Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Geronimo!

From Obama: "Geronimo was the code name for bin Laden." [1] The article has it wrong now. Savidan 02:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The 60-Minutes interview was done on Wednesday, May 4, 2011 and must have been before the administration decided to redefine what "Geronimo" meant. On May 5th it was "a senior administration official later told CNN that it was code for the act of capturing or killing bin Laden, not for the man himself."[2] This shift is already documented in the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a high likelihood that the original story is correct. (1) Geronimo=OBL is sourced to Obama himself, (2) the NYT story is very specific that his name was Geronimo, and (3) in military terminology "E-KIA" is always preceded by the name or codename of the person. The section should be worded so as to emphasize that the "Jackpot" codename is anonymously sourced and should be regarded with skepticism. Brmull (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Objective - kill-or-capture OBL

I don't have time to verify the sources and to write the text but this article has "Chambliss said that in any case, the takedown of bin Laden was lawful and legitimate, based on an executive order. “The order had been in existence since shortly after 9/11 that if you encounter bin Laden you’ve got the authority to kill him. And I hope that’s what the SEALs went in there to do. It was appropriate.” After 9/11, President George W. Bush signed secret executive orders authorizing kill-or-capture missions and Obama has not rescinded them." --Marc Kupper|talk 06:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Chambliss the guy who insists that he saw a picture of Osama's body, despite overwhelming evidence that he was shown a fake? I'm not sure his opinion caries enough weight to contribute to the article. Brmull (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting sources, especially in the #Combat section

I think we could be streamlining the narrative where there are conflicting sources. In general I don't think it's informative to say "One source said this, while another source said that" when it comes to the timeline of events as they occurred during the attack. We are used to doing this when it's opposing viewpoints, to document conflicting points of view, but in this case, it only makes for a confused, schizophrenic narrative. Without making any specific suggestions just yet, I'd propose that we:

  1. Try to pare narrative timeline content down (within reason) to that which sources agree upon
  2. Mention conflicting reports, but don't go into extensive details. (For example, a long discussion about whether the people killed in the raid were all male or not could be reduced to something like "Sources are conflicting as to whether the dead were all male.")

This could give us a more parsimonious narrative that leaves the reader feeling informed rather than confused. Thoughts? --Anentiresleeve (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead with the cleanup. I've cleaned up some things over the past few days and so far no one has contested any of the edits. This can be used as a source for the example you provided of "Sources are conflicting as to whether the dead were all male." --Marc Kupper|talk 22:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I wish to very vehemently protest the very idea of a cleanup on such a disgusting subject. I would rather not get my hands dirty, if you would mind my using the metaphor. Please do not force an edit war on this issue. This was solely an American operation and had nothing to do with the ISI, as is very clear from the words. The dead are all male is very misleading as there were children who were also male and who were saved. So I repeat, please do not force an edit war on this issue. I am sorry if this turns out to be rude, as being rude is not my intention. i have only the best interests at heart. Harvardoxford (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you're objecting to. In any case, please do not threaten to edit war - we talk about this on the talk page to reach consensus, and that's why I brought it up before making the edits. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Harvardoxford (talk · contribs) is a vandal/troll who is making nonsensical edits, which he apparently finds humorous, on a number of page. I have left several warnings on his talk page. To these I will add another, for no reason other than keeping track of all his mischief. Please ignore his post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Why choose Abbottabad, Pakistan to hide in?

I added source information showing connections between Abbottabad, al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden leading up to bin Laden's death in Abbottabad, including (i) the Afghanistan's Taliban ambassador using Abbottabad to announce just before 9-11 that the Taliban would never hand over Osama Bin Laden to the Americans, (ii) Abbottabad al-Qaeda training camps and staff offices, (iii) the porting of US relief money into Abbottabad at the same time Osama bin Laden's hideout compound was being built, (iv) the June 2008 interview between American journalist Tom Lasseter and former Guantanamo Bay detention camp detainee Asadullah Jan at Jan's home in Abbottabad at the same time bin Laden lived there, and (v) the two month delay by Pakistan in announcing the January 25, 2011 arrested one of the most wanted al-Qaeda-linked Indonesian terror suspects, Umar Patek, in Abbottabad.[3] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

While this is interesting information, I think that there is a violation of WP:SYNTH by having this info in the death of bin Laden article. Many of the sources are from before 2011, so they couldn't mention his death in Abbottabad. Perhaps a more suitable article could be found to host this info or perhaps a new article could be set up, assuming that this topic is notable. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I think those details, if well-sourced facts, are unquestionably relevant to the Abbottabad article, and invite User:Uzma Gamal to add them there. If some future connection is made, as I imagine there will be much investigation into this city and its choice by bin Laden, and his support system there (whatever it was), then we can add it here, but in the meantime if someone reading this article wants to know more about what kind of city Abbottabad is as presented in reliable sources, they will learn these facts when they click over to there. Abrazame (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Even before your posting, I was starting to lean toward putting this info in the Abbottabad article. However, there will be some complications to this, as Uzma Gamal had already put this info in that article in a section about bin Laden's death. That section was removed as being recentism. Any thoughts on how to argue that the info should be put back into the Abbottabad article? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of this verges on conspiracy theory. I think it's okay to include facts regarding al-Qaeda's previous history in Abbottabad, and leave it at that for now.Brmull (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Libi was living in Abbottabad while Bin Laden was still hiding out in some border village and he probably arranged for the compound be custom-built as an HQ.[4] Kauffner (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
True, but Libi actually only lived in Abbottabad for a couple of months so he couldn't have overseen the construction. All this is speculation until we have more info. Brmull (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Are these photos genuine?

These photos of several dead men [5] are alleged to have been released by Reuters but I can't find them on Reuters website. It is claimed that they were taken by a Pakistani security official and sold to Reuters. Is this a hoax? Biscuittin (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Reuters article is here and is a photo journal. Here are links to what appear to be the original size (2,200px × 1,650px) images on the Reuters site. Warning, the following are images of human bodies in pools of blood. 1234. All of them have had their camera generated EXIF information stripped and instead report "Photoshop 3.0, STRINGER/PAKISTAN, ABBOTTABAD, Pakistan, The unidentified body of a man is seen after a raid by U.S. Navy SEAL commandos on the compound where al Qaeda leader bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, REUTERS, ATTENTION EDITORS - VISUAL COVERAGE SCENES OF INJURY OR DEATH, The unidentified body of a man is seen after a raid by U.S. Navy SEAL commandos on the compound where al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, May 2, 2011. Bin Laden was killed in the U.S. special forces assault on the Pakistani compound, then quickly buried at sea, in a dramatic end to the long manhunt for the al Qaeda leader who had been the guiding star of global terrorism. Picture taken May 2, 2011. REUTERS/Stringer (PAKISTAN - Tags: CRIME LAW POLITICS CIVIL UNREST IMAGES OF THE DAY)" --Marc Kupper|talk 21:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The photos appear to be genuine. BTW that's no ordinary helicopter... N419BH 22:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I thought it looked more like an industrial ventilation fan. Biscuittin (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
What the hell? Look at number 2. There is a water pistol next to him. Any idea why? O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I have read that there was a child's water pistol near the bodies. There was an awful lot of children on the premises.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, you can see it right there, the green and orange thing under his right shoulder. That is rather disturbing. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Water pistols are sometimes used to project chemicals into an attack dog's eyes but why not just use a gun? Marcus Qwertyus 00:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, if that's the case, hopefully Cairo was wearing doggles. jengod (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I also noticed that the helicopter tail rotor is white. If you were going on a secret mission would you use a white helicopter? It would show up pretty well if someone shone a searchlight on it. Biscuittin (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
How was the man in the white T-shirt killed? There are no obvious bullet wounds to his head or chest. He might have been shot through the right ear but I'd expect more damage to the ear. My feeling is that he has been stabbed, rather than shot. Biscuittin (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Is t his a bit off topic?82.11.80.229 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
It looks like a shrapnell bomb went off in front of those guys!... 82.14.61.44 (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
WP doesn't care how he was killed unless there's a reliable source that states how he was killed. Looking at a picture and speculating is WP:OR. Glrx (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The photos are genuine but none shows Osama Bin Laden. Therefore these photos cannot depict the death of Osama Bin Laden, but rather of these poor individuals whose identity is unknown, and we have no way to know whether they had any connection to Osama Bin Laden. John Hyams (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, these are like a rython you find on the art market, you can see it has some stuff of interest, but you have nothing in the way of context really that would give you more useful iformation. As you said, we don't know what connection they had to him or why these unfortunate fellows were shot (as we don't have RSs discussing it in useful detail). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Reuters (a reliable source) claims that they are connected to the death of Osama Bin Laden so that should be good enough for Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
According to this BBC report [6], "Three men and a woman were killed alongside Bin Laden, including one of his sons". One of the dead men in the photos, therefore, should be one of bin Laden's sons. Has anybody identified him? Biscuittin (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article Childhood, education and personal life of Osama bin Laden only names four of bin Laden's children, although he is alleged to have fathered between 12 and 24. I think we need more information. Biscuittin (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Some of the dead are named at Osama_bin_Laden's_compound_in_Abbottabad#Identities_of_the_dead_and_injured. Can the names be cross-matched to the photographs? Biscuittin (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Just based on what we know about their biographies and their physical appearances, I'd say: The young adult male with the beard is probably bin Laden's son (I see a family resemblance, but maybe that's just me), allgedly named Hamza bin Laden, the guy with the moustache timestamped 02:39 is probably the courier (we heard he was outside in the guesthouse and it appears that this body is laid out on a dirt floor next to a [presumably exterior] concrete wall), and the other guy with the moustache with the floral sheet next to him is probably/possibly the courier's brother/cousin. Don't think we can really tell which is which between courier and relative, but IMHO the younger one has to be bin Laden's son, so the other two (who, again, appear to have a family resemblance, to each other) are probably the courier and his brother/cousin/relative/whatever. jengod (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I see the family resemblance to.82.11.108.178 (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph: reactionary; redundant quote; holy warrior

Greetings, I would like to say first off that everyone has done a great job with this article. Second, I would like to draw your attention to paragraph number four which starts as "The killing of bin Laden received a ...". I have three concerns that I would like to raise.

The first concern is that the paragraph can be summerized as reactionary. As such, doesn't this paragraph belong in the "Aftermath:Reactions" subsection that occurs later in the article? Or perhaps even placing the paragraph in the "Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden" article?

My second concern is that this paragraph contains a quote which is then stated a second time in the "Aftermath:Reactions" subsection I just mentioned. Specifically, the quote is that of Ismail Haniya in which he calls OBL a "Muslim and Arab warrior". I understand that the two occurrences of the same quote come from two seperate sources, however if you read the other quotes in those sources, it is clear they are both referring to the same speech made by Haniya. Thus, my question is, do we need to have the same quote appear twice in the article?

My third and final concern is regarding the discrepancy between the two quotes. You can see in the quote which appears in the "Aftermath:Reactions" subsection that the word "holy" is added. I am (completely) guessing that when the statements by Haniya were translated into english, the second source decided to use "Arab holy warrior" instead of "Arab warrior". My question is: if we agree to only use this quote once in the entire article, then can we remove the version in which OBL is called "holy"? I personally find it offensive that he is characterized as "holy" and thus I would prefer if we only used the first version of the quote.

I am not going to change the article myself as others have put so much work into it, but I just wanted to raise those concerns. Thanks. - Bill (67.165.120.130 (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC))

Bill, I encourage you to Be bold, in the grand tradition of Wikipedia! Your changes are welcome in our web of edits and information.jengod (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
To the first and second concern, WP:LEAD explains that article leads should summarize the body of article. This in this instance includes summarizing the most important parts of the reactions two bin Laden's death. I think the Hamas opinion is probably important enough to be in the lead, as it shows some differing from the general opinion about bin Laden's death. Maybe if it could be shown that Haniya's opinion isn't Hamas' official opinion it could be removed.
I looked into your third concern. It looks like Haniya used the word "mujahed" to describe bin Laden. Almost all of the sources I found translates this into "holy warrior". And to my mind that seems like an accurate translation. I'll replace the source and insert "holy" in quote in the lead. I'm sorry, but we can not remove or alter notable opinion just because they may offend some.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that something being offensive is not a reason to perfom an edit. I see now how I could have worded things more clearly in my statements above, as my reasoning was incomplete. At any rate, thank you for the information and I will certainly read those things you mentioned. Also, the statements I made above no longer describe the current state of the article, and thus, don't make much sense. As such, if I want to discuss something specific (e.g. arabic translation) then I will just start a new section and discuss that topic specifically. Thanks again to everyone for a great article. - Bill (67.165.120.130 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC))

It is to be noted that Osama bin Laden's followers do regard him as 'holy'. It's all a matter of seeing it all from a certain idalogical point of view.86.26.74.2 (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was already aware of that. Again, I could have been more clear and complete with my concerns, but I will forego such efforts at this time. -Bill (67.165.120.130 (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC))
When I saw the Hamas leader quote in JPost, I saw it as holy, idk if there is a different translation or what, but I think that holy was the original thing they were on about (I tend to trust JPost's Arab Israelis in their translations as they are unlikely to be messed up by dialectical stuff). I hate to say it mate, but we can't remove stuff just because we dislike it. Regardless of what that thing is. If it's said in the source, it is best to include it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
To repeat myself, I agree. -Bill (67.165.120.130 (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC))
Just making sure you know about WP:IDL. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Long sections

The "role of Pakistan" and "legality" sections are quite hearty and hale at this point. Should they be forked to separate articles? jengod (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Before we consider forking "Legality" (this would give us quite a tree of sub-articles to Osama bin Laden), is there anything that can be cut? --Anentiresleeve (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

jengod, you already did that to the legality section and it as reverted back I believe.I do not see any problem with the legality section length.Owain the 1st (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I swear to you, I'm not trying to minimize it, I just think it is such a fundamentally complex/dense topic, with moral and ethical implications on top of simple rule of law, that it deserves some room to breathe, and this page will probably constrain it somewhat... jengod (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Role of Pakistan

Now that I look at it, since this section has already been forked, it could probably be a good bit shorter. I'll leave it to others to decide what to trim, if anything. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's O.K. now.82.27.30.35 (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

role of "enhanced interrogation" in locating bin Laden

There has been a sustained discussion in the media regarding the role that "enhanced interrogation" techniques may or may not have played in generating elements of the information that ultimately led to bin Laden's death. It seems like this might be a suitable topic for a sub-section in the "Locating bin Laden" section. Thoughts? Here are some sample citations: USA Today editorial, straight MSNBC new article, John Yoo's claims in WSJ, and a pointed response etc. Ronnotel (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, all the sources attributed to the administration say that they didn't use information from enhanced interrogation. Anyway, I worry that this article's scope is expanding too much. Maybe the best place to host this content would be Enhanced interrogation techniques. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the first claim is either true or even relevant. For instance, Panetta grudgingly admitted information came "from many sources" after persistent questioning by Brian Williams. As for being in scope, the article already explains that information was obtained from "interrogation" of detainees. However, it seems to carefully steer away from the issue of "enhanced interrogation", which might strike a knowledgeable reader as an deliberate omission. See this video, timestamp 3:47. Ronnotel (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's relevant, because if it's true, then it makes this easy - we just say it didn't play a role and cite that. Mainly, what I'm concerned about is re-covering the torture debate in this article when we're already struggling to cover it in a neutral manner in the main articles. Even if it's unclear, we should be able to keep it short. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I added a section about this because I think that this is an important topic. We need to find the actual names of the guys from the Obama administration who claimed that no intel from waterboarded prisoners was used. I think John O. Brennan was one of them. Quaber (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, again, why I've made these edits to the section. I am concerned about the article becoming a WP:COATRACK about the "is enhanced interrogation torture" and the ethical issues related to the ticking time bomb scenario. The quote box is a good bit longer than the section itself, so it draws undue attention to a section that is already on the boundary of not being about the article subject anymore. It's a good quote, so maybe we could work it into the section, but not as a quote box. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama's Sons demand proof

CNN is reporting that Osama bin Laden's sons have sent an open letter to the US demanding proof withing 30 days that their father is really dead. Do we have enough sources on this to add it to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.9.131 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can find them, you're more than welcome to add it here and in Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. WP:V holds true. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
It belongs at the Reactions to article, not here. If his sons claim to have no way of confirming whether their father is alive or dead, as has apparently been confirmed both by two or three of the man's wives and several other of his children, then it seems to be self-serving provocation or publicity seeking rather than some plaintive plea for information or sincere request for proof. His sister was interviewed on TV in the past week and if the sons' response is relevant there, then his sister's is as well. But they are minor reactions by people who were apparently completely estranged from him and the wives and children he lived with. This is not merely a WP:V issue, it is one of weight and relevancy. Abrazame (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
HOWEVER the comments of family members who were at the compound are very relevant to this article and, as more of their stories will certainly come to light, I think we ought to create a new section. Brmull (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
No, we don't create sections for things we imagine will happen, and we don't randomly expand an aspect of this article that is already justifiably covered at length in another article. We would create a section here such as you propose only after such relevant, reliably sourced and verifiable comments were to come to light and be found both relevant and appropriately weighted for this article. Otherwise, there is a section at the reactions article. That is the whole point about having a separate article for the death and for the reactions to that death. Abrazame (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
With the FOIA filings of yesterday, this may wind up in the Reactions article sooner rather than later. But until those filings receive an official response, this entire question is moot. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I think its valid to include the reaction of immediate family, even if they are estranged and not close. This is esp. true if they are expressing strong feelings about the death of their father. I'd say filing the lawsuit indicates that. BernieW650 (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
But it's not a question of Reactions. The family members who were in the compound are actual witnesses to his death. Brmull (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Respectfully, this isn't that discussion. To that discussion, without an editor raising a specific suggestion about reliable sources reporting actual claims of family in the compound, it's a moot point whether we would include it here or elsewhere or nowhere. This is about a frivolous lawsuit by family estranged for a decade who seem to think it's their right to sue the U.S. for killing their father, the world's most wanted mass-murdering terrorist. If I recall, the U.S. didn't sue the sons for bin Laden's crimes, and I think a similar legal principle is at stake. Abrazame (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Luckily, Wikipedia policy relieves us of the burden of determining what their motives are with these charges, and whether they are frivolous or not. Some mention seems appropriate, here and in the Reactions article fork. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Visual

Is there any way to graphically depict "one in 11.8 quadrillion"? jengod (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Emmm, why exactly? To answer your q though, 1.18X10^16? Right? I suck at those. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
That's the DNA results probability that the DNA is not OBL's, but most people (like, uh, me) can't even deal with what a quadrillion is, much else the scale of one in 11.8 quadrillion. I just thought a visual representation might be useful. jengod (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a good instinct—but if you mean by a graph, there is no way someone's computer screen can graphically represent one part as compared to 11.8 quadrillion parts in the same shot. Which of course goes to how overwhelming that is. Perhaps there is some general comparison, the way one talks about a single grain of sand from among all the world's beaches or one drop of water from out of, you know, a lake or a sea. I did find this interesting site to show the difference between one and one quadrillion, which of course is still just a fraction of the number we're dealing with. I can't attest for its reliability as a source. [7] Abrazame (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need to get so precise about these probabilities. Why can't we just say that DNA testing confirmed his identity? --Anentiresleeve (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Say "The DNA testing confirmed his identity beyonde all logical probability." and cut the math.82.11.108.217 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
"Beyond a reasonable doubt"? That's a term most people are familiar with, and just as Abraz said, the actual probability is such a high number, few people can actually visualise that or put it into perspective. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, strong consensus against doing so. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:29pm • 11:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC) —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:29pm • 11:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden → Killing of Osama bin Laden – The word "death" implies death from natural causes, as in most other "death of" articles. The word "killing" makes more sense, since this took place through a military operation designed to do just that. Osama Bin Laden was intentionally killed in a long, thought-out process that was months in the making. He did not just drop dead. These articles mostly discuss the act of killing Bin Laden, not the process of him physically dying once these actions were taken. Shaliya waya (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Partly because Marc actually took the time to find all those (don't want his effort to be for naught) and also because it appears to be standard naming practice and in an encyclopedia it's best to have things standardised (not so much elsewhere ofc). Plus, dead is dead and a death is a death; brain activity ceases, the soul departs the body, and if we're lucky, you get reincarnated (if not, you either go to a boring cloudy place or an interesting, but unpleasant, hot place, or just rot in the ground). Point is, he's dead and this is an article about his death. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Death of" is the most neutral term, it implies nothing about the cause of death. "Killing of" might on the other hand imply to some that the operation's objective to kill Osama bin Laden, which goes against the official claim that the objective was to kill or capture bin Laden.TheFreeloader (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Is the official claim any more "NPOV"? Seeing as the only reported resistance was that of a wife who "rushed" Navy Seals (and this woman was not among those killed), the claim that there was any serious attempt to capture him is at best dubious. Owen (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
      • As said above, I don't think "Death of" implies anything about the cause of, or circumstances surrounding, the death. It neither favors the official claim, nor the opposing claims. It could just as well describe Osama bin Laden being killed at close range while begging for mercy, as bin Laden going down in a blaze of glory like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Note Try "The cobative slaying of" instead?86.26.74.2 (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Lets keep this Neutral, as pointed out above there is nothing wrong with a redirect with the wording proposed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose and call for speedy close to discussion per WP:SNOW - This has been proposed before, at least twice that I'm aware of, and has been rejected both times. Why does it keep coming up? The precedent was set with Death of John Lennon and upheld with Death of Michael Jackson, as was stated in the AfD discussion that was opened the day after ObL died. That should have been the end of it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose wp:snow, redundant, blah. Rklawton (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This isn't a vote, but I also think the article title is fine. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Note Is this becoming WP:SNOW, since this request did come up at least once before not so long ago, to my knowledge.Wipsenade (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons stated above. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Q How many articles do we have on deaths by natural causes?? —Tamfang (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • There are various articles about the deaths of notable historical people, reexamined with modern medical knowledge, e.g. Beethoven and Tchaikovsky. Kauffner (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Re Not as many as for killings or fatal accidents as far as I can tell.Wipsenade (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Issue addressed previously with no move. Agree with WP:SNOW. Glrx (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's now turing in to some WP:SNOW! The plan was has been rejected earlyer.Wipsenade (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This should be the last time we entertain the idea of a title move without the nominator accepting the onus of proving reliable sources support such a move. This makes what, a dozen move requests in a week and a half? "Death" implies no such thing as natural causes, it implies was alive and now is not, and leaves the details to the article and the POV to the reader. Nobody just "drops dead", there is a cause for everything, and two bullets to the head of a terrorist mastermind is no more sinister than a million cigarettes to the esophagus or a million tonnes of coal to the lungs or some genetic disorder or phenomenon we don't yet understand, or even the sum total of physiological changes that sources might term "old age". The actual physical process of him dying is not the internationally notable aspect of that death, either in the abstract or as reported in reliable sources. Once we tell people someone was shot in the head, or had a heart attack, or got cancer, or died of old age, it's up to them to research the physical process that ties one of these catastrophic events to actual death. Abrazame (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not only is "death" neutral, but it's common practice at Wikipedia. Hitler committed suicide, but the article for it is still Death of Adolf Hitler. I Help, When I Can. [12] 03:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Propose We could say "termination of the life of..."08:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.104.136 (talk)
  • Propose We could say "sesation of the life of..."82.11.104.136 (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No, because "sesation" would a misspelling. Alandeus (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Death is the right term and there can be no argument for the sake of just saying that you wish to put forth a POV opinion about the way in which he died, considering the involvement of all those caught up unwillingly in this affair. Death covers all kinds of death and can never be opposed on the grounds that the death is not the death that you want to define it in the way of the scriptures or in the way that you wish to put forth your views on this matter. Therefore, any other word used may only take away from the prime concept that this is a death and that death cannot be opposed or turned around by views on the matter that tend to sway from being anti or pro along the lines of the subject. It is best not to provoke anyone by suggesting such things and incurring their ire. Thank you. Harvardoxford (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just a argument for the sake of it and just saying that editors wish to put forth a POV opinion ObL's his death.81.100.127.37 (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Propose The "liquidation" or "assassination" of Osama Bin Laden?82.27.27.214 (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • No. Just.... no. Have you actually looked at any of the above discussion? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
      • No, I, the one who suggested "killing," who still stands by my suggestion, despite all this opposition, do feel that "liquidation" or "assassination" or not neutral enough. Either one of these terms implies the killing may have been unjustified. But the term "killing" simply means that through an action a human life was taken. And that is just what happened. Shaliya waya (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I know I shouldn't bother responding to this, but... "liquidation"? Was OBL a department store going out of business? "Assassination" also fails WP:V because it's not clear that this was an assassination mission, despite questions about the order (was it "take no prisoners" or "kill or capture"?). As for "killing", it doesn't fit standard naming procedures as discussed (and listed thoroughly) above. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Snow close because continued talk on this matter is pointless. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Snow close because continued talk on this matter is pointless. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose and close, See WP:SNOW for info!Wipsenade (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
You're going to have to explain how WP:CHERRY might apply here before anyone can either agree or disagree. To me, it's a non sequitur. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
What is non sequitur in English? I'm not up on leagl speak or the French language.82.11.108.217 (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Non sequitur is Latin phraze for "it does not follow." It is most often used as a noun to describe illogical statements.[[8]].82.18.206.86 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Military Person box

Does that really need to be there? No The Death of Adolf Hitler article doesnt have a military person box in it so why does this one? Seems incredibly unnecessary to me, the military conflict box should be there instead.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well he was a militant rather than a formal political leader (which Hitler was, even though you don't have an infobox there), so I guess that is why. I think someone just did some copypasta from Osama bin Laden. We also don't have that neat Stars and Stripes cover sadly. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

His children, wives and who got his money?

The BBC are now reporting today [9] that he left at least 20 children from 5 wives. That is a lot of orphans and widowes that we now need to include in the 'Aftermath' secton.213.81.117.175 (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting material and I'm certain there will be plenty more about it. My earlier comments about it were incorrectly deleted. It is quite a story - it is also quite a story as to how the Bin Laden family generally will react and their many friends and connections in high places worldwide. They are very rich and so it is reasonable to discuss what assets OBL still had access to and what will happen to them. Who will be involved in deciding that in the US and elsewhere. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll repost my earlier comment: There is a possibly fake will out. Keep an eye on the story though. It might have some interesting developments in the future. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 13:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I've reattached Jamesinderbyshire version-

"The BBC are reporting today [10] that he left at least 20 children from 5 wives. Makes me wonder if there's a will and if so, who will be getting his money, how much and how? I assume he died a rich man as from a very rich family, friends of the Bushes and other Texan billionaires, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)"

James, it's back at last, sir.81.100.127.37 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A page on what his the social reaction of his 20 children from 5 wives would be of note in an 'Aftermath' section.82.27.27.214 (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Only 3 wives survived the assault. [[11]]82.18.206.86 (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps English isn't your first language, but your post reads as if you think or would like others to think that one or two of his wives were killed in the assault. That, of course, is not true; or at least it has not been suggested by any source; only three of his wives were present at the compound during the operation. Presumably he was "only" living with those three of his wives; I know that at least one wife, I believe a Saudi woman, divorced/left him some time ago.
To the OP, again, perhaps you're unfamiliar with the meanings of the words you're using, but "orphan" is a term describing a minor child following the deaths of both of his parents. For one thing, several of bin Laden's children are adults; for another, all of these children's mothers are alive; so none of these offspring are orphans. As to "widow", women whose marriages were ended, annulled, or otherwise dissolved, have no relation to their ex-husband, and so are not considered widows. More broadly speaking, as we have discussed elsewhere, the comments of estranged family members (or even nuclear family members) are not automatically relevant. People don't inherit notability, and not every notable person's every word even on subjects of import are going to be relevant to an article about that subject. World-famous people die all the time under various circumstances, and their families are very rarely quoted even when their statements or eulogies are printed in reliable sources. If and when reliable sources convincingly report statements that responsible editors give cogent arguments as being relevant to this article, we can discuss if and how we would present them. Until then, we don't create sections in anticipation of such, or debate hypotheticals.
To the question of what the U.S. would do about his money, I'm sure that any assets they could exercise control over were frozen by the U.S. in 2001, and seem to recall that having been part of the media discussion at that time. Further, I'm sure that any assets they couldn't exercise control over would have been subject to lawsuits by his victims in international court. The idea that probate anywhere in the world would favor anyone with a familial claim to inheritance over anyone with a legal claim to damages would certainly be notable if it is the case, but I can't imagine it will be. Again, let's not get out ahead of the story. Abrazame (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

To answer the OP - I believe a good place for capturing reactions would be in Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden#Individuals. The reactions I've seen do not seem relevant enough to the OBL death that they would then be summarized in this article. For example, one of OBL's adult sons, Omar bin Laden, discusses the situation here. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

3 were there and survived, 2 weren’t there and also survived. [[12]]82.11.95.110 (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

So it appears Omar bin Laden, published a funeral related complaint on May 10, 2011, that said the burial at sea deprived the family of a proper Islamic land burial. "Statement From the Family of Osama bin Laden", May 10, 2011, New York Times.. A 'Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden#Individuals' is a good idea related public, Islamic amd family reactions.82.27.29.104 (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"Earlier death reports" removal redux

An IP user has re-added the "Earlier death reports" section without discussion. For one thing, earlier death reports have nothing to do with the actual death of bin Laden, which is what we are discussing here. But for another, it also had almost nothing to do with actual reports of his death, and, as I noted in an earlier thread upon my first removal, "Most alleged reports are idle speculation by notables; many are anonymous rumors; several are actually included twice; and some are merely metaphors for his irrelevance." At Talk:Death of Osama bin Laden/Archive 3#"Earlier death reports" section grossly misinterpreted, overstated and cherry-picked; a poorly founded conspiracy theory section in disguise I refute each item in this section point by point. They are not what they were presented here as being.

This is not a clearinghouse to excerpt and paste a link to any and every Google hit for "bin Laden" and "death", it is an article framing what happened on May 1. The brief rundown of the previous actual, serious attempts to capture or kill him is relevant background; the misrepresented, rambling, redundant recounting of every instance that some notable opined that he might already be dead is not. Abrazame (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

My gripe with it is that most early death reports are crap and you have tons of different things. Like my gf read on YNet that it had been a bomb or drone or something (and YNet has pretty good fact-checkers usually), and our doorman heard a drone too, don't remember what my mom heard, but it shows you how useless they are. Oh right, this should have a point shouldn't it? So my point is that you have all these irrelevant guesses and misinterpretations at the time that are just non-notable misinformation. There's no reason to record it, because quite frankly no one cares about what they were, only how he actually died. So yeah I agree with Abraz. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

section break

This is not a forum for speculation

Unite

Obl's out. 82.14.61.44 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Proles of the world unite!  :-)81.100.127.37 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Taliban/Trolls of the world unite!! 86.139.139.167 (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Selestine!82.27.27.214 (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Operation Selestine?213.81.121.93 (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, at lest ObJ is no longer anoying Pakistan any more! :-) Plebs of the world unite. 86.26.72.145 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Operation Neputne's Spear.82.11.95.110 (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Nota bene

Should we all read this?-

82.14.61.44 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

People keep saying this when I write something they don't like. I'm trying to improve the article, by making it more balanced, so I am ignoring the rules, as I am entitled to do by Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. PS, it's Nota bene. Biscuittin (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
See also WP:BURO. Biscuittin (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure this directed specifically at you Biscuittin, if at all. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 15:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Edit: Ah wait, this is a subsection of the above topic, so you along with everyone else then, maybe, or maybe just for people who have been bringing in what appear to be conspiracy hypotheses. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Ignore all rules - That works best if you can get consensus that it's a good idea. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
If there was consensus, there would be no need to use it. Biscuittin (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A note on 2 of the tags used above-

I'm confused and worried by the paradox in usage, lads.213.81.125.167 (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

At least the page is not WP:PAIC.17:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this topic getting a bit to 'Grogan'? 09:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.74.2 (talk)

This part is becoming off topic.213.81.121.93 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the subject WP:COAT?82.27.30.35 (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE and or WP:SYNTH?09:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)~

Well, atlest ObJ is no longer anoying Pakistan any more! :-) 86.26.72.145 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is this supposed to be?86.25.52.241 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Children and who gets his money?

The BBC are reporting today [13] that he left at least 20 children from 5 wives. Makes me wonder if there's a will and if so, who will be getting his money, how much and how? I assume he died a rich man as from a very rich family, friends of the Bushes and other Texan billionaires, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a possibly fake will out. Keep an eye on the story though. It might have some interesting developments in the future. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 13:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Also see WP:NOT#FORUM. Buggeram, Buggeram; Millennium hand-and-shrimp!82.18.202.49 (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda

It could have been put there by the special opp’s team to damage Ossie’s reputation in the Islamic world!82.18.202.49 (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It could be part of a VERY ESTUTE covert smear campaign by portraying Ossie as a supposed pervert to undermine his credibility in Pakistan, if not the entire Islamic world!82.18.202.49 (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean this porn stash[[14]]? By any account it was real, but yes it could have been planted by the team.82.2.67.191 (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Heyhoe, more tactics?....213.81.118.99 (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well?86.25.52.241 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Media photos

the images in question

File:Osama bin Laden making a video at his compound in Pakistan-2.jpg

The image File:Osama bin Laden making a video at his compound in Pakistan-2.jpg is being deleted due to a coppyright. All the above images are in troubel with it.82.11.110.54 (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Osama bin Laden watching TV at his compound in Pakistan.jpg It’s been shot in such a way it could be any one. How do we know it is OBL, or anyone else with a beard?82.11.95.110 (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a reliable, it could be any old cove with a beard, realy.82.27.29.104 (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Also see- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osama bin Laden watching TV at his compound in Pakistan.jpg.82.11.110.54 (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Osama bin Laden portrait.jpg The page hedder imahe Portrait of Osama bin Laden -File:Osama bin Laden portrait.jpg- makes him looked to happy, smile, benevolent and Christ like! He was apparently no kindly Christ figure.82.11.95.110 (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the only resonable one we have got that stands any coppyvio chance of servival.82.2.67.191 (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Laws of the United States

This case only involves the law of USA, not Pakistan or any other country. The following 4 points make these images acceptable to Commons.

  1. The video is marked as "U.S. Gov. Video", meaning it belongs to the U.S. Government.
  2. Posted on an official U.S. Government site, which states "All imagery on our websites are considered public domain"
  3. A senior representative of the U.S. Government told us in plain language that "They’re yours to use as you like."
  4. Tite 17, Chapter 1, section 105 makes it possible for the U.S. Government to transfer the copyright of the unpublished videos that were confiscated from al Qaida. "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." The "otherwise" could include that a) they were confiscated in a legitimate search operation by the U.S. Government, b) seized as evidence for courts, and c) they were unpublished and its author died leaving nobody to claim them.

If we are going to question the legitimacy of the copyright transfer then the only way to do that would require going to federal courts in the United States, which is beyond the capacity of most of us here, and something like that shouldn't turn to reasons to stop us from uploading legitimate images to Commons. In other words, if the transfer was done in accordance with the law then it is wrong to not allow this image in Commons. I believe that the uploading of these latest images of Osama are not only legitimate but also very important so that everyone sees how he looked after the 1998 and 2001 terrorist attacks. Also, to see the outcome of someone who turns against the world. So far the only image shown in Wikipedia is the one from 1997, during the time when he always smiled and was not accused of crimes. 82.11.110.54 (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Important stuff can reside on Wikipedias under their local house rules. Safely. There's no need to litter commons with dubious content that can be brought to deletion again and again.

Files uploaded to Wikipedia are usually transferred to here so that they are displayed on all Wikimedia projects. Others will try to upload these same files here again and again.82.11.110.54 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!82.2.67.191 (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Same here.213.81.118.99 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Pornography

this should be mentioned. --Reference Desker (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Pornography is generally considered to be incompatible with Islamic values. So inclusion of this material shows Bin Laden's hypocrisy. Glennconti (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Only if properly sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
As observed in the commentary on Slashdot regarding the story, this is arguably an attempt to spread misinformation in order to discredit bin Laden, and since he's not around to defend himself... Well, the Wikipedia standard is verifiability, which isn't necessarily the same as truth. Just expect some backlash from trying to put it in the article, that's all I'm saying. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of this article is not to "show bin Laden's hypocrisy". The purpose is to report on the circumstances surrounding his death. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Dont see any evidence its his - not to mention that porn is interpreted by "SOME" as being not an Islamic value... but not all think this way. How many people lived at the compound could have been anyone's porn. This article should deal with whats verifiable...not peoples interpretation of what and whos it is.Moxy (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
My mom actually made the point that it could have been anyone's, lol. I am against putting it in, A, it's not a very encyclopaedic thing to include (it's like saying "oh btw, he had pr0n on his comp, lol". B, just like the will might be made up, it might be made up (it could be either someone started a rumor or just a soldier made a joke and it got carried to the press), C, if it was there, it's possible someone put it there after the fact (though like I said, it's more likely made up). Also Glenn, though we can all agree he was an asshole of the first degree, we are not trying to show his hypocrisy, that's not our goal as editors. We want to communicate stuff about him from as neutral a POV as the RSs will allow. If we do that, we show ourselves to be better than someone like him. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

None of this is of the slightest relevance to an article about Osama's death. And do I have to remind people again that this is not a forum for general discussion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion is somewhat relevant as to the inclusion of that story on the encyclopedia in general (rather than just discussion about said porno), but you are right that it also really doesn't have any relevance to the guy's death, good point. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a discussion of including material in the article found by the Navy Seals that raided and killed him. It is entirely an appropriate discussion. There are reliable sources reporting what was found in the raid. Can we say: "In an effort to discredit Osama Bin Laden after his death the United States government has reported that part of the materials recovered in the raid that resulted in his death included an extensive collection of pornography" [15] Glennconti (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
If it goes here, it should go under "Intelligence postmortem" - which really should stand alone in its own article anyway. It also belongs in his biography - not that porn is all that rare in the world but because it sheds light on his self-serving religious practices. Rklawton (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a fairly obviously attempt by the USG to smear bin Laden. About a billion people view porn. In a household of that size the likelihood of someone having a porn video is virtually 100%. If it's included it should be with all the caveats about the sourcing and uncertainty about who it belonged to. Brmull (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added in a line about it in the "Intelligence postmortem" section. I don't think it's for us to decide if this is true or relevant. The fact that it's a statement made by U.S. officials and that a major news agency has chosen to report on it should be evidence enough that it is relevant and reliable.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. While it is from a reliable and notable source, the finding of someone's fapping material in Osama's compound is not relevant to his death (the subject of the article) in any way. If we had an article about life on the compound or speculation about Osama's lifestyle then it would be, but I don't see how it relates to his death. Just because it's brought up after his death by a notable source does not mean that it should be included. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, the one-sentence mention currently in the article, "Two U.S. officials said that among the items seized was a large collection of pornography, but that it is unclear to whom the material belonged", seems to be of unclear relevancy and of undue weight; the only argument for inclusion would be recentism, or establishing POV against either bin Laden or the U.S. government (or both). We don't address the video I noted of bin Laden watching himself on video, for example, which has been published and discussed in more sources and for a longer time than the porn, and which, unlike the porn, is clearly attributable to him. But were we to do so, it wouldn't mitigate my points.

If the assertion is—as it has seemed to be—that whatever anybody says and whatever anybody finds regardless of any relevance or rationality should absolutely go directly into the article, then we should mention it here, and indicate what kind of porn it is as well. (We've all read about the Yiddish newspaper that photoshopped Hillary Clinton out of the situation room photo: to the pious, pornography is a Swiffer commercial. Oh the hair, the luscious bouncy hair on that housewife. And look at that chin. You just know she wants it. Clara Peller's Wendy's commercials, out in public, driving a car, and talking to a man she's not related to with no shame.) If the assertion is that we're supposed to label everything that comes from the U.S. government as "an effort to discredit him", then I ask why we are not labeling everything that comes from Islamists "an effort to martyr him". Though, as we have pointed out in a previous thread, the Arabic version of this article is about twenty sentences long and really isn't addressing anybody's efforts.

Of course we can't say that it was an effort to discredit him. For one thing, I think he's pretty much discredited himself as a good Muslim to anyone who understands Islam to begin with, considering all the suicide bombings and targeted killings of innocent civilians including other Muslims. For another thing, the first I heard of this they were reporting the obvious fact that one can't prove bin Laden put it there or knew about it. We have video of him watching himself deliver his "death to America" speeches, not video of him wanking to porn. There were several others living apparently 24/7 in that compound for one thing, and the computers and drives could have been previously owned by someone else. If everything he and the denizens of the compound surrounded themselves with were holy scriptures, we would expect to learn that. Do we not learn every time a celebrity has died that they had these drugs by the bed and those drugs in the cabinet and so on? Arguably every celebrity scoop and three-quarters of the political stories I've read in the last 10 years reads like "an effort to discredit" the person. Yes, it's possible it's propaganda, but it's also possible it's just human nature. "Smear"?! Should the government, upon finding porn on the terrorist's computers, have covered it up?! As sources note they cannot and do not attribute the porn two unnamed sources claim to have found to bin Laden, then the mere fact that it was there is not only irrelevant to bin Laden biographically, but irrelevant to this article. Abrazame (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It's notable in relation to the material seized at the compound. And this happens to be the place where that matter is being discussed. It might be true that this article is turning more and more into being about the operation as a whole rather just about bin Laden's death, but the two subjects are so closely related that it would be hard to split them into separate articles.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I guess you could look at it that way, and looking at the in-line thing, it looks ok, but it still doesn't seem very encyclopaedic to mention they found intelligence materials etc, and then bring up some porno as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, we can't choose what U.S. officials choose to say, or what major news agencies choose to report on. Also, there is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Well the first bit is obvious, though we do choose what is relevant to the article (like we don't include everything every U.S. official says), or news agencies (like Time randomly publishing an article reporting that babies learn a substantial amount of information) but I guess you're right on the point about the unencyclopedic argument. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, we don't choose what anybody else says, what we do if we're responsible encyclopedia editors is make sound arguments for and against what is included and how it is presented. Rather than your choosing to make the simple argument against the vague "unencyclopedic" perhaps you would respond to my comments that are more solidly based in editorial judgement? Your comment "this is where that's being discussed" seems to ignore two things: 1, that the article is not here as a catchall for everything anybody is able to Google and cares to add, but is supposed to take weight and relevancy into consideration, and 2, that this talk page is where this detail is being discussed, but for your avoidance thereof. Abrazame (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Ouch, I also made some not-so-vague points earlier though. =( (I think that point about vague arguments was with regard to my comment before, yes?) The whole thing though is directed at Free though, yes? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
What I actually meant was that it was TheFreeloader who had, following a lengthy and if I may say cogent argument, preferred to ignore all that and instead approach you with the simple counter to one word. It was not your word I was making the point about, but his choice to deflect only that word among all the rest of the arguments here, including yours. No offense intended. Abrazame (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok, I got that partly, but didn't realise you meant that you felt that it was only focusing on word out of all of the arguments. None taken, it was partly a silly sort of thing hence the sad face. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't respond to your comments, but I really couldn't tell what exactly your point was (also the improper indentation made it hard to see that your comments were even directed at me). My argument is that AP would not have reported on this and it would been reprinted by hundreds of new outlets, if it was not relevant in specific regard to the finding to the findings at the compound in their opinion. I can not find any single Wikipedia policy or guideline which allows us to then override their opinion on this.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The trove of porn, or whatever it was, is better included in the "Compound of OBL" article where they have a list of medicines and other items found in the House. Ironically they have decided that they don't want to include the porn. I asked them to reconsider. It seems very weird to have it here. Brmull (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you're right. But the logic behind putting it would be that it's discussed in the news article in connection to the seized intelligence material from the compound, and that this material is only being discussed here, and not the other article.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
(To TheFreeloader) My comments were not directed at you, they were directed at everyone in the discussion. That you chose to ignore them and carry on a dialog with Petrie is one thing, but that you did so to refute Petrie on the grounds that his argument reduced to WP:Encyclopedic made it editorially weak. AP is in the business of posting news, as much and as often as possible. We are not in the business of picking up AP stories, we're tasked with crafting a relevant and concise encyclopedia article about the subject, which if you'll notice the head of the page is not Whatsoever they may report as having found, but the Death of Osama bin Laden. If you're truly telling me you won't concede what we're here to discuss when you read it written without WP links, and if you're truly telling us that you think Wikipedia's policy is that anything and everything a reliable source publishes at this time with bin Laden's name in it should be added here, you might prefer to read WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Abrazame (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, but I don't think this is just anything and everything. Hundreds news of outlets chose to report on this story[16]. While it's hard to tell the staying power of this story, I still think it's interesting as a full perspective on the findings among the seized materials.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Google search results prove nothing. Show us the 'news outlets'. In any case, it may be 'interesting' to some, but I've seen no argument as to how it relates to an article on the death of Osama bin Laden in any way. Should we be including trivia like this in an article of this significance? I think not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
As watching crappy horror flicks has dulled my senses a good deal tonight, I'll come in and say that Andy and Abraz have made much better cases than I have for not including this, and I went a very bad route. xD An example of this sort of thing that I would say is similar (while in this state) was that lady from CSI calling Justin Bieber a brat. It might have been widely reported, but we don't see it in her article or the rugrat's do we? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Now read WP:NOT#FORUM!09:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Who is 'Justin Bieber' and what's he to do with ObJ any how?213.81.118.99 (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please use Google for that answer. He has nothing to do with the guy, but I'm using it as an example of widely-published events not being included in Wiki for the purposes of this discussion over the porn story, if you'd like to read the whole thing. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
OK.213.81.118.99 (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The porn thing seems more relevant to Osama_bin_Laden's_compound_in_Abbottabad, though quite frankly, that article is in a piss-poor state. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I vote leave it out of this article and continue to consider it for the "Compound" article as it evolves. Brmull (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#FORUM213.81.118.99 (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read that policy before citing it. I'm afraid you're misusing it which can sometimes fall under WP:WL. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Duplication

There seems to be a lot of duplicate content at Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad that duplicates material found here. Shouldn't that only contain a short summary of information found here? 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it could be synopsised.82.18.202.49 (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If we actually need that article (which I think is unnecessary), anything relating to the compound, but not to bin Laden's death, should go there, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the "Compound" article is necessary, but everything that relates to Operation Neptune Spear should be pulled out of that article. That would reduce the length by half, though it will probably grow later as more details about the compound emerge. Brmull (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

TAKE 2 .....Stop using List defined references

As all can see the List defined references are simply not working in an article that is changing (updated) so fast. A ref system of this nature in an article that is edited by many many editors is not practical. See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 86#Inline defined references versus list defined references

  • They are not newbie friendly (as in they are complicated to implement for new users).
  • They force editors to have to edit the "whole" page, rather then just a section. (or have to edit 2 sections - creating an error in the mean time between edits, thus resulting in more edit conflicts)
  • When statements are removed and/or changed and re-references the deletion on the ref tag parameter will give us an error in the ref section because its no longer being used (as seen now).

Solution - Simply remove them when no-longer in use - while allowing normal <ref>www.whateverIfound.com</ref> to slowly take over the format (as it seems to be doing anyways).Moxy (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I second this emotion. jengod (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Another thing that will help is to prune the references. There are *way* too many with the same info.Brmull (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I trimmed a couple yesterday, but there's a lot more to go. Whenever you see a statement with four sources, and none of those sources are used again, it's safe to trim three of them entirely. No need to save them, there's plenty news sources available out there. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


Take 2

I see we have this bad refs being added again - So i guess we should bring this up again. As mentioned above we should not be using this here in my opinion. Moxy (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please don't use them. Please next time someone notices them being added, please warn the editor that it is against consensus. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed again. jengod (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that an editor used an automated tool to mass convert the article to list-defined. I guess he/she had not first read WP:FOOT#Caution on converting citation styles which has "Converting citation styles should not be done without first gaining consensus for the change on the article's talk page."
Thus we have an article with 89 list-defined and 160 in-line references. Last week I did some edits, saw the list defined references, and so used that format. (I was not aware of this talk thread). The editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Death of Osama bin Laden seems to encourage list defined references.
While I prefer the list-defined format I'm inclined to go with in-line for this article as it's being edited continuously. An in-line ref edit has a much shorter turnaround meaning less chance of edit conflicts.
I don't agree with warning editors unless someone starts going through and converting all of the references again. If an editor adds or uses a list defined reference it's certainly not going to break anything. Obviously, if an editor seems to be struggling with trying to get the list-defined they see in the article to work for something they want to add you can give them a heads up that it's ok to use in-line. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
By warn, did Graeme mean place a warning template (harsh imo) or just place a friendly advisory on their talk page that does not take template form (just a regular message)? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I've added a little note about LDRs on the edit notice, it might deter future instances of LDR additions. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:36pm • 11:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I'm tripping an edit filter. Can't do it myself. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:44pm • 11:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Bare URLs

Why do we have to use URL-captions? It makes copy paste jobs difficult and is bizarreical. If it said it from ABC, the BBC, CNN it would say so on the link anyhow.213.81.118.99 (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I just use the <ref></ref> wiki codes only.82.18.207.126 (talk) 11:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarity and Consistency of Dates and Times

I think we need to devote a bit more thought to how we are presenting the dates and times noted in the article. Obviously the article is titled Death of Osama bin Laden, and that death happened in Pakistan on what in Pakistan was May 2. That one discusses the time relative to where the thing is actually happening is obvious to anybody who has regularly traveled across time zones, but there are several mitigating factors to the way guidelines might lead us to address any other site-specific event.

  1. Unlike virtually any other death, this one was not entirely site-specific. While the death happened in Pakistan (where it was May 2), it was the result of an operation chosen by the American president and not only commanded from and watched in real time in D.C. on May 1 but announced by President Obama on live TV hours later on what was still May 1 not only in D.C. but throughout the U.S., which is his constituency and primary audience. The article is entitled "Death of" but of course this is the only article where we cover all primary aspects of the operation, these prominent aspects of which happened in the U.S. on a different date.
  2. Even if we were to settle on adhering to one representation of that date, are not merely discussing this one day/evening of the death in this article, as we discuss the dates leading up to the operation as well as dates following it; are we maintaining a uniform standard that syncs those dates with the one we are using at the head of the article (May 2)?
  3. There is confusion on the part of editors, and this confusion is not because they're idiots but because they saw it announced on May 1, and they read and can (and do) cite U.S. sources dated May 1 reporting on the news, and given that 9/11, former President Bush's decision to retaliate against bin Laden in Afghanistan, President Obama's call on this operation, the D.C. monitoring, and the delivery of the address to the nation all took place in the U.S. (and specifically in the Eastern Time Zone), it is not appropriate to divorce that U.S. perspective from the article.
  4. The whole operation happened within the span of a single hour, apparently beginning on the hour, so using UTC as we do at the end of the Approach and entry subsection — but apparently noplace else in the article — is both unnecessary from the tactical standpoint and further confusing to a reader from either the holistic or the contextual standpoint. What is relevant is Abbottobad time and D.C. time, and in that section D.C. time should be the primary parenthetical. Later in the Burial at sea subsection, we are suddenly given EDT for something that is happening in the Arabian sea, with no parenthetical. It is confusing to a reader to read that this happens on May 2 (whose May 2?) and the fact that it was "less than 24 hours" after his death, while of cultural importance, doesn't immediately clear that up. We need to rewrite that section (addressing the date of the event and not of the telling of the event, and placing the date and time in the same sentence so it's clearer). Further to that issue, it seems that two anonymous officials speculating on the possibility of release of the video/photos that same day is no longer deserving of its own paragraph if it ever was, though it is fair to note the burial was documented.

I think we should introduce the fact we are talking about Pakistani time/date in the lead, not relegate that to a footnote. And we should try and be more clear and consistent that when we are discussing what is going on on the ground during the operation (or what is reported earlier or later in international time zones) we are using non-U.S. time/date, but when we are discussing what is going on in the U.S. (and what is reported in that country) we must consistently use U.S. local time. For example, we start the U.S. Presidential address section with "Late in the evening of May 1, 2011, major American news organizations were informed that the president would give an important speech on an undisclosed subject," yet when we quote Obama we date the quote "—President Barack Obama, May 2, 2011". Obviously Obama's statement is relative to the U.S. location he made it and the U.S. audience it was primarily for, even as we know a major announcement like this is carried live around the world. If we're going to take the space to note that speculative rumors spread and the subject revealed prior to the speech, we can take the space to note what date and time in the White House the operation was happening and what date and time in the U.S. the president is being quoted. I realize this article was crafted ref by ref; I also realize Wikipedia probably has guidelines that suggest UTC as a way to present a neutral and coherent thruline. But as the thruline lasts 45 minutes and there's no other time relevant to that but the start and the finish, and as there are only two relevant times, I think we should work to take obviously Pakistan-oriented dates and times as that first with an EDT parenthetical, and obviously U.S.-oriented dates and times as that first with a Pakistan parenthetical. Abrazame (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A tricky problem that you've done well to point out. Converting all the times to UTC, for example, would introduce significant human error. I imagine in some citations it would be difficult to determine what time zone they were using. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult, just cut, modify it with auto replace/fined and replace on MS Word and past it back with UTC, not the local temporal term added to it added to it. 86.25.52.241 (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Separating the mission and aftermath sections will help with this problem. The trickiest part is around the time that Obama gives his speech, because burial is taking place on the Carl Vinson at the same time. I find UTC not that helpful and would only use it once or twice in the article. Brmull (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

More sources

Files from the NYT site:

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Destruction of the downed helicopter

Flash grenades are non-lethal devices using flash and sound designed to momentarily disorient armed assailants during a dynamic entry. While they can easily start fires when detonated, one thing they're incapable of doing is incinerating helicopter wreckage (anyone who has seen pics of the remains of that chopper can easily see that, aside from the tail boom that ended up outside the compound wall, it was almost entirely reduced to ashes). The source may claim that flash grenades were used to do this, but the source is wrong.

The passing of blatantly false information as fact no matter how ludicrous it sounds simply because it's backed by a "reliable" source (I recall a page mentioning the use of "laser-guided sniper rifles" in the failed rescue of a British aid worker in Afghanistan with a news article claiming such, even though no such thing exists in reality) is one of the reasons a lot of people don't take Wikipedia seriously. Spartan198 (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Spartan198 has a point about the resent disinformation on the chopper!82.18.207.126 (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While Spartan198 presents valid concerns, WP:V is quite specific, and the only "middle ground" between verifiability and truth (IMO) is that if something is obviously wrong, but still derived from what the community considers a reliable source, it should simply be left out of the article. Not every detail reported needs to be included in the article...especially if the detail is demonstrably false, as in the above example. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The only source we have for the flash-bang grenades is from T.J. O’Hara, a political satirist. I'm thinking we can remove this bit as unreliable. Rklawton (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I dunno...people are taking Jon Stewart as a serious journalist. That's rather telling of the state of American journalism. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Who is this 'Jon Stewart' guy?, why is he so crappy?82.18.207.126 (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda by ObL's fighters or Pakesturn's gubbermentalits? Niether India, USA, Pakesturn or ObL can be trusted on this issue. I agree with Al Jazeera's fist clame- It broke down and crashed in to the cumpound by chances!82.27.18.32 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

More Geronimo info

This article says "Geronimo" referred to the SEALs reaching step G in the assault. Might be worth mentioning in the wiki article. It does not specify whether the SEALs yelled out other code words once previous steps were completed.»NMajdan·talk 20:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

More proof that DEVGRU was involved

If you want to be correct you should remove DEVGRU, no government proof that that 'team' did it, President Obama stated a small Seal Team, not ST6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.228.10 (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Seal Team 6 has never been confirmed by the Pentagon or White House; it's just an alias the media uses for the SEAL's counterterrorism unit. ST6 does not exist on paper (which likely is intended) and has NEVER been acknowledged or confirmed. I am sure that the SEALs who carried out the raid are part of a unit that fulfills the role of "Seal Team 6", but to label them as Seal Team 6 is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbarile18 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please fix grammer

I am tired of editing on WP, instead I will leave it for someone else, please leave this to someone who knows English, some sentences just don't make sense, and sound stupid.

It would be helpful if you could at least provide examples.»NMajdan·talk 17:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
By the way, it's spelled "grammar". :-) --Anentiresleeve (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed section reorganization

• 1 Locating bin Laden
o 1.1 Identity of his courier
o 1.2 Bin Laden's compound
o 1.3 Intelligence gathering
• 2 Operation Neptune Spear
o 2.1 Objective
o 2.2 Planning
o 2.3 Execution of the operation
 2.3.1 Approach and entry
 2.3.2 Combat
 2.3.3 Wrap-up
 2.3.4 Pakistan-U.S. communication
 2.3.5 Identification of the body
 2.3.6 Photographic documentation
 2.3.7 Burial at sea
o 2.4 Local accounts
o 2.5 Compound residents

• 3 Aftermath
o 3.1 U.S. presidential address
o 3.2 Reactions
o 3.3 Legality
 3.3.1 Under U.S. law
 3.3.2 Under international law
o 3.4 Handling of the body
o 3.5 Role of Pakistan
 3.5.1 Connections with Abbottabad
 3.5.2 Allegations against Pakistan
 3.5.3 Pakistani response
o 3.6 Code name
o 3.7 Enhanced interrogation techniques
o 3.8 Intelligence postmortem

• 4 Previous attempts to capture or kill bin Laden
• 5 Conspiracy theories
• 6 See also
• 7 References
• 8 External links


Execution of Operation ends with burial at sea.

Controversy over handling of body moved to Aftermath.

Role of Pakistan moved to Aftermath.

Geronimo dispute moved to aftermath.

Rename "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques."

(We're not supposed to have section names with the word "Controversy.")

Any objections or concerns? Brmull (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Role of Pakistan is, at the moment, merely speculation and open question. If there was a role, that would go back up top, but yes, what we have at present is aftermath-oriented.
Do I take it you mean merging the Operation Geronimo name controversy into the Code name section, or do you just mean what we already have in that section? Because while I think this is important in the context of post-millennial cultural insensitivities, it is already, generously speaking, appropriately weighted here. For example, I doubt it would deserve any greater coverage in an article of equal size that dealt purely with the full history of offenses to Native Americans by those who settled here. I see what the Chomsky quote is getting at, but its apparent sarcasm seems more a commentary on Afghanistan history than on that of the Americas, and the sarcasm is an odd note to end the section on. Again, the problem is in the culture of whatever pencil-pusher came up with the name (or programmed the computer that did), which does come prior to the operation, but it's absurd to place it there; and so it's also inappropriate to place it at the end of the discussion of the actual operation when, as you note, the section is about reaction to something that didn't come out until the next day.
I just want to move "Code Name" out of Neptune Spear and into Aftermath, since all that stuff only became an issue after the operation was over. I'd also clean it up a bit. Based on the votes so far the Operation Geronimo Name Controversy article should probably be deleted so I don't think it should be relevant to what we do here. Brmull (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I do have one quibble. "Enhanced interrogation techniques" presupposes that the section is there to talk about just that, whereas the section is there to determine whether the information was gleaned before, during, significantly after, or in stead of the techniques in question, and I think a shade missing from our presentation is over whether we do it ourselves or outsource it to some other culture that "does that sort of stuff to their own people anyway". I also have a problem with that section in that it is written backward and written with an Obama administration-vs.-Bush administration slant. First, it reads as if the Obama administration stated one thing and then the Bush administration said another, when it is somewhat the other way around. Second, John McCain was Obama's Republican opponent in the last election, in case anybody has forgotten that, and Dianne Feinstein is not in the Obama administration either, she's a Senator. Further covering the trail here is that the McCain quote (responding to a Mukasey Op/Ed), and a Mukasey response to McCain's response, are both dated late March, but actually came from mid-May. I'm going to make those corrections, but I'd also like to un-POV the title. For the moment, I'm going with "Derivation of Intelligence", pending any discussion. We got the intel somehow or other, and the Bush-legal-team assertion of how is what those quoted in that section are delving into. It seems to be less the earlier argument against its morality and question about its effectiveness (though of course those issues inform this episode), and more a question of is that what led to, and could only that have led to, the capture or killing of bin Laden; at least, that's what the section purports to be about, and would be what we would ultimately edit that section to present to the reader were there to be any further clarity on the subject. Abrazame (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what to call that section. Will leave "Derivation of Intelligence" for now.
It should be "Derivation of Intelligence by Torture". The term "enhanced interrogation techniques" is indisputably a euphemism, as reflected by the consensus on that question outside the United States, and when there are discussions about the necessity or otherwise of such methods in achieving some objective, it is clear that this is a discussion about the necessity or otherwise of torture. -- pde (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Without a diff it's hard to say for sure (Catch-22? Maybe make the proposed changes and then revert yourself?), but in general I think you are on the right track - several of these sub-sections of the "Execution" section should be in the "Aftermath" section. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Could we get a rewrite of the introduction. It gets changed so much. It currently is too choppy and doesn't flow well. PGPirate 03:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Would it be too much to ask that the people who come by and hack big chunks of the lede would take the time to rewrite it so that it still makes sense? Apparently it is. I understand their concern is that the lede not be redundant with what's in the body of the article, but I don't think what we have now is better than what we had before. Brmull (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Applause

To almost instantly write an article of this size and complexity is a jaw-droppingly awesome feat. Certainly, this is the Wikipedia community in one of its finest hours. Kudos to the editors responsible.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

On behalf of everyone who contributed, thank you! --Anentiresleeve (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
When and how Wikipedia works is quite an interesting phenomenon, isn't it? jengod (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The fake photograph

Shortly after the breaking news, there was an alleged photograph of the dead Bin Laden going around the press, which finally turned out to be a photoshop trick. See here, the fake photo and the original (notice, for instance, the similarity in the bear, lips, nose...). Of course, there's no conspiracy: the media simply falled in the trick because of the breaking news effect and the urgency to have a photo, so they did not took the time to check.

Should this be mentioned in the "Release of photographs" section, or would that be overdetail? Cambalachero (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it shouldn't be included. If I recall correctly (did a bit of checking at the time), it was one that had actually been making the rounds for about a year beforehand.
Homo Logica (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone previously suggested a section on media coverage. It's not the highest priority for this article right now, but I would consider it for the future. Brmull (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it was a small minority that were fooled by the photo, actually, and though a few rushed forward to present this, they were disabused of the notion soon thereafter. The first I heard of it the media was concurrently acknowledging it was a fake, and in fact it is this sort of coverage you link to at the Argentine site. I think this is more for Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories. Abrazame (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
We're not Snopes. I agree with Abrazame (talk · contribs). It should go to the conspiracy theories article if anywhere. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Q for aerospace experts

The helicopter "rolled onto its side"[71] with the pilot quickly burying the aircraft's nose.

The way this is phrased suggests (to me at least) that this move by the pilot was intentional and that it had some sort of crash-minimization benefit, or something? Can someone explain the value of "quickly" and "burying the aircraft's nose"? Is it better to land nose down than on some other part of the chopper? Thank you! jengod (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If a helicopter has an engine failure (as this supposedly did, probably due to a Compressor stall) the pilot will probably attempt to autorotate by pushing the nose of the helicopter down, this orients the rotors of the helicopter so that there will be airflow through them. This is ging to slow the decent rate and allow for some measure of control. When the pilot is close to the ground he or she can pull back the stick, raising the nose and bleeding off the airspeed (Flare) which will allow for a soft(er) landing.V7-sport (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I've looked on some aviation sites for thoughts about this, without much success. Many people seem to think the crash was caused by a vortex ring state. But in general burying the nose in the dirt is something pilots try NOT to do. As far as I know there is only one source for "bury the nose" (AP) and numerous other sources say the tail hit the wall, which would obviously have the effect of burying the nose whether the pilot wanted to or not. Brmull (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
When I first read it I thought, "burying the nose" meant to dive or pitch down. Now that I have gone to the source; "The pilot quickly buried the aircraft's nose in the dirt to keep it from tipping over" I can see that they meant literally pushing the nose of the helicopter into the dirt... which doesn't strike me as a good idea under any circumstance.V7-sport (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Weapons used

The first part says the SEALS were armed with M4s. Then OBL was killed wth a HK416 which although is a modified M4, is not an M4. There must be more than just M4s as their overall armanent.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to keep a story straight when the sources are either anonymous, are blogs, or both. In this case the Wikipedia source credits this blog and pretty much says he has no way of fact checking the blog. The blog itself claims their source is anonymous who in turn is crediting people who “were on the operation.” "HK416" gets added to this article and becomes canon. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 07:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How was bin Laden shot?

There are a number of versions floating around. The one that is currently in the article is that he was shot by a single SEAL using "double tap" technique. Can we get some consensus because this is a part of the article that gets frequently reverted. Please include source(s) if you want to include an additional version. Brmull (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Special Forces Units Involved

Its now emerging that the operation was not just carried out by SEAl Team 6 and 160th Special Operations Regiment but also units from Delta and the British SAS plus additional support from Taskforce 88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.255.196.165 (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Really, SAS?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Got link? I thought the reason SEALS were chosen is that Delta operates in Western Afghanistan and SEALs in the East. I have never read that SAS was involved. Brmull (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The operation had been planned for months, the US were able to assemble a large unit from various special forces teams and have them train for the operation. Although the team that went into the compound were probably SEALs there were other units involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.255.196.165 (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. According to who? -Digiphi (Talk) 02:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Headsets

Of what purpose is including the manufacturer of the communications headsets the SEAL team used during the operation? To me this would be on a par with knowing what brand of boots they wore...or, for that matter, what brand underwear. It's unneeded minutiae that adds little to the value of the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is full of fun editorializing - what weapons the SEALs had, that the helicopters were "stealth" (never before seen modified versions yes, known that those modifications reduce radar signature, not so much), that "Pentagon officials feared transfer of the stealth technology to the People's Republic of China for reverse-engineering", that Osama's body was "escorted by two U.S. Navy F/A-18s fighter jets". Sure these are all sourced, but hardly credibly. Eventually these sorts of "enhancements" will disappear. Prodego talk 22:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I just deleted that, pending discussion here. The sentence and the sources seem advertorial at best, and I don't think it is encyclopedic... It is possible that the SEALs were using Atlantic Signal-Phonak Dominator headsets for their communication and hearing protection.[1][2] I vote we keep it out jengod (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's hard to imagine a rationale for restoring the content you removed here [17]. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

pork coated bullet

The daily mail says, "Osama bin Laden was shot with a bullet soaked in pork fat, denying him a place in paradise" [18] [19] - should we add this into article? `a5b (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes but there is no way that is going to influence his fate. "If you burn a Catholic's Bible, he hasn't committed a sin. You've merely attacked him." Marcus Qwertyus 11:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. Even the Daily Mail doesn't assert it as fact: "...if one rather shady website, that peddles gun oil containing liquefied pig fat, is to be believed". And the Daily Mail is only a reliable source for the day of the week (though this should be verified by other sources). See WP:BOLLOCKS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
We can report this rumor objectively for what it is, a notable rumor. Marcus Qwertyus 12:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
No. It isn't "notable", it is worthless tabloid crap. Wikipedia isn't the Daily Mail, and has no reason to emulate it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Only one source is required for inclusion and I see at least six (not factoring in reliability. Marcus Qwertyus 12:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there is only one source: the "shady website". Everything else is simply a source for an assertion that the website claims this. In any case, inclusion depends on other factors beside sourcing, and nonsense like this doesn't belong in the article. It is tabloid trivia, and will almost certainly be forgotten in a day or so. If real 'reliable sources' start asserting the 'pig fat oil' story as itself factual, we might have to consider including it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
No that is not even close to Wikipedia's policy. Marcus Qwertyus 12:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Either find actual reliable sources that claim this as fact, or stop wasting peoples' time. We don't publish tabloid trivia cooked up by dubious websites for self-publicity, even if we like the story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump is correct. The story is obvious nonsense (if it weren't nonsense, there would be a hundred gold-plated reliable sources talking about it). Johnuniq (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Your arguments are amounting to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Silver bullets are bullocks yet we still report about them. Same here. Marcus Qwertyus 12:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy is right. Wikipedia only publishes notable rumors (if at all), and I see no evidence that this is a notable rumor. Rklawton (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Rumors require just as many sources to meat the threshold for notability as facts do. A fact does not require half a dozen sources for inclusion. Marcus Qwertyus 13:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will not add this to article (even DM says it is "Dubious") and I deleted this from ru:~ version. `a5b (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The ru:Wikipedia isn't governed by what is decided here, and nor should it be. They have their own policies and standards - though I'd hope that they understand the poor regard the Daily Mail is held in within the UK - sadly even our own contributors often seem to give it more credence than it deserves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The loss of The Daily Mail, along with its editor, would probably improve many articles, not just this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove unsourced "SEALs"

We should either ditch it entirely, or add context such that it's been widely speculated, as we have no sources supporting the description of a connection between "SEALs" and this article's topic. -Digiphi (Talk) 20:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what it is you're saying. If you doubt that Navy SEALs were involved, or that reliable sources style it as such, a Google search of SEALs bin Laden brings up 74,200,000 hits with which to confirm. Abrazame (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't find where United States officials mentioned SEALs in connection to this topic. If it's unsourced then we should ditch it.-Digiphi (Talk) 02:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is confirmation by Joe the Biden. Can we put this issue to rest now? Brmull (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I suppose. An RS is an RS. -Digiphi (Talk) 03:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan conspiracy theories

This source talks about how many people in Pakistan see conspiracy theories in OBL's death. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Presidential Address - Please Comment and Vote for Version A or Version B

  • Actually, I'm withdrawing my vote. WP:POLLS are evil, and giving us two choices is a fallacy of a neglected middle. We need to edit the article directly and handle disputes normally, not vote on revisions as if we have to have it one way or another. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree it's just a starting point for discuss and there are a lot of good suggestions. The question was whether it should be reverted whole and I'm not seeing a consensus for that. Brmull (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Version A

President Obama's address (9:28)
Also available: Audio only Full text Wikisource has information on "Remarks by the President on Osama bin Laden"

Late in the evening of May 1, 2011, major American news organizations were informed that the president would give an important speech on an undisclosed subject related to national security. Rumors initially spread wildly about the subject,[3] until it was revealed that President Barack Obama was to announce the death of bin Laden. At 11:35 p.m. EDT (May 2, 2011, 3:35 UTC), Obama confirmed this and said that bin Laden had been killed by "a small team of Americans".[4][5] He explained how the killing of bin Laden was achieved after following up on a lead from August 2010, what his role was in the series of events, and what the death of bin Laden meant on a symbolic and practical level.[6]

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.

— President Barack Obama, May 2, 2011

Thank you! Brmull (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully to my diligent colleague Brmull, this version is inadequate. First, it is highly redundant: First paragraph reads "Obama ... said ... killed by 'a small team of Americans'" — actually quoting the section we go on to again quote in the second paragraph, that reads "A small team of Americans carried out..." First paragraph awkwardly states "He explained ... what his role was in the series of events" when the second paragraph succinctly begins "Today, at my direction..."
Yet at the same time this version is devoid of the context it hints at—what did the president say was the symbolic and practical meaning of his death? Isn't this section about the address the appropriate place for us to very concisely present his framework in that regard? The presidential address is, after all, about the presidential address, not merely about the disclosure of the fact of the death.
Finally, it gives greater coverage to the unencyclopedic backroom-at-the-networks and reportage minutiae of the heads-up to the news organizations about the speech, the rumors, and the apparent leak from somewhere about what the subject was. Let's remember WP:10YT and realize that what we may have experienced about the anticipation the night leading up to the presidential address, even if it were to have a place in five or seven paragraphs about said address, has little to no place if we are reducing it to two or three. Again, the presidential address is, after all, about the presidential address, which shouldn't read as a mere confirmation of, or afterthought to, rumors and guessing. Abrazame (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Version B

President Obama's address (9:28)
Also available: Audio only Full text Wikisource has information on "Remarks by the President on Osama bin Laden"

At around 9:45 p.m. EDT, the White House announced that the president would be addressing the nation later in the evening. Reporters suspected almost immediately that the topic could be Osama bin Laden. Rumors spread on social networking sites. At 11:35 p.m., President Obama appeared on major television networks:[7]

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... (cont'd) Wikisource has information on "Remarks by the President on Osama bin Laden"

President Obama remembered the victims of the September 11 attacks. He praised the ten year old war against al-Qaeda, which he said had disrupted terrorist plots, strengthened homeland defenses, removed the Taliban government, and captured or killed scores of al-Qaeda operatives. Obama said that when he took office he made finding bin Laden the top priority of the war. Bin Laden's death was the most significant blow to al-Qaeda so far but the war would continue. He reaffirmed that the United States was not at war against Islam. He defended his decision to conduct an operation within Pakistan. He said Americans undersood the cost of war but would not stand by while their security was threatened. "To those families who have lost loved ones to al-Qaeda’s terror," he said, "justice has been done."

Thank you! Brmull (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My pitch for version B is that Version A focuses too much on operational details that are discussed elsewhere in the article. Also Version A distills the theme of the speech to "what OBL's death meant on a symbolic and practical level." I think that should be explicitly described. Version B, while less concise, includes a full summary of the speech. Brmull (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Vote for this version Alandeus (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Here we again lead with the rumor/guessing WP:10YT aspect, here denuded by being given its own paragraph. Some reporters suspected it immediately, but others had to be dragged to their posts; if we could mute that pre-address ado to one or one-half sentence in a two- or three-paragraph section, that'd be ideal. At least this version, per my archived thread somewhere, doesn't present two different dates the way Version A did.  ;)
The link to the full remarks in this version is a must.
"Praised the ten-year-old war..." is a loaded phrasing and an overly broad characterization. And writing "he said" before "removed the Taliban, captured or killed," etc, is a bit removed — obviously the war did those things, whatever bad things one might have to say about aspects of said war. If "praised" is what we'd go with, then "He praised the ten-year war against al-Quaeda for disrupting, etc.," making it clear it was the goals he saw the war as achieving which he praised, not "war". But I do support noting his enumeration of the historical accomplishments of the war.
I do find it relevant to note that this happened as a result of his making this a top priority of the war immediately upon entering office. I find it relevant to note his reaffirmation that the U.S. is not at war against Islam. And I find it relevant to note the historic context of the 9/11 attacks and his postulation as justice done.
So while I don't vote for either version as they stand here, I think this version is the one we should work from. Abrazame (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I also favor working from Version B. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

International legality

I have trimmed this section to a reasonable length. We could probably write a thousand pages documenting the opinions of notable people. We don't have room for everybody, so we have to draw an arbitrary line at some point. Per WP:UNDUE, I believe the section is now the right length for this article. Should somebody wish to write a sub article, the following pruned content could be put to use. Jehochman Talk 14:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Content that was pruned

University of Texas School of Law Professor Robert M. Chesney said that it was lawful to kill bin Laden "if he's doing anything other than surrendering".[8] Martin Scheinin, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, said: "The United States offered bin Laden the possibility to surrender, but he refused. Bin Laden would have avoided destruction if he had raised a white flag."[9] Professor Matthew Waxman at Columbia Law School, an expert in national security law, said "under international law, U.S. forces would have substantial discretion to use lethal force given that this was a military operation against an enemy commander likely to pose a very serious threat to U.S. forces".[10]

For Philip Bobbitt, a specialist on constitutional law and international security, this was "part of an armed conflict authorized by the United Nations, authorized by both houses of Congress" and did not think it was an extrajudicial killing.[11] However, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan, and only allowed military presence after the fact to provide security for a peaceful transition to a fully representative government.[12]

Benjamine B. Ferencz, one of the former chief prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials,[13] questioned the legality of killing and said it would have been "better to capture bin Laden and send him to court ... Killing a captive who poses no immediate threat is a crime under military law as well as all other law." He also claimed that "the issue [with Bin Laden's death] is whether what was done was an act of legitimate self-defence".[14] Australian-born British human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson said that the killing risked undermining the rule of law. "The security council could have set up an ad hoc tribunal in The Hague, with international judges (including Muslim jurists), to provide a fair trial and a reasoned verdict."[15] British law professor Philippe Sands QC, speaking to the BBC, acknowledged that under what is known as the doctrine of necessity, where there is an "overriding threat to national security", such an act might not give rise to responsibility or liability, but warned that that argument was made more difficult against a background of a rise in extrajudicial killings, including through the use of drones, and that this was not a "lawful direction to be taking".[11]

Louise Doswald-Beck, a former legal chief for the Red Cross, said that bin Laden was clearly not an enemy combatant. "He was basically head of a terrorist criminal network, which means that you're not really looking at the law of armed conflict but at lethal action against a dangerous criminal."[16] Nick Grief, an international lawyer at Kent University, said the attack had the appearance of an "extrajudicial killing without due process of the law."[17] Human Rights Watch said "law enforcement" principles should have applied.[18]

According to The Guardian newspaper, "One area of anxiety is the suggestion that the intelligence needed to locate bin Laden's refuge might have been obtained through torture of suspects detained at Guantánamo Bay or other secret holding centres. Whether or not the Pakistan government authorised the assault on its territory might technically affect the legality of the operation under international law. But the enthusiastic support of the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, for the killing is likely to silence any critical voices in the security council."[17]

Both Christof Heyns, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and Martin Scheinin, special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, opined that "in certain exceptional cases, use of deadly force may be permissible as a measure of last resort... including in operations against terrorists, however, the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially decided punishment. Actions taken by states in combating terrorism, especially in high profile cases, set precedents for the way in which the right to life will be treated in future instances."[11]

Good move. But, is this move internationally legal? What do the experts say? - Sorry, couldn't resist. Alandeus (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind that I reverted the removal. I think you're right that the section is overlong, but I'd like to see more discussion about how we can summarize the commentary before we arbitrarily lop off the bottom 75% of the content. Are some of these sources better than others to include? Are there any secondary sources we could cite that did meta-analysis? --Anentiresleeve (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to take a stab at summarizing. I suggest you remove half the content, any half, and then we can discuss how to improve upon your work. If you do not have time to do that, and nobody else takes a crack at it, I will again remove the excessive content. We should not let perfect be the enemy of good. Jehochman Talk 00:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is what I'm worried about. I don't want to just remove half the content, or rather, I'm not yet sure that that is the only way we can handle the excessive length of the section. I'll do some Googling around for meta-analyses, because I don't personally want to summarize the 'general response' as that would be original research. That's why I brought this up here - I'm hoping to involve more editors in finding the best solution. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
This source seems to be doing the kind of secondary research I'm after [20]. I have to do some work, but I'll try to find more later. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
As time passes it will be easier and easier to find meta-analysis that helps us understand which opinions are the most significant. For now, could we cut it down 50 - 66%, and then incrementally improve what is left? Jehochman Talk 17:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I think so yes. But what's the rush? Think it can wait a day? :-) --Anentiresleeve (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I am going to repeat my edit since you seem to agree the section is too long. Feel free to replace any of the content with different, better content, but please do not make it excessively lengthy again. I can also say, what's the rush to put all the excessively length content back in the article? I copied it to the talk page above so it is easily available to anybody who wants to rework the article. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 00:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, better to keep it short, then re-add things, than to keep it too long and slowly prune. This approach is best, I feel. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm unimpressed with your stubbornness. Do what you like with this section - I can tell that my concerns are not interesting or relevant to you. I hope you'll find the patience to yield to discussion rather than resorting to edit warring in the future. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the two legality sections should be reorganized as "PRO" and "CON." The distinction between U.S. and international law is somewhat artificial since there is a good deal of overlap between the two. There's also the law of Pakistan. Plus ethical arguments that we might want to address, unless it would be better to put those under reactions? Brmull (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about organizing them according to source, ie, government sources, academic opinions, bloggers and the like - since that seems to be more germane to the social process of evolving legal interpretation. I'll take a few cracks at it per WP:BRD but feel free to revert. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I put the content back pending further review and discussion. Hopefully we can use the talk page to work out the best format for this section. I'll be working on it more today. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I did it. I loosely sorted the quotes according to the 'type' of source and cut out the ones I thought were less important or less representative of the general 'mood'. (Is that WP:OR? I hope not, but I'm walking a line here.) Anyway, the section could maybe be a bit shorter still, but I think all the quotes here are relevant and significant. Anything else we could cut, or is the length okay now? Comments? Opinions? --Anentiresleeve (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I still think the section needs more structure. This article is quite neutral and touches on all the major IL arguments for and against targeted killings. What I'd do is use the main points of that article as a framework, supplementing with quotes relating specifically to bin Laden. I don't worry too much about the length as long as the material is good. If length remains an issue we can break it out into a separate article or add it to WP Targeted killing. Brmull (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Now it's both to long and imbalanced toward the "illegal" POV, especially the international law section. V7-sport (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, based on the sources we already had, and others I've seen, the overall response from academic legal theorists is that the legality is dubious. I actually removed several refs that were even stronger than the ones we have now IIRC, though I actually removed some positive ones too. What I don't want to do is give both positions equal weight just because they are the "two sides of the story". See WP:NPOV. Do you think my assessment of the academic response is wrong? --Anentiresleeve (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I took that article I mentioned above, and quickly summarized it below. What I would do is adapt it to bin Laden by adding back relevant quotes. This would help give the section structure and balance. Brmull (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Territorial sovereignty must be respected except in the case of failed states.
There is widespread disagreement over whether the conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda constitutes an armed conflict under international law.
Some experts consider the War on Terror to be a law enforcement action. In this case, the state is required to ensure the rights of life and due process to every person. It may not prevent criminal acts by simply eliminating potential perpetrators. The state is obligated to attempt capture of suspects for later trial and to take care to avoid injuries. Lethal force is only allowed if there is an imminent threat of death or grave injury to an arresting officer or a third person, or if it is the only way to stop the escape of a dangerous person.
Different rules apply if the War on Terror is considered an ongoing armed conflict. Under international humanitarian law, combatants who are directly participating in an armed conflict may be killed to prevent future attacks, and states have no obligation to warn targets or to attempt arrest. The meaning of "directly participating" is disputed. Anticipated civilian casualties cannot be excessive in relation to the military benefit. Customary laws of war preclude killing or wounding a combatant who has unconditionally surrendered by laying down arms or having no means of defense.
I agree that this is a great source, but someone might object that it has limited applicability since it was written in 2008. The author may well have changed her opinion about the underlying legal principles, or the law itself may have changed, or the author may disagree with our interpretation of how the arguments made in this paper apply to the specific case of the targeted killing of Osama bin Laden. I really wish something this neutral and precisely researched had been written ex post facto. So consider that a word of caution against substituting recent sources for this one -- and if we don't do substitution, then we're making the section even longer. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I reorganized the section. I'm not completely satisfied, but I think it's a step in the right direction. Brmull (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Good summary article from the BBC: Osama Bin Laden's death: How it happened. mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama? What he had a heart attack?

The death of Osama was an act of assassination and article should be titled as such — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.250.15.5 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. There was a prior discussion about this, though - try searching the archives (box at the top of this talk page). Regards, --causa sui (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC
it was not assassination. that would be against international conventions. It was :"unsuccessful capture of" 50.9.109.170 (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Assassination redirects

Although the consensus has been the killing is not an assassination, there are some redirects for this article with assassination in their titles:

My take is these redirects should be deleted because they use a term with WP:UNDUE weight. Glrx (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Then you should nominate them for deletion at WP:RFD. This discussion can't end in the deletion of them. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 17:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

SEAL video cameras

There is no mention of the video cameras used by the SEAL team members, the video feeds of which were watched by the Whitehouse staff during the operation. Presumably these were small helmet-mounted video cameras. It is reasonable to assume at this time (June 2011) that the recordings from the cameras will not be released soon (or if ever), even though the footage would provide very convincing evidence of bin Laden's death. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Admiral Mullen said on the David Letterman show that they were watching the feedback after the mission.Phd8511 (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How Naive and Ignorant are people, ...

How Naive and Ignorant are people, at Fort Polk, Louisiana, the Joint Readiness Training Center, there is a unit called Geronimo, that simulates, the enemy Haji, for pre-deployment training, the 509th Infantry Airborne (Geronimo), plays the enemy during rotations, and they are called Geronimo, every one in the Army and Military knows, this that's why the call the enemy Geronimo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.115.55 (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


I can google the first line of your statement and see that its posted on several sites so I know it is not your own work, were you trying to suggest a new reference? J.Rly (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Neptune or Neptune's?

Hello, in the article "The Mission to Get Osama" by Nicholas Schmidle for the "New Yorker", it says the operation was called "Operation Neptune's Spear" rather than just the singular Neptune. Don't know if this matters in the title? jlcoving (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article, but the U.S. military doesn't generally use possessives in their code names. I know of one possible exception, a joint U.S. - Iraqi operation called Lion's Leap but some sources call it Lion Leap so who knows. In contrast there has been an Operation Neptune Shield, Operation Neptune Scissors, and an Operation Neptune Bigot. I suppose we could put a redirect for Neptune's Spear but we're probably not going to settle this until the official name is declassified. Brmull (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting accounts about the shooting

There are conflicting accounts about how many SEALs were involved in the shooting which perhaps need resolving. The Wikipedia article currently states that one SEAL shot bin Laden in the chest and another in the head. This Military.com article states that one SEAL fired all the rounds.     ←   ZScarpia   13:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I think we have to be careful about assuming that the New Yorker article is the definitive account of what happened. I know it's not the only source to propose two shooters, but many say there was one. SEALs are known for using the double tap technique. And in practice it's difficult for a second shooter to take aim at someone who's just been shot unless the person is hors de combat, in which case it's essentially an execution. Brmull (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I might be misreading it, or perhaps The New Yorker article has been changed since two days ago, but this is what is says:

    The Americans hurried toward the bedroom door. The first SEAL pushed it open. Two of bin Laden’s wives had placed themselves in front of him. Amal al-Fatah, bin Laden’s fifth wife, was screaming in Arabic. She motioned as if she were going to charge; the SEAL lowered his sights and shot her once, in the calf. Fearing that one or both women were wearing suicide jackets, he stepped forward, wrapped them in a bear hug, and drove them aside. He would almost certainly have been killed had they blown themselves up, but by blanketing them he would have absorbed some of the blast and potentially saved the two SEALs behind him. In the end, neither woman was wearing an explosive vest.

    A second SEAL stepped into the room and trained the infrared laser of his M4 on bin Laden’s chest. The Al Qaeda chief, who was wearing a tan shalwar kameez and a prayer cap on his head, froze; he was unarmed. “There was never any question of detaining or capturing him—it wasn’t a split-second decision. No one wanted detainees,” the special-operations officer told me. (The Administration maintains that had bin Laden immediately surrendered he could have been taken alive.) Nine years, seven months, and twenty days after September 11th, an American was a trigger pull from ending bin Laden’s life. The first round, a 5.56-mm. bullet, struck bin Laden in the chest. As he fell backward, the SEAL fired a second round into his head, just above his left eye. On his radio, he reported, “For God and country—Geronimo, Geronimo, Geronimo.” After a pause, he added, “Geronimo E.K.I.A.”—“enemy killed in action.”

    — The New Yorker

    I read that as one SEAL shooting bin Laden twice. NW (Talk) 20:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I interpret it as that as we have sources that are conflicting on basic information. While each of the sources appears reliable enough none of them can be reliably, and verifiability, traced back to either reports written by the people involved with the operation or someone that interviewed them. There does seem to be wide agreement that OBL was hit twice with the first shot being somewhere in the chest/trunk (depending on the report), and the second in the head. There are conflicting reports on the number of shooters and the number of shots fired.
We have a couple of options for the article. 1) Only report those items that seem to have wide agreement and to be silent on those details where our sources offer conflicting data. 2) Document the conflicting details along with the sources. I'd personally go with #1 as it'll be a cleaner article. We'd have a constant battle with people trying to inject a POV such as "OBL was shot twice by one person - look at all these sources."
I have a personal concern with the New Yorker version of the events in that it mentions the assault team blowing their way through doors and walls. For the first couple of days after the mission it appeared the public was allowed to wander around the compound and were only restricted from the innermost courtyard. Lots of people took photos. I never saw a photo of a hole blown into a wall nor did I see any apparent damage to the doors. Visible evidence of the assault would have been of great interest and no one took a photo? Thus, I'd say the New Yorker and other articles article is wrong on that detail. The assault team likely found the inner doors were unlocked and/or scaled the walls to get into the compound and to move between the walled off sections of the compound.
There are other concerns about the New Yorker article in that it switches from great detail which appears to build credibility and the impression that this is an "inside account" to an absence of information on basic things such as what team #1 was doing immediately after they landed. I suspect the entire thing was spun together out of speculative opinions by others. Unfortunately, many of the articles about this incident have similar issues. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory Bias

The conspiracy theory section seems to be biased against the conspiracy theory. It currently reads more as a critique of the conspiracy theory than an explanation of the conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.178.180 (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Some editors wanted to delete the section entirely, but I rescued it until we could have a formal discussion about what to do. I agree it needs improvement. Brmull (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Room for pre-actual-death rumours of OBL's death?

Hello. As many of you will no doubt remember, prior to OBL's actual death there had always been sporadic reports that he was already dead. Although I would say that if this were covered in the article it should be a relatively short section, I think some coverage of that would be good. What do you guys think?

I have searched the talk archive for this article for the word "rumours" and "rumour" and got zero hits, so this has not been discussed in so far as I'm aware. I have no set intention in getting much involved with this article but thought I'd throw this to you. --bodnotbod (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to spread rumors; Wikipedia:SPECULATION Alandeus (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you miss the point. Rumour-spreading can't happen in any sense now, can it? The substantive facts of his demise are now known. So if we had in the article that there were previously rumours of his death, nobody would come away from the article saying "oh, have you heard the rumour of OBL's death? It's on Wikipedia" because people would look at you as if you were insane. So I'm thinking of a section called something like "Premature reports of OBL's death" —detailing those that had appeared in reliable sources— the article would not (and could not) be misleading anyone into harbouring wrong information in their minds. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps they'd be more appropriate for OBL's article and not this. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion of this in the article [[Location of Osama bin Laden. I added a link as a short-term fix. This article is about due for an update. Brmull (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

New section needed about the conflicting reports of the raid

As you can from the above, and from http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/osama-bin-laden-killing-media there were many conflicting reports on the raid. I think a section should be added, where every conflict should be mentioned. Quaber (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No. That would be original research and/or synthesis. It would also be ridiculously large, if it included every minor discrepancy. What would the point be anyway? It is entirely normal for rapidly changing events to be reported in different ways in different sources - and given the location of the events, combined with the need for secrecy, it is hardly surprising that some things are uncertain. Possibly a brief mention of the Mother Jones article might be merited, though even that is debatable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I also don't think it belongs in this article. However, it may be a good addition to Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories Iksnyrk (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Strength of Al Qaeda in the template 22?

I think only 4 of 22 people at Osama's house can be combatants. Many of the house's residents are children. Yes, only one person used weapons, but other men did not have the chance to reach weapons before they were killed by the Americans. Kavas (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Title Change

To label the title of this subject as the 'Death' of Osama bin Laden is euphemistic, at best, and potentially misleading.

Following the strict definitions of the words 'death' and 'assassination' (this is an encyclopedia, after all, so accuracy is paramount):

  • 'death' would imply that the content of this subject focuses on his death, how he died (i.e. causes of death, autopsy) whereas,
  • 'assassination' would convey more accurately that this was an operation that would eventually *lead* to the 'death' of OBL, however it's important to maintain that he was allegedly 'killed', not by natural causes, but by US special forces.

The pertinent title should then be the 'killing' or 'assassination' of OBL, and not his death. I suspect that an article relevant to his 'death' would include no more than a note saying 'no autopsies were conducted because his corpse was allegedly thrown into the sea' since post-mortem *facts*, if any, have not been released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madakka (talk • contribs) 16:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This concern has been raised several times, and the consensus has been to keep "Death". Regardless of what word you use there is some POV introduced just by the connotation of the word. Due to multiple complaints I've been wondering about renaming the article "Operation Neptune Spear" to sidestep the issue. See Operation Anthropoid for example. Brmull (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I would agree to a name change, but "Killing of" would be more appropriate. Assassination is used for illegal killings, and we have of course no such determination that his killing was illegal.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Before I saw this talk section I wrote "US soldiers killed a man in Pakistan. If legal this was an "execution", if dubious an "assination", if otherwise "murder", and in any event this was a "killing". Calling this event the "*Death* of ObL" seems too euphamistic for an encyclopedia." In any event I agree that "death of..." is just inappropriate. The article is about how the man was killed. Timtak (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Intent to kill.

According to one of the operation's specialist's on Killing bin Laden tv special, the intent of the mission was to shoot and kill, not to capture or kill.

Should this be mentioned. 69.132.69.87 (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide the sources for this, feel free to contribute. Dr. Whooves (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Just try to sign up for a new account, this will help to communicate. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Reactions article

Feel free to contribute to this discussion regarding the future of the "Reactions" article. Any assistance with improving the article would be appreciated. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

New Account

[21] I just added information on the new account of the raid which has just been published in a book and in the New York Post. Over time, if it becomes the accepted story, then this article may need some extensive rewriting. 143.46.96.73 (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I reworded this to better align with what's in the book. One area that I changed is that Pfarrer had stated twelve shots were fired by the SEALs (page 204). I counted 16 and so used that number. (4 for Osama bin Laden, 2 for Khalid bin Laden, 8 for Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti plus al-Kuwaiti's wife, and 2 for Arshad Khan.) The book has numerous errors that were not caught during proofreading and I suspect the count discrepancy is one of them.
One area I'm not entirely pleased with is the last paragraph. Prior to my edit it had started with "The US Department of Defense disputed Pfarrer's account of the raid." As the alternate-account is on the long side I decided to summarize the "official" account and then explained how Pfarrer's was different. This drifted into "Tell" rather than "show." Maybe we should just remove that and go back to "The US Department of Defense disputed Pfarrer's account."
I see a problem looming in that there are several conflicting accounts:
  1. The one that's in the Wikipedia article. This is constructed from media reporting. Very little of it can be traced back to a government source and so I hesitate to call this the "government version" of the events. Consensus version is a better description.
  2. What Chuck Pfarrer reported in his book.
  3. What Chuck Pfarrer claims is the "government's version" of the events in his book. Pfarrer minces no words in expressing his disdain of the Obama administration and various officials (both Democratic and Republican). Hence my use of the quotes around "government's version" as it appears Pfarrer is attempting to frame the debate at times.
  4. The Pentagon and JSOC which simply say of Pfarrer's book “Those facts are incorrect”[22], "a bogus work of fiction," "It's just not true," and "It's not how it happened."[23] Of course, the Pentagon did not fill the resulting vacuum with facts.
Finally, this book reports the code name as "Neptune's Spear." I know for a while there was debate on Wikipedia about Operation Geronimo, Neptune's Spear, and at present the article uses "Neptune Spear." --Marc Kupper|talk 08:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Protection?

This page should be SEMI-PROTECTED because of its high controversy. What do you think? –hoverFly | chat? 23:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed you link. I have no problem with permanent semi-protection, although as someone who has watched this article from the beginning I question how much is vandalism from anonymous IP editors, and how much is POV pushing from registered users. Brmull (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say "no" to semi-protection as most of the IP editors are good, or at least good faith edits. The IP vandalism and/or POV pushing rate is surprisingly low. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Reaction to murder

Maybe a section about the reaction to the death of Bin Laden should be added? The happiness about the death of the terrorist responsible for 911 in the US, which was not understood and opposed by Liberal and Christian groups especially in countries like Germany. The bible is pretty clear, btw: Sirach 8,8 "Do not celebrate the death of your enemies, but remember that you all have to die" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.10.131 (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Intro

"Despite being unarmed" should be taken out, since the definition of armed is having both weapons and ammunition in unlocked vicinity, which Bin Laden clearly had. 69.22.171.40 (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If this was covered in a reliable source and you're able to provide that source, that would help with your discussion, otherwise this appears to fall under WP:OR. - SudoGhost 16:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I recall one source saying that the SEALs were between bin Laden and the guns so there was realistically no way he could have reached for them. I can dig it up if necessary. Brmull (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I see conflicting reports, even within this article's own body text. If he had a gun nearby and was going for it, that would constitute 'armed'... NPR has a summary of various news reports [24] which includes Fox News saying he was armed, others leaving room for doubt or simply saying he wasn't. -A98.. 98.92.183.93 (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


Osama Bin Laden had an AKSU machine pistol with an extended magazine with armor piercing 7.62x39mm ammunition above his bed. He was using one of his wives as a human shield. A USN Navy Seal supposedly from DEVGRU, commonly known as Seal Team 6, shot at Osama,but missed. Osama's human shield was shot in the leg, she bent over, and Osama was double tapped (2 shots) with 5.56mm ammunition from a H&K 416. He was hit in the chest and head.The Seals found a Russian-made 9x19mm semi-automatic Makarov pistol. The weapons possesed by Bin Laden(the AKSU and the Markov)were loaded. The Seals were previosly fired on, and were briefed to kill Osama under orders from JSOC. the mission was not a capture, but an assasination. This is why he was killed, NOT becuase he was armed. This infromation is from the official public report from the government and the book, "Seal Target Geronimo" by Chuck Pfarrer (Trinjac (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)).

Opinions and satire

I found some sources:

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, it's snowing here. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Death of Osama bin Laden → Assassination of Osama Bin Laden – He was a notable figure, unarmed, and killed by surprise, therefore it was an assassination. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 04:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Regardless of whether or not his death can be categorised as an assassination, it remains a death, thus the title is valid, neutral and appropriate. In any event, I haven't read many reports saying he was 'assassinated' or 'murdered'. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Ohconfucius above Death is the most neutral word without WP:POV on either side. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It doesn't matter whether or not the event meets somebody's definition of an assassination. You need to show that it is commonly referred to as an "assassination" or "murder" in mainstream publications. Pakistan hasn't issued arrest warrants or anything like that, and it is not for Wiki to lecture them on what Pakistani law is. Kauffner (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All for neutrality, --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As above. And stop adding his name to lists of assassinated people, etc. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per all of the above. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per all of the above. Alandeus (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Neutrally name as is. Spshu (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. And propose close per WP:SNOWBALL. Walrasiad (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Joe Biden advised against Osama raid

Some new revelations, and I'm listing some of the sources as under:

Thanks. Telco (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Building Torn Down

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/26/pakistan-halfway-done-razing-bin-ladens-compound/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Squeaky (talk • contribs) 16:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

30 silver coins - multiplied 40 times for inflation

Wikileaks e-mail outing now shows that StratFor company paid 1200USD/month to the "Geronimo source":

http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2799900_geronimo-source-payment-.html

News of sheik UBL's fall via betrayal will probably further enhance his martyr status among the muslims. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

bin laden's will section inaccurate

The section regarding Bin Laden's will is problematic. In an older version of this much channging article, I've added a reference to a claim that the references in the media were based on mistranslations and were aimed at hurting his image. This claim was raised, of all places, in a reliable Israeli blog I subscribe to: http://israelipolitics101.blogspot.com/2011/05/osama-bin-ladens-last-will.html And the analysis made there is quite persuasive, in my mind. You can check it there, and see his sources.

According to this claim, Bin laden did not tell his children not to continue Jihad or join Al-Qaeda. What he did instruct them was to avoid LEADERSHIP. Anyone who has tried to learn the history of this horrible man knows such form of instruction is much more compatible to his complicated personality.

Sadly, other wiki-editors removed the reference, claiming wiki never references to blogs. As a result, now wiki contains inaccurate information regarding the will.

I did not find other places where this claim was checked, but in this world, nowadays, you find more serious research in blogs than in newspapers.

Any suggestions, anyone ? Adom2000 (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

Just an observation. The article says he was killed "Monday, May 2, 2011, shortly after 1 am." The properties of the included picture of the presidential entourage observing the mission says :Date Taken: 1/05/2011 4:05:04 PM" A full 9 hours before the reported killing. the Article also says that the mission only took all of about 40 mins. Not sure if this is significant or not. The properties of the picture could be wrong, or modified, not sure.

But I can't imaging what Hillary was so mortified by 9 hours before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M0381U5 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In case you haven’t noticed: The mission took place on Monday morning Pakistani time while it was being monitored simultaneously in Washington still on Tuesday afternoon time. Alandeus (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed: The Tuesday should be Sunday, since Pakistan is east of Washington. I guess someone hasn't read the entry on Muphry's Law. And I better add ;) so someone's not linking to Poe's Law. -Anonymous 2:07, 02 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.235.66 (talk)

Opinion

I am deleting the line "Panetta's letter to Senator McCain confirms that enhanced interrogation techniques may have hindered the search for Bin Laden by producing false information during interrogations." This line is derived from an opinion article in the Washington Post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxlvr1 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Strength

22 (number of residents, including children) - should we include children in number of combatants?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 07:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden AKA Name

Abu Hamza is a fundamentally different person to Osama bin Laden. Unless someone can cite where Osama bin Laden has chosen to also be referred to by the name Abu Hamza, I will take this down. --Monkofbob (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Age of daughter Safia

One line says that she was 9, another says she was 12. The source says she was 12, so is it safe to assume that she was 12 and change the second reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.244.243 (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Shakil Afridi

I have just removed the following from this article:

Shakil Afridi, a Pakistani doctor who helped the CIA find Bin Laden, was sentenced to 30 years in prison for treason by a Pakistani court.[19] Pakistani officials stated the sentence was appropriate for a Pakistani citizen helping an external intelligence agency without informing Pakistan's security agencies.[20] Senior U.S. politicians have strongly condemned the decision. The BBC reported that the "US Senate panel has cut $33m (£21m) in aid to Pakistan" in reaction to it.[21]

Because our article on Shakil Afridi says:

On 23 May 2012, Shakil Afridi was sentenced to 33 years imprisonment for treason, initially believed to be in connection with the Bin Laden raid but later revealed to be due to ties with a local Islamist warlord Mangal Bagh.[22][23][24] Lawyers appealed against the verdict on 1 June 2012.[25]
…
On 5 June 2012, the U.S. State Department said that it was still awaiting a clarification from Pakistan on Dr Shakeel Afridi’s case.[26]

which contradicts it. Which is correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC) The doctor was collecting intelligence about the OBL compound by pretending to offer free vacinations to the children. He was not admitted but got a good look at the gates and locks so that seals had the correct charges to blow them during the attack. Possibly both versions are correct as many militant jihadists were ploting against OBL because they considered him soft and ineffective. The CIA could have collected the information from the doc without him being aware he was supplying the CIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.154.113 (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Torture"

I searched the archives on this talk page, and found a little bit to this regard, but I can't seem to find the direction the discussion went in. I'm new here, so if I'm doing this wrong, let me know. My point here is the use of the word 'torture' clearly has negative connotation. It implies absolutely no neutrality, nor an objective point of view, of the article. In the interests of professionalism, can we change the word "torture" to the words chosen by the US government? "Enhanced interrogation techniques" is, in my opinion, significantly more objective, as well as less demeaning to the parties involved in finding Osama Bin Laden. I'mintheNavy (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be titled as "The Assassination of Osama bin Laden"?

Just wondering. The technical definition of "assassination" is: verb (used with object), as·sas·si·nat·ed, as·sas·si·nat·ing. 1. to kill suddenly or secretively, especially a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously.

No. Because it isn't an assassination under international law or the laws of war -- no treachery was involved. A military sniper who kills an enemy fighter in war isn't assassinating him; camouflage, ambushes, and surprise attacks aren't "treacherous" but a normal part of war and considered legitimate and non-treacherous (and therefore not assassinations). For a killing to be an assassination, treachery must be involved. The pretense of being a civilian would be treacherous. So, for example, a CIA kill-team in civilian clothes killing someone would be an assassination. They've used the lack of military insignia to get close to their target, and that's treacherous under the laws of war. But a military raid wouldn't be. 220.255.1.77 (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That is what this appears to have been, according to that definition from Dictionary.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.184.199 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

True, this was the outcome. However, the original intent of the operation had the option of capturing bin Laden alive. Been discussed before (in archives now) Alandeus (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Was the intention capture? There was enough commentary beforehand to suggest that the real intention was to kill him. Comments please.124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Attorney General Eric Holder testified that bin Laden made no attempt to surrender, and "even if he had there would be a good basis on the part of those very brave Navy SEAL team members to do what they did in order to protect themselves and the other people who were in that building." 66.58.188.180 (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
US now admits it was to kill bin Ladan Obama administration officials said after the raid that the president had delayed giving the order to kill bin Laden the day before the order was carried out—an apparent fourth moment of indecision. 66.58.188.180 (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
US officials claim they have broken the back of the al-Qaeda network with the assassinations of Osama bin Laden and other top leaders Esquire's article What Happens When Assassination Replaces Torture? also refers to it as an assassination. 66.58.188.180 (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

When seals entered his bedroom OBL was in bed-his wife was sitting up in front of him. He reached across to a table behind her. By the table was a machine gun. On the table was an automatic pistol. He was shot by 2 seals at the same time, before he could reach his weapons.One bullet grazed his wife before hitting OBL. He died immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.154.113 (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Assassination has an inherently negative connotation. In my opinion, using the term would constitute negative POV. --166.147.123.27 (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
^ Which is a cop-out. An assassination is an assassination, regardless of opinion. POV or not. Wufan10304 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "DR Exclusive Interview!: Atlantic Signal (AS) Introducing The DOMINATOR Waterproof Bone-Conduction/Hearing Pro Military Tactical Communications Headset System at SOFIC 2011: Ultimate Custom-Built Tactical Comms Headset for U.S. Military Special Operations Forces (SOF) Assaulters/Operators (Photos!)". DefenseReview. 2011-05-15. Retrieved 2011-06-02.
  2. ^ "Was This The Headset That Helped 'Neutralize' Bin Laden?". TMCNet.com. 2011-05-18. Retrieved 2011-06-02.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference ref-49 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference ref-123 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference ref-50 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference ref-51 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Stelter, Brian (May 1, 2011). "How the bin Laden Announcement Leaked Out". The New York Times. Retrieved May 29, 2011.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference WSJlegal was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Silverleib, Alan (May 4, 2011). "The killing of bin Laden: Was it legal?". CNN. Retrieved May 6, 2011.
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference ABC_13538365 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b c Lewis, Aidan (May 12, 2011). "Osama Bin Laden: Legality of killing questioned". BBC News. Retrieved May 8, 2011.
  12. ^ "United Nations and Afghanistan". Un.org. Retrieved May 10, 2011.
  13. ^ Ferencz, B. (1999). "A prosecutor's personal account: from Nuremberg to Rome". Journal of International Affairs. 52 (2): 456–470. ISSN 0022-197X.
  14. ^ "Obama meets Bin Laden raid team". BBC News. May 6, 2011. Retrieved May 6, 2011.
  15. ^ Robertson, Geoffrey (May 4, 2011). "The point is, bin Laden should have been captured". The Belfast Telegraph. Retrieved May 5, 2011.
  16. ^ Source Bin Laden death prompts questions about legality Retrieved May 5, 2011[citation needed]
  17. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference killingslegality was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ Cite error: The named reference vansun was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ "US cuts Pakistan aid over jailing of 'Bin Laden doctor'". BBC. May 25, 2012.
  20. ^ "US cuts Pakistan aid over jailing of 'Bin Laden doctor'". BBC. May 25, 2012.
  21. ^ "US cuts Pakistan aid over jailing of 'Bin Laden doctor'". BBC. May 25, 2012.
  22. ^ "Pakistani doctor accused of helping U.S. gets 33 years in prison". CNN. 23 May 2012. Retrieved 23 May 2012.
  23. ^ "Dr Shakil Afridi jailed for 'militant links'". The Express Tribune. AFP. 2012-05-30. Retrieved May 31, 2012.
  24. ^ "Pakistan doctor Shakil Afridi guilty of militancy, not CIA links". 30 may 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  25. ^ "Dr Shakil Afridi appeals conviction: Charity". The Express Tribune. AFP. 2012-06-01. Retrieved June 01, 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  26. ^ Still awaiting clarification from Pakistan on Dr Afridi: US, Geo News, June 05, 2012
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden/Archive_4&oldid=1087258815"