Talk:Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories/Archive 1

Archive 1

Conspiracy theories vs. false reports of bin Laden's death

Should this article confine itself to conspiracy theories surrounding the death of bin Laden as reported on 1 May 2011? Totorotroll (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, no one even knows if the reported death a few days ago is the real one. Just because one thousand idiots say the sky is green doesn't make it true. Moreso, no government official has given a body, TOD, autopsy, nothing. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If there already is a section on prior reports of bin Laden's death on another page, it makes sense just to link to that page, rather than cut and paste the information into this one. Totorotroll (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It clearly looked like WP:POV pushing WP:SYNTHESIS to me, the only articles used here should be those that discuss conspiracy theories about his death. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Do not confuse "conspiracy", used today to discredit anything unpopular (ask Galileo) with inconsistency (again...ask Galileo). The fact that his death has been recorded, reported and witnessed since 2001 is already obvious enough to be in this article. Besides, those reported deaths belong more in here than in the supposed death of OBL two days ago. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia has very specific policies about this kind of thing. You might find Wikipedia:Fringe theories helpful in understanding the way things work here. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A relevant article

The article is a bit of a maelstrom at the moments, so I'll just dump this link here until things cool down. Please feel free to pick the meat off its bones. [1] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi?

Can someone take pity on this article and semi-protect it? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Misleading wording

“ That bin Laden is a fictitious creation and that videos of him making speeches were distributed by the US government ”

This is untrue... instead The Telegraph article says:

“ Another theory [is] that bin Laden was killed several years ago in the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan but had been kept “alive” to encourage support for the war on terror .... The US which has been releasing videos of a fake bin Laden in recent years to keep the world convinced. ”

Androo123 (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge into Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden

Please don't just yet. That article is big and getting bigger. This will no doubt fill up and merit being a standalone article. Give it a bit of time please. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Is valid subject in its ownr right. Analogous to JFK assassination conspiracy theories. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also Oppose Seems rather premature to consider deletion. There are clearly opposing views to Bin Laden's death at this time. Facts surrounding the event are changing daily (yesterday Bin Laden was reported by the White House to have had a weapon and put up a fight, today they are saying that he was unarmed... ). Some might find this topic unpopular for parochial partisan reasons and want to kill it, but it is a valid topic that is more than just a verifiable "fringe" assertion. Time will bring more information to light. Let other editors develop it. Much more controversial things continue to persist on Wikipedia. ⁃ Firewall 00:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. While the subject matter is of an encyclopedic nature, the current content of the article is not. The theories cited within the article are from the op/ed sections of a few newspapers; a far cry from something as sound or official as the 800+ pages of the Warren Report. Opertinicy (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

BUT the subject is so new that there is no "Warren Report" just a few days after the event (at the time of this writing). Deleting the article or burying it in another article at this point because the only sources available are from newspapers, is premature. Daily, more comes to light from official sources, and editors will include and source newly released material. How long did it take before the Warren Report or the 9-11 Report came out? Not 5 days. ⁃ Firewall 14:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. You are distorting the debate by taking to a side-track some important issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.12.80 (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose We shouldn't even be discussing this while the AfD is ongoing, but regardless, there is a rather significant amount of coverage going on about these conspiracy theories and multiple people in high positions have been supporting them or making up their own. Silverseren^C 01:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of statement about lack of gov't recognition of STS

I'm going to go ahead and remove the statement "Allegedly, bin Laden was killed by a group of DEVGRU, comprised of US Navy SEALs. However, the United States government has yet to recognize the existence of the unit, contradicting the great bulk of media outlets.[3][4]" because it is not properly supported in this context by the included citations. Please do not re-add the statement unless you put in with it a citation that supports the idea of this as a conspiracy theory. It's certainly true that seal team six is reputed to have killed bin laden and that STS's existence has not been officially recognized, but the citations included do not support treating this as a conspiracy of any nature. Kevin (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And I have put it back. Those two facts are highly contradictory and says alot of the media circus going on. 184.47.0.216 (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Both statements you reverted are not properly sourced. The first one (regarding seal team six) is sourced in a way that runs afoul of WP:Synthesis and the second one (the 'fictitious creation' one) appears to be a complete misreading of the source it is attributed to. Do not restore these until you fix their sourcing. Kevin (ta lk) 00:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Do not remove until you prove those facts aren't sourced. 184.47.0.216 (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please look over some of Wikipedia's sourcing policies - WP:Verifiability and WP:Synthesis are probably the two that apply most directly here. For these statements to be included in this page, they *must* be attributable to a specific named source that talks about these facts in the context of OBL conspiracy theories. You're welcome to readd them if you can make them attributable to a specific named source that confirms these facts and speaks to their relevance in this context, but unless you can do so long standing Wikipedia policy dictates that they must be removed. Kevin (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove the statement, Kevin. It is clearly a violation of OR and SYNTH since this supports the idea of a conspiracy theory only in the mind of a Wikipedia editor and not in any reliable source. Location (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Having seen your edit comment accusing me of vandalism, I'd also remind you to assume good faith. Kevin (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It is time to make sections for distinct theories

Per John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, is it time to make sections into which sourced content pertaining to these theories can be added? A number of distinct theories are beginning to arise from the public and notable conspiracy theorists.

Here is a possible section example:

Preserved forensic evidence theory

This theory describes the notion that bin Laden had been killed some time in the past, with images of the corpse, blood, or even the entire body retained for use as evidence at a later date.

In 2002, Alex Jones put forth this theory saying: "He died he is frozen, literally frozen and that he would be rolled out in the future at some date". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Which Alex Jones? And did his theory gain any notoriety? If not, then it doesn't belong here. Rklawton (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones is a radio host I think from Texas. He has been prominent in the sense that he's interviewed some celebrities and has a following outside of Texas, largely I think on the internet. He's also a major proponent of certain theories about the WTC attack.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've since added some of this information, the White House source quote and Albright's comments. Regards BV ^talk 14:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Naming of the article

any thoughts on this being renamed to something like Skepticism about the death of Osama bin Laden or Skeptical reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden? As it stands, a lot of what this page talks about is general skeptical reaction to a recent event, which I don't really feel 'conspiracy theories' can be appropriately applied to. Once the dust settles and actual conspiracy theories begin to develop more fully, it may be appropriate to do another name change back to the current title, but until then, I think this would be best. Kevin (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the title is ambiguous, in that is could refer to the Death of (Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories) rather than (Death of Osama bin Laden) conspiracy theories William M. Connolley (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a lousy title, but let's wait to see if this article survives the AfD before going through a proposed renaming. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Polls and surveys

Who conducts this sort of thing? Can we add such results to the article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

I am removing the following as original synthesis:

"According to many media sources, 20-25 Navy SEALS were used in the operation, carried over by two helicopters. However, the MH-60 Blackhawk, with a cost 14 million dollars and a top speed of 222 mph, and the Chinnok, averaging $35 million dollars per unit and a maxmum speed of 196 mph top speed in good conditions, supposedly flew roughly 900 miles from Islamabad to the Northern Arabian sea to drop the body, something that would have taken about 4 hours and 6 minutes by the Blackhawk or 4.6 hours by the Chinook."

The information and references are pieced together from tech specs to support a conclusion formed by a Wikipedia editor. None of the references state that these are inconsistencies that point to a conspiracy theory. Location (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I commented out another paragraph in the "Inconsistencies in the strike" section that had an egregious amount of OR and SYN. None of the sources provided said anything about the conclusions drawn in that content. Mildly Mad^T_C 19:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: under WP:SYN, we cannot, for example, have a phrase such as "the existence of the secret unit has neither been confirmed or denied by the Government" without the context that some people have linked that to a conspiracy, and having a source that backs that information up. Simply "presenting the facts" is not acceptable in this case--see WP:VALID. Mildly Mad^T_C 19:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I am also going to remove the remaining statement in the "Inconsistencies" section:

"Though senior officials initially suggested that an armed bin Laden used his wife as a human shield and that said wife was killed along with him in the gunfight, the U.S. government later stated that was not true. Instead, the wife was shot but not killed, was not used as a human shield, and that bin Laden was unarmed but did resist in an unstated fashion.[5] White House Press Secretary Jay Carney admitted that even he was "confused" by the conflicting reports and that the government "provided a great deal of information with great haste."[5]"

As before, inconsistencies and conflicting information in a breaking news story are commonplace and the sources cited do not state that this suggests a conspiracy or that people believe in a conspiracy. Location (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Faked image

Does the section entitled "Faked image" belong here? The relevance of the faked image is as a hoax, not a conspiracy theory. Location (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A bad photoshop I may add 76.179.145.109 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the purpose of that is. How does it feed into conspiracy theories? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It furthers the fuel of people demanding a real image, because it was originally believed that this faked one was official and, overall, it gives the theorists more ammo to just say that Osama's death is an entire hoax. Silverseren^C 22:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that it is a bit of a reach to consider that part of a conspiracy theory, unless the conspiracy is by whoever created/spread the image. Had the U.S. government issued it, that would be one thing. It does bear on hoaxes relating to his death, which is perhaps what the contributor had in mind, and which is what the lede refers to.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Seren, it seems like the rationale you have given for including the content on the page may violate WP:SYNTH. Do you have reliable sources we could add talking about the faked image in the specific context of conspiracy theories regarding the death? Otherwise I have to agree that according to the RS'es currently presented it is a hoax, and not part of or closely linked to conspiracy theories. Kevin (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no special attachment for the faked image section and I wasn't really arguing keeping it up above, just explaining stuff. Feel free to get rid of it. Silverseren^C 22:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. If no one raises any serious objections in the near future, I think I will do so. Kevin (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, three senators were duped by the fake image. [2] – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That is pretty remarkable and should probably be mentioned on the main death page. Kevin (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Material for inclusion

From the Christian Science Monitor: "Among the radical assertions bouncing around the Internet: bin Laden was dead before the attack; he is still alive; the DNA that was supposed to be bin Laden's was inconclusive; and that the White House concocted a raid just to ensure President Obama's reelection." Location (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It is kinda funny that the DNA was supposedly analyzed at Bagram - what, they sequence DNA at military bases now? And they used "facial recognition software" to identify him, after he had the front of his face reportedly blown off in the shooting. I'm only saying, it's kinda funny. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

New title suggestions?

This article could probably benefit from a new title. As it stands, it is ambiguous -- it could refer to the demise of such theories, though that is admittedly an awkward construction.

Perhaps "Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories"? See Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories, and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.

Or "Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories"? See Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories. Though you would need to wait for the AfD to finish before doing any moving. Silverseren^C 22:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That (or whichever has consensus support) works for me.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer something like Skepticism about the death of Osama bin Laden or Skeptical reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden at least until a time when actual conspiracy theories develop. A lot of the stuff included in this article as it stands has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Kevin (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It stems from a predetermined premise that the government always lies. Hence, it's in the realm of conspiracy theories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Reports from "others"

Sheehan and Robers are hardly what one would refer to as "news sources" merely opinion pieces. Roberts is merely an opinion piece on a blog. All he is station is an unsubstantiated theory and commentary on the whole matter. If no one objects, this will be removed shortly. --Hourick (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

However, they are opinion pieces, Roberts especially, that should be kept. Sheehan's opinion can be removed, but as the article states, Roberts is a noted conspiracy theorist, so his opinion in this matter should be kept. All of these theories are unsubstantiated in the first place, that's why they are theories, so that argument is invalid. Silverseren^C 22:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Repeated reverts by 184.47.0.216 without discussion

An IP editor (184.47.0.216 ) keeps making significant reverts (that introduce WP:SYNTH problems) without discussion despite repeated requests to discuss before doing so, as in this diff. I'm probably in danger of violating WP:3rr as it is since I've been active in making sure information with sourcing problems doesn't stay up, although I would hope that doing so on a page this highly visible/highly trafficked wouldn't get me in too much crud, but because of that, I would request other editors to examine the reversions this IP keeps making and revert them if you don't agree with them. (The content that is being reverted has been discussed previously on this talk page, in both sections #7 and #12.) Kevin (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted the ip once. I will try to keep an eye on this article.—Chris!_c/t 02:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. It hadn't even occurred to me previously that I might've been in danger of violating WP:3RR myself - this is the first controversial article I have actually edited. Kevin (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A useful resource

As much as I understand some of the comments on here saying that Wikipedia shouldn't become a platform for fringe ideas, wouldn't it serve the intellectual discourse to list these theories, then devote a section to facts debunking them? Articles on the "Truther" and "Birther" theories do the same thing. This page could become a useful resource in discrediting some of the inane nonsense being spread out there.

Scoutstr295 (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2011 (EST)

Good point. Shouldn't this article giv the arguments and counter-arguments? That's the layout used on Moon landing conspiracy theories. ~Asarlaí 16:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Change the ridiculous use of the word "conspiracy" in the title

Especially since many of the "conspiracies" are backed up by sources from well known media and the US government itself.

People questioning the validity of the death of Osama bin Laden (in most cases here dealing with the claims it was an assassination, illegal, or that his death has been exaggerated for political spin) due to the disposal of a body before anyone, third party observers or even non-top military intelligence, could actually make sure are not "conspiracy theorists".

Until the Obama administration, which they are apparently soon to do (if it's not leaked even sooner), reveals further information then people questioning the validity of the death or scenario and events surrounding the death do not fit a POV, against policy, title of "conspiracy theorists". 203.206.14.221 (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Harlequin

I'm not sure I follow what you mean. This article isn't about actual conspiracies or conspiracy theorists. It's about conspiracy theories held by others. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you know what a conspiracy theory is... It's not a derogatory term, inherently. Anyway, this is a very invalid complaint. None of the theories are backed up, either. That's why they're conspiracy theories.

Neither is the claim that Osama is dead. This is why it's open for debate.

72.174.52.136 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"This article isn't about a durpity durp"

Odd, since it blatantly states "conspiracy theories" in the articles title. Don't play the intentionally ignorant game.

As for "it's not a derogatory term". It cleary is. It's a negative POV term that has no place in relation to raising questions over his death. 203.206.14.221 (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Harlequin

You should look up what it means. What you think "conspiracy theories" are and what they actually are are two different things.72.174.52.136 (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 72.174.52.136. You can take negative POV from the term conspiracy theory if you like but it's definition is precisely what this article put's forward, theories about people conspiring, assumedly privately. The term is only 'dirty' if you don't take it at face value, like regime or mercenary. As for the article, it's pretty weak. Understandable for so soon after the events, but there is no decent description of particular theories, or an evaluation of which ones have evidence and which ones are pure conjecture. There seems to be nothing on the note-worthy-ness of them and very little on the content, generally. If anyone has read some better sources don't hesitate to add them to the article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Conspiracy" absolutely has a negative connotation. Great effort lampooning alternative views on contentious topics as the province of "tin foil hatters" is invested to see that it does, so that good enquiry is devalued alongside the suspect. It is not hard to understand why. Unfortunately, the term cannot be avoided in this instance, this article being analogous to JFK assassination conspiracy theories. "Alternative bin Laden assassination theories" would be nice, but it is unlikely to be considered in light of the accepted use of the term "conspiracy" in the context. (See comment here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden_conspiracy_theories for further on the matter.) Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the Furtive fallacy. Also, this page is not 'about' certain conspiracy theories. It is a description 'of' conspiracy theories believed by certain people. There is a distinct difference. The former is bordering in WP:SYN, while the latter is a sociological description of a certain belief systems in the public.--Evud (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

1) Give me a scholarly article identifying the debate over bin Laden's purported death as a "conspiracy theory".

2) You can't, because among other things, it only happened a few days ago. Calling people who doubt a highly-politically charged media circus "conspiracy theorists" is a very dangerous step to take, so soon after the announcement at least. Remember the conspiracy theory that the yellowcake from Niger didn't exist, or the conspiracy theory that Iraq didn't have any WMDs?

Doubting a government announcement, carried by the mass media, for the first few days, when no proof is yet shown to the public, doesn't make one a "conspiracy theorist". It's simply prudent. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"You can't, because among other things, it only happened a few days ago". Please make yourself familiar with an Argument from ignorance, because that is what you are asserting, it's lazy thinking. "very dangerous step to take", this is an Appeal to consequences, again, make yourself familiar with it. BTW AGTTH, you make a mockery of skeptics everywhere. Skepticism comes with tight, rational arguments, not poorly thought out arguments masquerading as reason.--Evud (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• We are required to follow the terms used by the reliable sources. They are all using the terms conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists, so that is why we are using the word conspiracy in the title. If you believe otherwise, good for you, but your opinion is not more important than the sources we use. Silverseren^C 03:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" is an excellent term to use here because it self-identifies. The article describes one or more theories about the subject that involve a conspiracy to hide the truth from the people. In cases where a theory has been proven and accepted, we simply drop the word "theory" and we're all set. The only reason people might view the term conspiracy theory negatively is that many such theories on a wide variety of topics have been promulgated by crackpots, charlatans, and the mentally deranged (tin hat folks). But that's more a problem of guilt by association than it is with the term itself. If, for example, we used the phase "alternative theories" or "excellent ideas" to describe unproven and unaccepted theories, then that phrase, too, would eventually become associated with crackpots (etc.) and be deemed to reflect a negative point of view. In short, it doesn't matter what we call this subject, the phrase will eventually become derisive. As a result, it's better to stick with a phrase that is written in plain English and recognizable by all readers both familiar and unfamiliar with the subject matter. Rklawton (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not let Wikipedia become a playground for crazy people.

Look, it's a great thing for people to offer competing views here on this issue: whether the United States killed Osama bin Laden on or about May 1 / May 2, 2011. If people are going to use Wikipedia to offer "arguments" (I'll be charitable) against this proposition by citing minor inconsistencies in U.S. government statements while it is still debriefing the soldiers who killed bin Laden, then I think we have to (1) reconsider what Wikipedia is really for, or (2) the proponents of a conspiracy have to spend more time reviewing evidence before they advance a conspiracy theory.

In the interest of disclosure, I think I should say that I am a person who thinks that the C.I.A. probably did play some role in the death of John Kennedy (apparently, J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson did, as well). Of course I can't say with any kind of certainty that it did, because I have no way of knowing this. But I don't see any evidence of other similar conspiracies out there.

My comment is directed specifically at those who have pointed to alleged U.S. modifications of public statements over the past several days. What is almost certainly happening is this: Many different areas of the government are besieged by press inquiries on what is the biggest media story in the last ten years. Answers are given, with what is known at that point. Meanwhile, the CIA and Department of Defense - or whatever entity is tasked with these things - is trying to perform a second-by-second reconstruction of 40 minutes of chaos from the accounts of dozens of soldiers. It's going to take months to create a reliable record. It's a little naive to think that 36 hours after an event like this, all of the answers will be available.

So, let there be conspiracy theories, but please, let them be backed by evidence and please let the evidence offered be material to the issue of Osama bin Laden's death, and not something ridiculous like a contradictory statement about whether a certain helicopter's problem was mechanical. This makes me afraid that people are unable to reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goateeki (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, has it ever been reported anywhere that a U.S. helicopter containing bin Laden's body flew from Islamabad and dropped the man's body in the Arabian Sea? This article indicates that such a thing has been reported, and then asserts it is unlikely based on the capabilities of U.S. aircraft. But I have not seen it reported anywhere that a U.S. helicopter containing bin Laden's body flew from Islamabad and dropped the body in the Arabian Sea. I hate to sound so critical but it's this lack of adherence to the reliable press accounts (which are distinct from unreliable press accounts), the inability to differentiate between which items are material to the U.S. killing of bin Laden and which are not, and the occasional absence of logic which all have the potential to make this page a laughing stock. This page also has the potential to make for some very, very interesting reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goateeki (talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't be afraid! We have a lot of policies to check texts so that crazy people can add only well written, coherent, balanced and well cited lunatic ramblings. The main thing is that those lunatic ramblings are neutral and correctly replicated. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Organization of Others section

I've added some more beliefs to the Others section, but it's getting kind of cluttered, with a bunch of different comments from people around the world. We need to figure out how we're going to organize it and arrange comments from people from different countries. Silverseren^C 02:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts and suggestions:

"Others" section is hard to categorize. So maybe:

• Simple Sub-subsection (4 equal signs) or bold name of subject within text and keep them random.

or

• Sub sections for media, notable organizations, countries (group them), and keep notable individuals in others section, etc.

By the way, the last item is Abbotsbad, so that should be in Pakistan section. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the purpose of the article cannot be to document every single publicly stated conspiracy-theoryish opinion. I don't know what a good set of inclusion criteria for it would be, but we need to have some idea of one. Kevin (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. That's why I posted the scope thing below. Perhaps we can welcome edits and continue to prune the least notable. I suspect we will be constant gardeners whether we like it or not. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The scope of this article

What should the scope of this article be?

• Only widely-reported, demonstrably notable conspiracy theories?

• Broader information about the subject itself?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say any information about conspiracy theories in relation to Osama, any people that are repeating them or commenting on them, and specific information about what the theories are saying and why they are saying that (from information based in reliable sources note, no OR). Silverseren^C 05:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree that it should include only info based in reliable sources. Not have any Original Research. And can properly include RS-sourced info as to the conspiracy theories in general (causes, etc). See, as an example, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

We also need to avoid making this article a simple repository of every crazy quote anyone has ever said that doubted whether or not OBL has been killed. Kevin (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify, any comments made by someone who is notable should be kept. Obviously, not the comments made by random people (Abbottabad besides, since they were where it happened, their comments get a bit more credence). But, thus far, we've been focusing on only adding comments by notable people, so I don't see the issue here. We should only be tying in the quotes that reliable sources tie in themselves to the conspiracy theories. Remember, we should be going by reliable sources, not what we presume to be important. Silverseren^C 21:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I am only replying now, as I only just saw this. If we included a quotation from every person who was notable, this page could potentially contain well upwards of 500,000 quotes. Obviously, that would be silly. Even if we included quotations only from people who are notable in a related field to this general topic (e.g., politicians/journalists/talk show hosts/activists) this article could still quickly grow completely out of control. You are correct in saying that we need to be going by reliable sources and not our personal assumptions, but NPOV does not mean giving equal coverage to every possible position, and doesn't even mean giving equal coverage to every position held by a notable person. The first point of WP:NOTDIR is also probably relevant here. Sooner or later (perhaps once the article is in less of a state of flux) the quotes contained in this article will need to be pared down to include only quotes or points of view that have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Kevin (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

One-sided article

Where is the information about the real-life conspiracy, that Pakistan gave this international fugitive safe harbor for at least 5 or 6 years? Or is only US-bashing allowed in this article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Shhh...don't upset the sheep, they're grazing. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Baaah. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

C'mon Bugs, you of all people should know a Truth™-only zone when you see it! Mildly Mad^T_C 15:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Baaah. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Cover up

Strange. I started Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti right, the claimed courier of bin Laden who died on May 2, 2011 during the raid. However I picked up a wikileaks document from Guantanamo here which claims Mohamedou Ould Salahi had informed the interrogation officers that al-Kuwaiti had died in the Tora Bora attack back in December 2001. Yet the United States claim publically they only knew his name in 2007 and that he was still living. Does this strike anybody as odd? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What's odd? That the guy Salahi would lie? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Or that he was telling the truth and the US government are lying... Probably trying to cover him up though so likely Salahi was lying. Somebody clearly was lying.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It occurred to me the last couple of days that the pieces start to fit into place. Why wouldn't Obama shut down GTMO? Why wouldn't he get us out of Afghanistan? Well, because those were vital factors in getting this guy. In spite of the constant yelping from the left and the right both, the commander-in-chief went about his job the way he's supposed to, and finished the mission that Bush started after 9/11, over 9 years later. I'm no fan of Bush, but I'm coming around to the viewpoint that what he did in Iraq may well prove to work out. The people of the Middle East are starting to see that there's another way besides the extremism of al-Qaeda's ilk. The disposal of OBL himself is almost a footnote to the increasingly-marginalized al-Qaeda. Or at least that's what the hope is. When I saw and read about Muslims cheering at the demise of OBL, I realized that he's just another despot - like Mubarak, or Saddam, or Qadaffi. He's just like those guys, except he didn't have a country. One way or another, they're being taken out one by one. We'll see how it goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional source

The Guardian ran this article running down a bunch of Conspiracy theories that have been brought up. Mildly Mad^T_C 17:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added some of this to the 'other conspiracy' section although I think Glenn Beck's views could warrant a whole paragraph. BV ^talk 18:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've curious about what this pragraph from the Guardian article means: "The deaths of Bin Laden and Adolf Hitler were both announced on 1 May, suggesting they were sacrificed by the Illuminati to mark the secret order's second holiest holiday." - what does "sacrificed by the Illuminati imply? It would be good to clarify this on the page also. Totorotroll (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Notable?

We have a fair amount of coverage of the opinions of a fellow named Stephen Lendman. A Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. It is not immediately clear to me that he is notable; if he is not, perhaps his comments are not either. If it is a gray area of notability, perhaps they should be trimmed.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant paragraph

Not wanting to start an edit-war, I moved this to the discussion page.

I was bold and removed the following paragraph from the beginning of the article:

“ Several photos of the aftermath of the raid were given to Reuters by an anonymous Pakistani security official, but although all appear to be authentic, as they were taken after the US forces had left, none of them included Osama bin Laden. ”

Because it's irrelevant to any conspiracy theory. Whether the US is lying or not, why would they leave Osama there?

My change was reverted with the comment:

“ Previous edit assumes accuracy of US government sources. ”

I did not assume the US was telling the truth. Will 83.253.28.56 please explain what the US lying has to do with the relevance of this paragraph to the article? Either they killed Osama and took the body, or they did not kill him so there was no body to be found. Are you suggesting the US would leave Osama if they killed him? Fabjan (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As has been mentioned previously in this article discussion, there are clearly opposing views of Bin Laden's death at this time. Facts surrounding the event are changing daily and different sources claim different facts regarding the event.

While perhaps unlikely or counterintuitive, it remains a possibility that Osama remained at the scene of the event after US forces left.

However, the point of keeping the paragraph is not related to the probability of various possibilities of what actually happened, but rather that it comes from a noteworthy media source (Reuters), who claims to have talked to a Pakistani security official.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.28.56 (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So we could put the paragraph on Banana, because it's from a reliable source? Fabjan (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I should have clarified: The reason for keeping the paragraph is a combination of the following:

1. It presents a claim from a relevant party (Pakistani security official) which enriches the article in terms of describing the situation after the event.

2. It illustrates indirectly an alternative view on what may have occurred during, and after, the event.

3. The claim is cited by a noteworthy media source (Reuters). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.28.56 (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

1. True, I suppose, but this article is on conspiracy theories about the death of Osama bin Laden, not about the death of Osama bin Laden.

2. Not at all. It illustrates *the* view on what happened after the raid. Both conspiracy theorists and the US military agree that bin Laden was not there after the attack.

3. Is only relevant if 1 and 2 are. Fabjan (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It is too early to claim that both conspiracy theorists and the US military agree on specific facts regarding the event.

In order to provide a context for an article about conspiracy theories about the death of Osama bin Laden, circumstances regarding the event must be described, at least in some detail, in the beginning of the article. The paragraph mentioned clearly presents a central claim of how the situation appeared one hour after the attack. The paragraph thus helps to provide a context for the theories described later on in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.28.56 (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda confirms death of Osama bin Laden in web forums; what now?

According to multiple credible news outlets, the following occurred on or about May 6, 2011: Al Qaeda released a statement on jihadist forums Friday confirming the death of its leader, Osama bin Laden, according to SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamist websites...The development comes days after U.S. troops killed bin Laden in a raid on a compound in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad...The statement, translated by SITE, lauded the late militant, threatened to take action against the United States, and urged Pakistanis to "rise up and revolt."

Again, I urge those editing this page to adhere to strong, rational arguments against the death of bin Laden, and please do not cite conflicts between not-very-relevant facts as evidence of some U.S. government hoax. This page could make for some really interesting reading if done right. Goateeki (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is not up to the editors of this article to limit themselves to strong rational arguments. The purpose of this article is to report on claims made that have gained a significant degree of notability or notoriety. Therefore, IF some moron wants to claim that OBL was abducted by aliens AND enough news media outlets report this story as a conspiracy theory THEN we are bound to include the fact of its existence here no matter how absurd. What we can and will do, however, is prevent that moron from promoting his or her ideas directly here. I hope this helps set your mind at ease. Rklawton (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, at least I am not in this WP business because I believe everything I read – rather the opposite. I'm interested in how to sort out delusions, and then this article is prototypical. The news you mention should rather go to Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda's implication that OBL was buried on land, might feed into new conspiracy theories. More likely, they had it prepared before he died and failed to make note of the details. But I'm sure someone will raise an eyebrow at the wording of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Rklawton, I think that at some point that has to be some kind of cut off, some kind of editorial decision, that limits this article to the more credible (if they are actually mustered at some point, and they may be) arguments that OBL was not killed. Just three days ago, there were "arguments" in the article against the death of bin Laden that had nothing to do with the accepted media reports of the event. In other words, the writer was not really working off the same reality that most of the rest of us are. If someone is going to advance a theory here that OBL was not killed but kidnapped by aliens, it doesn't have much utility. What can someone possibility do with that other than accept it wholesale or reject it wholesale? This is why I have urged editors to try and keep the conspiracies to those that are tied to credible press accounts, evidence based, and relevant to the issue of whether he was actually killed rather than ancillary issues like whether a helicopter's problem was mechanical. If this doesn't happen, the article will warrant grouping with the topics Flat Earth and AIDS denialism. 38.165.15.201 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's well on the way already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

But I understand what you say about a certain quantum of media reports / notoriety. 38.165.15.201 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about "proving" that OBL wasn't killed. It's about the conspiracy theory phenonomenon. Thus, only the "theories" that have significant coverage by reliable sources should be listed here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. Rklawton (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Posibility of Pakistan War With United States

Before I begin, I'm not quite sure if what I'm about to say belongs in the Pakistan – United States relations or here. But shouldn't there be mention of the Pakistani general Hamid Gul on the Jones' Show talking about the posibilities of a China-backed Pakistan war against the United States, however unlikely it is? <-PsychoticReaper —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC).

New article title suggestion

Per the above discussion, now that the AfD has concluded I suggest that we re-name the article "Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories".--Epeefleche (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, support. Silverseren^C 18:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I also support the move. BV ^talk 22:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death of Osama bin Laden which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Issues

So long as the discussions surrounding discrepancies in the story of Osama's killing are posted under the slanderous title "...conspiracy theories" this article cannot claim to maintain NPOV.

I propose: 1. adoption of a neutral title. 2. inclusion of the 'official' story as one of the theories, after all it offers no more photo or video evidence than any of the so called CTers and there are numerous discrepancies, Pakistani and media dissenters to the official story.

Thoughts? Kpgc10 (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death of Osama bin Laden/Archive 3 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Pay no attention to the malfunctioning bot behind the curtain. —RM bot 17:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan section

What is this statement supposed to mean, knowing that Pakistan is not in the Middle East? : "Conspiracy theories abound in the Middle East, according to Lewis Brownstein, professor of international relations and political science at State University of New York." Mar4d (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an excellent article, just one thing is not right..

Thank you to all of the editors who have contributed to this article. How refreshing it is to see that there are still people out there who actually question "official statements" such as the ones force-fed by the major US media sources. Unfortunately, the article's title contains the extremely loaded phrase "conspiracy theory". This needs to be removed. Just because these views have not come from "official" sources doesn't mean they aren't correct. (seriously, this is something I figured out in 3rd grade!!) 63.226.197.198 (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If the statements above are undesirable or off-topic, irrelevant, etc then by all means delete them. 63.226.197.198 (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Wikipedia policy is to present information in articles in a neutral manner that is verifiable by reliable sources. However, this does not require us to give equal validity to all viewpoints; we are interested in the verifiability of content, not truth.

Additionally, you'll notice that this article does not present any original material or draw new conclusions from other published material, but only corroborates conspiracy theories that have already been mentioned by third-party sources. Because the most reliable sources on the Bin Laden death (i.e. the U.S. Government and mainstream media) do not endorse the conspiracy theories, neither can our article; doing so would be giving undue weight to the conspiracy theories.

Finally, the term "conspiracy theory" is perfectly applicable here--they are not "alternative accounts", because none of the people proposing them were actually there--they make use of the Argument from ignorance fallacy (absence of proof = proof of absence). For further explanation, you can also read our policy on fringe theories. Mildly Mad^T_C 11:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the logical fallacy here is [absence of proof = proof//as long as the government says so]. Obviously, one cannot report all theories about what happened in any given situation as having equal value, but it is absolutely insane to say the US government's word is proof itself, as if it has no possible agenda or reason to lie. Then people edit the "conspiracy theories" page to point out possible conflict of interests in all alternative theories, which apparently include insinuations of working for foreign governments (so...the US government always tells the truth, but foreign governments are out to lie?). You are discrediting Wikipedia, the place where corporate whores are allowed to become high-ranking editors and close down legitimate criticism of products, delete references to legitimate scientific journals, etc., while even re-editing the pages themselves to look like advertisements. Likewise, you have openly admitted here that you take US government sources as the most reliable automatically, which means you are not a neutral source. Maybe soon there will be a page "Non-neutral Wikipedia conspiracy theories" where you discuss how some lunatics on the internet insinuate, falsely and for some self-interested reason, that Wikipedia is not neutral, while admitting in the comments section that you basically are not neutral. 81.191.255.225 (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This term is not infrequently misused, such as in Conspiracy theories about the 2010 Haiti earthquake. But this time it's appropriate. I agree BTW that this is an interesting article with a wide range of viewpoints, except... doesn't anyone think the bin Laden death might have been staged because he was captured alive and even now is being raped for information by over 9,000 men and an unspecified number of canines somewhere under Diego Garcia? Wnt (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to take issue with this statement that 'none of them were actually there'. Not only are there local sources cited in the article but I'm currently watching some interviews by an American journalist of some neighbours including the 'cricket ball kid' who was in the house 'many times' who say they don't believe it's possible that he was there. These are quite relevant points of view. Also, you make the point that A - the government & media are the reliable sources and B - that they have not given any weight to these theories yet they have 'considered releasing the photos of the dead Bin Laden' to put to rest doubts and neither can be considered reliable or trustworthy. However, I can't criticise the use of the term conspiracy theory, since by nature these are theories of a conspiracy. This is uncontroversial, only the modern curved use of the term is controversial. A conspiracy theory is by it's very nature a theory that two or more people have conspired to shield the truth from others.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

FOIA stuff/image requests

I was requested to start a discussion thread about this, so I'll go ahead and do so. There is a section getting warred over a little bit that deals with FOIA requests about the images. None of the citations included explicitly link the FOIA requests to conspiracy theories. Unless someone provides a WP:RS cite that links the two, I believe this section violates WP:SYNTH. Other thoughts appreciated. Kevin (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think as background information, it should be included, though it should be clearly labeled as background and not a part of the theories. However, what happened with the pictures is important in relation to the existence of these theories. Silverseren^C 09:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering the photos are referenced in the first paragraphs of the article, it's important to track requests for the photos themselves. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the section violates WP:SYNTH. If the sources in that section do not refer to a conspiracy, then including them as "background" is merely a tool to push a POV. If a FOIA request and denial (and lawsuit) is truly part of a significantly reported on conspiracy theory, then it should not be that difficult to find appropriate sources stating such. Location (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a point of view being pushed. Using this logic, we should remove paragraph 3. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You're making an argument for removing paragraph three, not an argument for keeping the FOIA stuff. Kevin (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's SYNTH. (And I'm not particularly fond of calling things SYNTH.) It's verifiable that there are conspiracy theories. (Or so I assume. I haven't checked the sources.) It's verifiable that there are FOIA requests. By putting the latter fact in an article about the former, we suggest that the requests are somehow connected to the conspiracy theories. So that has to be verifiable too, if we're going to include the statements. It advances the thesis that the conspiracy theories are significant (look at all this involvement from non-trivial groups), which in turn tends to support the idea that there might be something to them. It's not POV enough to be a problem per se: if we can find a reliable source suggesting a connection, we should include it. Verifiable facts that support a POV can be included, as long as the article as a whole is NPOV, giving due weight to other facts. OR isn't allowed, even if it doesn't support a point of view. I'm not so sure the "that advances a point of view" serves much of a purpose in SYNTH, but there it is. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing this. Paragraph 3 of this article discusses photographs and the Administration's refusal to release them. How is including information about the media attempting to get the photos irrelevant? -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about the photos; this article is about conspiracy theories. The reference for the statement in paragraph 3 discusses the relationship between the photos and conspiracy theories (i.e. that the "administration had considered releasing the photos to dispel rumors of a hoax". Your references did not discuss that relationship. Location (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The administration considered releasing the photos to dispel rumors of a hoax, chose not to, and the media decided to try for them anyway. It's a continuation of that. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Continuation for what purpose? The article is not about the photos; it's about conspiracy theories. Location (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Laden remains possibly in russian navy hands

According to russian IRC, the russian nuclear propelled hunter-killer submarine, which shadowed the USN carrier group, did record the sea burial event as UBL's corpse was being thrown overboard from the CVN. The russians have since recovered the partially decomposed body with an ROV and are now keeping it on ice.

Russia may intend to use UBL remains handover as a bargaining chip versus arabic islamists, who may have an influence in the world jihadi movement to isolate or hinder the chechen caliphate rebels, who are still active and very efficient in both the caucasian area and the heart of Russia, as shown by the recent ambush that left sixteen OMON soldiers dead. 87.97.53.251 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Stupid assumption. The submarine could be very easily detected by the carrier taskforce. No submarine could approach while being undetected. Just read a bit about anti-submarine warfare and you will realise that. Also they could known the carrier location (by satellite for example) and just go there after the event to recover the body. But that would be also stupid because usa would also known if they went there with a ship and a ROV. Also, searching for the body without knowing the exact location on a sea bottom under of meters above the surface is at least very very difficult if not, impossible. Also there are no ROV's capable of performing such an operation. The only way for your "idea" to work would be if they went there by submarine and lunch a special made ROV from the submarine to recover the body. And that's crazy and there isn't such a capability. And you missed the motive, why would Russians want the body? Just to confirm if it's really bin laden? They have intelligence services to confirm that. No need for all this impossible things. Really, it's very very very very very very very very very very unlike and stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:- - -- - - (User talk:- - -talk • Special:Contributions/- - -contribs) 19:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of term "(Russian) government-funded"

Someone had cited the news network Russia Today as being "Russian government-funded". The citation for this was two articles in the English-language Moscow Times, which are not accessible to non-subscribers. I have deleted this, along with a quote from someone writing for Politico making a trite comment about security service conspiracies in Russia, because, in context, it was clearly designed to make it look like the Russian government is spreading false propaganda. In fact, Russia Today is a commercial channel. It might receive government subsidies, but so does General Electric. In this context, I would expect Wikipedia to accept the qualification "American government-funded network" attached to NBC/MSNBC, even though they make most of their income from commercials. Casting doubts on reports by the "British-government funded BBC", which is not commercial, would be yet easier. That is a dangerous game to play. 81.191.255.225 (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No. All media investigations of Russia Today have confirmed (if not, watch it for 5 minutes yourself) that it's just a propaganda tool for the Russian gov't that we can't take seriously as a 'reliable source.'

Check ALL the sources of informtaion

Nowadays anyone can write a theory (even if they are really ridiculous) and publish it in a blog; moreover, this article collect many of the theories. However Wikipedia can not publish all the theories found on the web that dont have at least a valid reference. I found weird the theory of the sacrifice of Bin Laden. I expected at least a proper source of information to support this claim. When i clicked the link of the reference i was redirected to the Guardian.co.uk . In the beginning i believed the source was valid; however, when i read it i realized that the theory is not well researched. The Guardian took as the source of information a Wordpress article that can not be considered reliable. To sum up, at least this theory seems to have a reliable source (A Guardian article) but the source is only a poor research based on another article from Wordpress. That is the reason why i deleted this theory. Now we must be careful and check the current sources and the future sources. Some people are (deliberately or innocently) including references that fake to be reliable and valid. P.S English is not my native language, so there might be some grammatical mistakes. --Fukurou-san (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikileaks

http://rt.com/news/osama-body-wikileaks-stratfor-949/ Releere (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Stratfor

I saw an interesting part on the wiki page about the Stratfor hack/leak that led me to this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Stratfor_email_leak#cite_ref-9

"An email involving a Stratfor analyst stated that it had been determined that up to 12 officials in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency knew of Osama bin-Laden's safe house.[9] Another email indicated that Stratfor Vice President Fred Burton had knowledge of the killing of bin Laden, and that the body was not dumped at sea, but rather sent to Dover Air Force Base in the United States.[10] This further fueled doubts about the US Government's account of the killings.[11]"

I think this could be an interesting addition to this page, anyone agree/disagree?

Jacobitten (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I love that there is no evidence at all on the death of Osama. No legit photos, no body. They claim they have his DNA but that hardly proves anything. Yet, this is a "conspiracy theory". Since when not believing a completely unproven claim is a "conspiracy theory", and a claim with no evidence to back it up is deemed as a fact - even by wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.86.211 (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename this to 'Skepticism'?

There are some less far fetched skepticism on here such as "lack of evidence". That wouldn't really classify as a conspiracy theory would it? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)