in the USA East coast time). At the very latest possible time in the morning, 11:59am on May 1st (at his location), it would still be May 1st in Pakistan (9 hours later). AND remember that the president held up on making the speech that day as well.

It seems that his "impressions" and "perceptions" of time would be where he currently is, geographically.

What am I missing? thanks all. Dijcks | InOut 19:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bin Laden's Death

It should read Navy Seal's, Army Helicopter Pilots, and CIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.112.94 (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 98.118.88.177, 2 May 2011

The article says Osama Bin Laden's death date was May second, when it was May first,

98.118.88.177 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done See FAQ. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 20:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan involvement

CNN reports Pakistan officials may have created a safe haven for this evil terrorist. Important information to the article when relieable sources become available.--ChubsterII (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan has recieved billions of dollars in aid for counter-terrorism assistance from the United States.--ChubsterII (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of date of death

He died on 04/30/11 not on 5/2/11. Same date as Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.204.187 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you know this - how? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Death Date

according to http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862171-barack-obama-watched-osama-bin-laden-attack-from-the-white-house Osama Bin Laden was killed at 12:55am local time on SUNDAY MAY 1st NOT ON MAY 2nd like it says now. Someone should fix this

 Not done See FAQ. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please do not shout. Thanks. doomgaze (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Please change the image of Obama administration officials from File:Osama mission.jpg to File:Obama and Biden await updates on bin Laden.jpg. The latter is identical in content and from the same source but of higher resolution. 184.56.92.166 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone did it. 184.56.92.166 (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Location Update

This site matches the photos in the press exactly.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Osama+Bin+Laden's+Hideout+Compound&aq=&sll=34.169959,73.24261&sspn=0.00498,0.01134&ie=UTF8&hq=Osama+Bin+Laden's+Hideout+Compound&hnear=&t=h&z=17

Dog Food Danny (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The correct spot confirmed: http://abcnews.go.com/International/osama-bin-laden-living-high-hog/story?id=13512167 Dog Food Danny (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Mgsko, 2 May 2011

Regarding the section titled "Variations of Osama bin Laden's name", there is no further citation or evidence to support the alternate spelling of 'Osama' as 'Usama'. There is also no citation as to why the name may be abbreviated as 'UBL'.

Mgsko (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we delete the article Christian fundamentalism from the "See also" section as irrelevant?

I mean, Osama bin Laden and Christian fundamentalism are only very distantly and indirectly related. it is proper to put it as "See also" under the article Muslim fundamentalism but not here. Thoughts?....24.228.127.187 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I have been bold and removed it. Thanks for pointing that out. doomgaze (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as well.V7-sport (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding...

From 2001 to 2011, bin Laden and his organization had been major targets of the War on Terror.

Now that he's dead, anyone who currently is a major target of the war?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page and name change to USAMA BIN LADEN from OSAMA BIN LADEN

I've seened on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted page that they have his first initial U instead of O. I believe this should be change to the correct way as it is spelled by the government. USA!69.123.40.153 (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONAME Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 23:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US propaganda leaflet

I'm not sure how that picture is related to the article's context. And it is really quite rare that I see such a personal target in an article on wiki. We should remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.146.118 (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 1 or May 2

The death date at the top of the article reads May 1 but the info box reads May 2, which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He died early on May 2 in Pakistan, maybe some American editors seem to prefer that the date was quoted in US time, so they are choosing May 1 instead. Not sure exactly. Ansell 00:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Using a non-free picture (now that he's dead)

So the deed was done and Osama bin Laden is no more. I understand that Wikipedia has rules governing the use of non-free photographs of people, but I also recall that we stretch the rules for situations where it would not be possible to obtain a freely licensed picture (such as with the deceased). For such a major topic, this pixelated, low-resolution picture of Osama could seriously afford to be replaced with something better. I recommend using the picture used by the FBI; while it is non-free, the ramifications of copyright infringement would be lesser than if we were to use, say, a picture from Getty or the AP. For the purposes of better illustrating the article, this is something that should be seriously considered. harej 00:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Link text, additional text.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference guardian1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b "Osama Bin Laden Killed by US Strike". ABC News. 1 May 2011.
  4. ^ "Osama bin Laden, the face of terror, killed in Pakistan". CNN.com. The Cable News Network. 2011-05-01. Retrieved 2011-05-01.
  5. ^ "Osama bin Laden Killed; ID Confirmed by DNA Testing". ABC News. 1 May 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osama_bin_Laden&oldid=427162063"