Talk:Killing of Osama bin Laden/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Carried out on foot"

What's the meaning of "carried out on foot" in the "Raid" section? The remark is in the context of the helicopter crash. But surely the body was ferried away in another helicopter? The citation is from the UK's Daily Mail, one of the UK newsapapers distinguishing itself by running the fake picture of Osama's corpse long after it had been identified as a fake here and disseminated on Twitter. I'm loathe to delete "carried out on foot" unilaterally but nevertheless suggest it ought be deleted. FightingMac (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the phrasing used by the news networks, but for purposes of context, it might be better to say something like "carried out of the compound on foot". --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a good bet they didn't walk him all the way to Afghanistan and then to the ocean. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That would have made the burial-at-sea thing uncomfortable and tricky to videotape.

Dave
You can help!
00:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

You already noticed the vandalism? Somebody has to revert the Ubuntu stuff... --Pilettes (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears on the "Reaction" article as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It was in the template {{Osama bin Laden}}. I reverted that and protected it, since it's high visibility. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge with "Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden"

I noticed there is a new article titled "Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_death_of_Osama_bin_Laden. I propose that this article should be merged with the present article under the already existing section "Reactions". I agree in having a separate article on the the death of Bin Laden but I believe that having a separate article dedicated only to the reactions to this event is redundant. (Lucasaraceno (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

Presidential address

I maintain that a separate article for Reactions is necessary, however I agree with Muboshgu that details of the Presidential address belong on the main Death article. Therefore, I will be removing the Obama speech video and wikisource from the Reaction article. That being said, I think further detail about the gatherings throughout the US in reaction to the speech/death belong in the Reactions article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Order of Sections

Seems to me it would be appropriate if the article followed some sort of chronological order. Details of the raid, followed by Obama's address, followed by a Reactions section summarizing details of the Reactions article, followed by Aftermath sections. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Precise location of the compound?

How or why is the exact location of the compound important in this article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems notable to me, as many RSs focus on it. Also, it is especially of moment given its proximity to Pakistan's West Point, and the local police station, as is also reflected in the RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it feeds into the accusation that Pakistan was actively hiding and protecting OBL. I'm sure more will come out on that in the days to come. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Practice Raid

Hey so I am an inexperienced wiki user and can't figure out how to edit the page, however ABC is reporting that the gov't actually built a replica compound to train for this mission. Source here: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/khalid-sheikh-muhammad-capture-osama-bin-laden-courier/story?id=13506413&page=2

Please add. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.70.238 (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You can't edit it because the article is semi-protected and you are editing from an IP address not a signed-in account. That news page at ABC is pretty cool and has unique stuff not on the other networks. Note also the claim from Pakistan cited in it that it was a "joint US-Pakistan operation", something the US deny and the claim that Pakistani fighter jets were scrambled to shoot down the helicopters. The Pakistani government's position that they had no knowledge of or complicity in Bin Laden's upmarket hideaway becomes less and less believable by the day and the marvel is that they are still classed as "allies". No doubt there will be much media commentary on that in the days to come that we can source. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would advise jumping to conclusions later, after there are more data. If the Pakistani government did not know of the raid then it would make sense for them to scramble jets if their systems picked up on the US's visiting assets. Right now I have read assertions that a) they gave us intelligence, b) participated in the raid, c) knew nothing of the raid until it was over, and d) knew where bin Laden was all along and just didn't tell us. The truth is in there somewhere, hiding in the lies.

Dave
You can help!
01:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Uploded picture of the hideout

File:Osama bin Laden hideout.jpg Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Pakistani helicopter crashing into 2 houses

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/latest-on-the-osama-raid-tricked-out-choppers-live-tweets-possible-pakistani-casualties/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.77.117 (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Chage PST to PKT

In the summary box in the upper right, one of the times is listed as PST. Clicking the link shows the page for Pakistan Standard Time, abbreviated PKT.

 Done and thank you. Rklawton (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Kill not capture

There have been contradicting reports about weather the mission was to kill bin Laden or if capturing him alive was also an option. The initial reports indicated that the mission was "kill not capture."[1] But a spokesman later said bin Laden would have been taken alive if they had the opportunity.[2] Fnordware (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If he and his guards had thrown up their hands and said, "We surrender", it's likely they would have taken him in. Instead, he chose to be killed. Are any of those sources "official", or are they "anonymous"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No Mention Of Pakistan- American Editors Trying To Hog Entire Operation

Why is there NO Mention whatsoever of Pakistan in this operation?? Its been made clear by the president of the US and the secetary of state Clinton that Pakistani intelligence was vital to this operation, Ofcourse im sure the American editors here would like to downplay the Pakistani role to help nurse there battered ego post 9/11, Also why is no mentioned made in the casualty section for the downed US helicopter?

Pakistani intelligence should be added to the combat info box.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/latest-on-the-osama-raid-tricked-out-choppers-live-tweets-possible-pakistani-casualties/ S Seagal (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan should be added to the combat info box because they arrested the rest of the people including two of his wife and the others present: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/bin-ladens-wives-children-arrested-in-raid--1-son-killed/2011/05/02/AFwSTuZF_blog.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Seagal (talk • contribs) 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The opinion piece you link to is pure speculation about rumors that ends up with a question. The other piece is a blog that doesn't make it clear whether the Pakistani forces were involved in the raid, or — as they happened to be right next door — showed up to see what the fuss was about a few minutes later. Please don't accuse editors of things. If it turns out Pakistan was instrumentally involved, I'm sure someone or their ego will come upon a reliable source that credibly states that. Abrazame (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Proof Pakistan arrested people at the house:

http://english.sina.com/world/p/2011/0502/371338.html http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-05/02/c_13854992.htm

Since Pakistani forces made arrests at the house they should be included S Seagal (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, edit requests and change suggestions are accepted much more willingly when you aren't implying nefarious motives to other editors. Please keep the Good Faith wiki directive in mind. Secondly, calm your horses. This is a developing story, and we have multiple, conflicting accounts. Don't cry POV just because someone goes with a known reputable source instead of yours, until the dust has settled and we have a better idea of what happened. Coming in all guns blazing, making nasty comments about the rest of us is not a way to represent your point of view. Please try to be civil in your requests, and please exhibit some patience with current events articles.204.65.34.246 (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And as I already noted, the fact that the Pakistanis arrested people related to bin Laden does not mean that they were involved in the operation that killed bin Laden, it may be that they were tipped off by the departing Americans or it may merely be that they arrived there in response to the hubbub. Please be sure you are reading your source thoroughly and reporting it accurately. The two sources are actually the same report, which states that the Pakistanis arrested them in "a search operation", which almost certainly means it was not at the site and not a part of the American operation, but rather an attempt to track down whomever may have fled the compound or other locales after the fact. Abrazame (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Free good photo to add

- http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/in/photostream

- - - P050111PS-0210

- - President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. Please note: a classified document seen in this photograph has been obscured. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

- - This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

I've uploaded that to Wikimedia Commons at File:Obama and Biden await updates on bin Laden.jpg. Goodvac (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Added to story. jengod (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

POV-title? Huh?

I notice someone added a {{POV-title}} header to the article. I wonder if they'd be good enough to explain their reasoning for adding it. The article reads as reasonably well-rounded (for one that's only a couple of days old), balanced, and comprehensive as to the extant information. And there's certainly nothing non-neutral about the article title, is there? His name was Osama bin Laden and he died, and the article describes the circumstances of his death. Someone want to try and clarify this, please? Anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller? Bueller? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, there was some madness when the article started this morning, and then it got locked and people came here to contribute and its turned out okay - that confused me too Mwheatley1990 (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article was created on May 1st 9:08 EST for what it's worth. To see that in less than 24 hours, we have all this info, is a sight to behold. Iksnyrk (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede needs love

If someone has time, writing skillz and the power to temporarily lock the item, I think the now-five-graf-long lede of this article could use some more concise phrasing... jengod (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Title dispute

I don't consider the title "Death of Osama bin Laden" to be expressive of a neutral point of view. By using the passive voice, it de-emphasizes the fact that he didn't simply die, he was in fact killed. To talk about his "death" rather than his killing is to suggest that nobody actually actively killed him. A much more appropriate title might be "Assassination of Osama bin Laden", in line with other articles about the killing of influential figures. Owen (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above. But to reiterate, Assassination is a non inclusive term that means that the sole purpose of the mission was to kill (not capture) bin Laden. Death, on the other hand, is an inclusive term that adequately fulfills the neutral POV (even if or if not it was an assassination). Iksnyrk (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A sentence needs a verb to be passive voice. "Death of Osama bin Laden" does not have a verb in it. Troodon311 (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when were Wikipedia article titles required to be sentences? Fnordware (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I never said they were. I was just pointing out that the title does not use the passive voice as claimed by user Owen Troodon311 (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you see a passive verb in your writing, kill it. It was probably up to no good. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if it was just passing through? -- llywrch (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Sohaib Athar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sohaib Athar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sohaib Athar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How does that relate to this article? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

He's the guy who unwittingly live-tweeted the assault on bin Laden's estate. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) So...shouldn't that go on HIS article? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I put it here too because editors interested in OBL may not know about that page (it's brand new) and may be interested in the discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Reasonable thinking by Mu. Hopefully, that AfD will snow close quickly, and this can simply be deleted.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Date

Wait. did he die on May first or second?

We need to use UTC throughout this article to prevent this kind of confusion. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thus, UTC would be the 2nd. Around 1 in the morning, correct? Silverseren^C 00:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The operation commenced at 0300 local (Pakistani) time on May 2, but they're... *looking* ... five hours ahead of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). Washington is 4 hours behind UTC because of Daylight Savings Time. So by Pakistani time, bin Laden died May 2, but by Washington or London time, it was still May 1. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggested additions or changes to the article

• Infobox:

"Death of bin Laden" —> "Death of Osama bin Laden"

• Is it really necessary to include EST & PST timezone information, esp. in the lead, isn't it rather confusing? What makes EST & PST so special and noteworthy in this context? 178.41.75.206 (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, as I said above, most of the US is on daylight time...Smarkflea (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the "PST" reference is supposed to be PKT, for Pakistani time. It's completely illogical to reference a military operation in Pakistan to California time... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

NPV Needed for Last Paragraph of Lede

I think it would be best if we could balance out the pro-Geronimo reactions at the end of the lede, either by quoting a negative reaction or by providing the official reaction of the Pakistani government. There are two opposing quotes from Pakistan here. Adding them in would sound more like Wiki and less like CNN. I would do it myself but would want to hear discussion 1st.

Thanks

Dave
You can help!
02:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but one problem is that that would not actually balance it out, because throughout this event's articles a false contrast is being drawn between the overstatement about celebration on the one side to the absolute lack of acknowledgement of support from Middle-Eastern, African, South American and Asian quarters. It isn't as black and white as the U.S. and NATO threw a party and the Middle East wailed and moaned, even if that is what some are choosing to project.

Another problem is that we're not here to present pro- and anti- statements just for the heck of it, we're supposed to cover the notable positions. The international reactions section is primarily focused on official state responses, and the fact is that Pakistan's official response is not opposition to the American mission or the death of bin Laden, but support of them. That terrorist groups and nations in opposition to the U.S. in general decried their mission and its successful outcome is a given; we should note that, but they're hardly appropriate for the lead. Abrazame (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The woman who was killed in the compound

It now seems likely that the woman who was killed was the courier's wife rather than Bin Laden's wife: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BIN_LADEN?SITE=AZMES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT.--Lastexpofan (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

May 1st?

I mean, I don't know exactly when he was killed, but judging from the local time here (EST), I'm guessing he was killed in the early morning, so shouldn't it be the 2nd instead of the 1st? Bmecoli (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC) correct! thank you for pointing that out.

U.S. President Obama stated in the evening of May 1, 2011, that his death took place early in the morning, thus in the absence of concurrent or conflicting information, it can be extracted as May 1, 2011. This will likely be the date unless/until other news supports a different date/time. Cheers Dijcks | ^InOut 05:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ali Sikander, Al-Jazeera, was a witness to the attack and just said in an interview that it happened after 1:00 A.M. local time (C-SPAN). This makes May 2nd the official death date - and it's consistent with the POTUS' speech, too. Rklawton (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Time will tell. I realize a mistake could have been made, but it seems logical that if he (President) stated on May 1 in the evening that, "it happened in the morning", it would be logical also to assume that he meant the same morning and not a day in the future. Let's see. Dijcks | ^InOut 06:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there's a 10 hour time difference between Washington D.C. and Pakistan - and that there's going to be some time delay between authorization and bullet through brain. Rklawton (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Times should be reported local time. The article now starts in a very U.S.-centric way, which outside U.S. seems pretty funny. This should be fixed as soon as the time is actually known.

For issues of worldwide relevance, the time should be displayed as Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC), and when the event occurrs in a localised area possibly the addition of the local time in brackets afterwards. UTC remains the standard for time coordination across the globe; furthermore, EDT is a daylight-saving specific time zone. tl9380 2nd May 2011 1043 UTC.

Pakistan is UTC+5, Washington is UTC-4, since the US is using daylight saving time. So, Pakistan is 9, not 10, hours ahead of Washington. The incident happened at 1am local Pakistan time. This is 2000 UTC, not 1900 UTC, as incorrectly reported in the main article.Asbasb (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If we treated all deaths as UTC rather than local time we could end up changing a lot of people's death dates, and in some cases it might not be easy to establish the exact time of death. Bin Laden is of greater global significance than most, but it would be difficult to know where to draw the line e.g. the death of President Kennedy? PatGallacher (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This image has metadata saying it was taken at 2011:05:01 16:05:04. I don't know what time zone that is supposed to be. --Ysangkok (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Location

The 'net sez 34°08′46″N 73°13′01″E is the location of the compound. Here's a picture on Flickr of that building: [3] Abductive (reasoning) 06:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a photo of the police station, not the compound.

Google maps gives a location for PMA some distance to the Noth-West at 34° 10' 50.9298" N 73° 15' 0.507" E

Visual checking shows a classic military site together with helicopter landing pads - hence the location on the main page is wrong.

Are you talking about the site of bin Laden's compound or the helicopter crash? Also, make an account, and/or sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. Abductive (reasoning) 06:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

203.31.40.68 (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I'm talking about the location of the PMA. It stretches for some distance up the Kakul road - apparently on both sides. I was trying to identify an oversize compound in that region, but the military facilities make that difficult. (Oversize comes from news reports of US administration comments about the raids)

Well, let's confine our discussion to the location where bin Laden was living and where he was killed! Abductive (reasoning) 07:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OR. We shouldn't be using such sources - report what is stated by the media etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy, doing OR on the talk page is unpossible. This section is an attempt to centralize discussion of the location until reliable sources appear. But how will we know that they are reliable? By looking at maps and photos. Abductive (reasoning) 07:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So was he living in the police station, or living in the mansion? And was he killed in the police station, or killed in the mansion? The significance of the police station is not clear at all. Kevinmon•talk•trib 07:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Although the pic may not be of the correct building, there is some talk of the building being built on the site of an old police station. If you look around Abbottabad, nearly everything is a military or government site. The compound I point to is on the grounds of the Govt Girls Higher Secondary School, at least according to Wikimapia. This town of Abbottabad is like West Point, Colorado Springs, Los Alamos, and NORAD rolled into one. Abductive (reasoning) 07:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

203.31.40.68 (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Based on the present text in the main page "Karachi's Geo News described a helicopter crash and "heavy firing" on the evening of May 1 "near the PMA (Pakistan Military Academy) Kakul Road"" It seems possible that the actual compound location is not as indicated but closer to the PMA.

The crash site need not be near the mansion but simply en-route. Rklawton (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

203.31.40.68 (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Al Jazzera reports the compound was within a few hundred metres of the PMA

Someone has constructed what seems like a WP:OR image at File:Bin Laden 1.jpg. From that, I see the location as 34.187726,73.242548. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Folks on Wikimapia have zeroed in on 34°11′14″N 73°14′32″E as a potential location of the compound. That is the same location as mentioned by User:Marc Kupper above. Abductive (reasoning) 09:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[cricobr talking] At the moment there appear to be two places on Wikimapia which claim to be the compound: the more extravagant compound which which is currently identified in the article: 34°11′14″N 73°14′32″E, and the simpler, but also large, and more isolated compound at: 34°10′09″N 73°14′33″E. Just now I have found this image from the New York Times front page: [4] which I believe fits closer to the second of the two compounds. I believe the photo shows the compound as seen from the north. The roof lines and the protected terrace at the back fit with the satellite image. Notice also the steep hills behind the house; these hills fit with the steep hills which rise to the south of the house as seen on: [5] (map centred on the second compound). There is also an electricity pylon in the photo which may help in identification, though it does not seem to be identifiable on the satellite images. I propose that the location coordinate be altered to the second coord, as the more isolated, less ostentatious, house is the more probable hiding place, and fits better with the NYT photo.

Cricobr (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[cricobr talking] About 1.5 kms almost directly south of the second compound mentioned above is an electricity substation: [6]

Running north from that substation appears to be a line of pylons at approximately 300m intervals (the shadows at the following locations are virtually identical):

• pylon 1: [7]
• pylon 2: [8]
• pylon 3: [9]
• pylon 4: [10]; almost certainly the pylon in the NYT photo.
• pylon 5: [11]

If we are to trust the NYT photo the compound is almost certainly the second compound cited above. I will now change the coord in the article.

Cricobr (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I added a reference from the BBC for the location. "US forces kill Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan". BBC News. 2 May 2011.. shellac (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article currently talks about the compund being on an "imposing hilltop", but it's difficult to reconcile that with photos and aerials etc of the compound which seems to be increasingly accepted as the right one, which appears to be in flat valley bottom. (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/02/world/asia/abbottabad-map-of-where-osama-bin-laden-was-killed.html)66.134.170.155 (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Cricobr, good work on tracking down the power line pylons or towers.

The evidence for the second location, 34.169275,73.242588, seems much more reliable. The most telling thing to me were the piles of light colored dirt that I assume is ash from burning trash and that the Google imagery matches the illustration of the compound. This article about the compound says the source for the diagram is the U.S. military implying we could use it on Wikipedia if someone can confirm the source. another article says the CIA is the source for the image. The [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0502/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-How-the-US-found-him Christian Science monitor has one photo. Ideally there would be more photos of the area to confirm the location. Here is a blog post that seems to do a decent job of summarizing the evidence for the possible locations. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I found the exact location on Google Earth, it matches the outline shown on TV perfectly. 34° 10' 09.44" N 73° 14' 33.16" E --Subman758 (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, someone should change the bad location in the article. I can't because the article is semi-locked. Mugros (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Mugros, the location and coordinates in this and related articles have been correct since Cricobr did his outstanding analysis (above), confirmed by the diagram and maps by the New York Times, CNN, and BBC, and corrected the article at about 15:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC). The majority if not all of the early general public postings of locations on Google Maps (picked up by The Guardian and other outlets) had not been particularly close to the actual location.DLinth (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Mansion" is a misleading phrase to discuss the building in which the Bin Ladin raid occurred. "Compound" is a neutral word. As it was a residence that was heavily fortified "fortified house" is accurate. "Mansion" is filled with suppositions, which have no relevance, or accurate citation. The BBC story used as a citation, refers to it repeatedly as a "compound," the use of "Havili" is a local generalization of the residences in that district and have no direct relationship to the "compound" in question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.171.238 (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Assassination

Shouldn't this be at either:

• Assassination of Osama bin Laden or
• Osama bin Laden Assassination?

125.162.150.88 (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a military operation. Things happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ya, they've announced it. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of lower-casing the "a" on your second item, as per Manual of Style. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet I didn't post that, and so I've restored it. You're free to make your own suggestions, and be a good little editor and create the plausible redirects; both, please. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your IP is after it, so you "own" it. The one redirect already exists. There's no valid sourcing, so being a good li'l ol' wikipedia editor, I'm not creating the other one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

While it may fit the definition of an assassination, it hardly fits the profile of a standard assassination. "Death of" is probably also a much more accessible article title. Wing Dairu (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Assassination attempts on Osama bin Laden

125.162.150.88 (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, news reports have stated that they were performing a raid on a group of Al-Qaeda inside the compound, and his body was identified post-operation. Mwheatley1990 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a close parallel to how Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of Pearl Harbor, was dispatched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

ya, that's mentioned at Assassination#As military doctrine. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that calling it assassination implies that the Special Forces entering the building did not give him a chance to surrender. I'm not sure he deserved a chance to surrender, but it's hard to picture the military wouldn't have liked to interrogate him by any means still permitted to them. Wnt (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Until (or if) the full details become known, it's not necessarily an assassination, and besides which, the sources are not calling it that, as far as I know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Operation Vengeance

"Result: United States victory; Admiral Yamamoto killed" is in Category:Assassinations. We'll see what they have the sources say. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a peice on the BBC just now that had a congressman (i think head of the national security comittee) said that capture would have been preferable, but that he was ecstatic with the way it went; and I dont know the system well enough to know if he had any authority Mwheatley1990 (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say that unless the mission's EXPRESS PURPOSE was the killing of Osama bin Laden, it is not an assassination. Wing Dairu (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And even if it was purposeful, we have to go by sourcing. We can't just say "it was an assassination", the sources have to say that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

there are several sources that use the term. Decora (talk) 04:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Such as? I haven't seen any. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What, you haven't been glued to Hamas press releases the past 24 hours? This is the essence of the "balance" or NPOV problem at Wikipedia. In order to avoid an overly U.S.-centric viewpoint, when it was the U.S. who suffered the most under bin Laden's influence over terrorists, who led the war against him, and who planned and executed the mission to take him, we would give undue weight, titling privileges, and lead space, to Hamas. Abrazame (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Despite overrunning the Taliban and al-Qaeda positions they failed to capture or kill him." Thanks Captain Obvious. Wouldn't have known that if it wasn't in here... <sarcasm> tag just in case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.113.201.240 (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

CNN Live Blog

Please change this citation (currently #31) to Osama Death from Obama Death.

"Obama Death"? I am unsure where did you get that idea, but I do not think it's possible to change the citation without any viable source. 63.245.95.2 (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The citation for this link: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/02/obama-to-make-statment-tonight-subject-unknown/ Was incorrectly titled "CNN liveblog of Obama death". It's now been fixed.

Done. Please all editors watch out for editors writing "Obama" when they mean "Osama", this is the second one corrected by me alone so far. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually suspect 99.99% of them did mean Obama... Nil Einne (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fox News actually said "Obama" in their "breaking news" crawl last night. I'll leave it as an exercise for the student to figure out if it was a typo. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of specific details is questionable in this (and most) blogs. The USAF has not had MH-53 Pave Lows in its inventory (in any component) for three years. The only CSAR helicopter is the MH-60. The CV-22 replaced the MH-53 in the CSAR role.--Reedmalloy (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering about this myself, considering the Wikipedia entry on the MH-53 indicates the helicopter was retired in 2008.Biturica (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Built in 2005 (para 2 - main text)

Main text para 2 - the house was "built in 2005" according to Reuters - the BBC right now [12] have local residents saying it was built "about 10 years ago" - interesting because of course it would mean OBL was there for a long time. Also note in the BBC article that residents talk about "armour plated cars entering and leaving regularly" - now who could possibly drive in armour plated cars around an army town other than government officials, ISI, etc? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the security situation in Pakistan? Probably anyone rich enough to own one... Another interesting point. The house I live in is I think over 40-50 years old. Strangely enough, I'm not that old. Who knows what magic made that happened? Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume yours doesn't have a 7-ft high security barrier around it to allow a tall guy to walk in the grounds unobserved? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No but that isn't particularly common where I live and it's also not something I look for in a house. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I note that Google Earth shows no house at that location in 2001, and a house, but incomplete grounds (the western walled area, where garbage was burned off, not there) in 2005. DylanTusler (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Which infobox should be used?

Should we used {{operational plan}} or {{infobox military conflict}}? User:Themane2 kept on forcing the use {{infobox military conflict}}. I was told by several editors earlier that {{operational plan}} is better because this was not exactly a battle and there weren't clear "commanders" in this operation. Any thoughts?—Chris!_c/t 02:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell all of us the specifics of how they differ?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, {{infobox military conflict}} allows you to include more specific info about a battle like commanders, combatant, strength... {{operational plan}} does not.—Chris!_c/t 02:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Operational plan, without a doubt. Military conflict implies a military operating against another military or state; this was not that. Abrazame (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree the operation box is more appropriate than the battle box. Cla68 (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Prodego ^talk 05:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Human shield misinformation

State department has since clarified that neither UBL, nor any other household occupant, used a woman/wife as a human shield. This seems like clear misinformation meant to tarnish a reputation, and should be removed in line with NPOV. 98.237.115.154 (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you got a reference that we can use? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The 9:10 PM update at [13] says the reports of using a human shield are inaccurate, but that's the only reference I can find. I'd suggest waiting for more sources to confirm, especially as the source in that article is anonymous. 184.56.92.166 (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How is it possible to "tarnish the reputation" of a man personally responsible for thousands of murders? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV means nothing if it only applies to a commitment to be neutral about people we do not find distasteful. Shall we say that Saddam Hussein was a closeted homosexual, or that Stalin's pathology report showed that he lacked testes? UBL did not use a human shield, yet we are going to perpetuate the misinformation that says he used his wife as a human shield? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.115.154 (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't say that no women were used as human shields, but states clearly that ObL didn't use one. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8489658/Osama-bin-Laden-was-not-armed-and-did-not-use-wife-as-human-shield.html Ketil (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is another article in The Telegraph from yesterday: Osama bin Laden killed cowering behind his 'human shield' wife With today's retraction the first story can definitely be called misinformation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

USAToday also clarifying the situation,[14] but the "tarnishing his reputation" stuff posted by the OP is hilarious. The article should reflect current sourcing, for the purpose of accuracy, not for preventing "tarnishing the reputation" of a mass murderer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Great job

It's barely one day into this article and it looks really smooth. Thanks to every contributor for making Wikipedia look so good. —  AjaxSmack  03:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph of "Locating Osama Bin Laden" a complete train wreck at time of writing. It's so poor I can't work out what was meant in the first place to make a copy edit. How can the contributors involved have left in that state? FightingMac (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Abbottābad vs Abbottabad

Why does this article use "Abbottābad" when the article is at Abbottabad? "Abbottābad" isn't even listed as an alternate spelling in the Abbottābad article. --JaGa^talk 06:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Abbottābad, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan is how it appears on Google Maps. jengod (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Then the article name should change, but this is the en-WP, so surely it should be the conventional en spelling? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of diacritics can be controversial, see the talk page of WikiProject Vietnam. It should be up to Wikiprojects relating to various countries/languages to establish best practice. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Consistence, use same name as city naming here in Wikipedia: Abbottabad. --Kslotte (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fork or rename?

Parts of this article are getting so detailed it might be worth considering a fork to a separate for some of the material, i.e. details on the hunt and the raid. jengod (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a fork for Operation Geronimo is in order -- Iksnyrk (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur. The information for the military operation is overrunning everything else. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there information

Why the SEALs were given vs other Special Forces?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, 'Special Forces' is a particular type of Army personnel. Special Operations Forces (or SOF) is the more correct term. And why the SEALs? Heck, why not?

This page should cut-and-paste moved?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

Closed there is already a move discussion open. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden → Death of Osama bin Laden/edits 1 –

• And cut-and-paste move back to name Death of Osama bin Laden? Cut-and-paste moving a page is normally considered a Bad Thing: see Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. But since the first news of the death, the page Death of Osama bin Laden has already had over 1700 edits, and at that rate, before the current edit rush slackens off about such a major and controversial event, it may well get near or past the danger limit of about 5000 edits in one page's history where temporarily deleting (e.g. for a history-merge or a history-split) or moving needs a special permission which I as an ordinary admin have not got, as moving or deleting a very long edit history used to sometimes make Wikipedia's system jam: see the incident with the page Apple (refs:Talk:Apple/Archive 2#Old cut-and-paste moves affecting this page and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 44#Page deletion revision limit). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You know far more about such things than I do, but it seems that this page is only likely to need a move or histmerge a few times in future, at most. In such cases I imagine it wouldn't be that hard to find a steward to perform the job. I think it would be nicer to keep all the history in one place. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• {ec}*We can ask a STEWARD to move or delete if needed. At this point there is no need. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Add to Google Earth?

I would like to suggest adding the coordinates of the bin Laden compound to Google Earth, so that this article appears in that application.
I have seen how to do this at this wikihow article but don't know whether this is a common practice, and also don't have the experience to do this myself.
DylanTusler (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This has already been done. The {{coord}} template was added to the article yesterday, but it may take weeks for Google to update its index. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction about drones

• The U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, using drone-derived intelligence, developed "what amounted to a detailed four-dimensional 'map' of the bin Laden compound and its occupants and their patterns of living and working."
• Deploying drones was apparently not a feasible approach, in part because the compound's location was "within the Pakistan air defense intercept zone for the national capital

Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The second one seems silly, you'd think the risk was much higher of sending in helicopters. My guess is that they either wanted to be sure they got their man, or that they actually did try to capture him. Blowing the house up from above wouldn't do, and as the house was pretty large, I'm not sure one hellfire would be enough. Ketil (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama wanted eyeball confirmation.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I see what Socrates2008 is saying: why if drones would get spotted on radar, shot out of the sky, and spook bin Laden out of there during a bombing mission would they not be so discovered and destroyed and the rest in prior intel-gathering missions? My guess is that camera-only drones are smaller and lighter and perhaps even faster than those heavy enough to carry the bombs. My guess isn't good enough to go on, but it was the sources that said what the article reports, and your guess that they contradict, I'm just offering a possible explanation of how both could be correct. Abrazame (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Surveillance drones such as the Global Hawk are not necessarily smaller or lighter that drones capable of deploying munitions like the MQ-9 Reaper. Drones aren't also the only reconnaissance platforms either (see Key Hole) and it's not like the Pakistani Air Defense network can stop those from functioning in orbit. The decision to execute a hard raid rather than an airstrike suggests economy of force was highest in consideration, especially since using JDAMs in a residential neighbourhood close to Islamabad is bad form. The Wired magazine article is questionable in some of its assertions, but until more verifiable material is released, any word on the motivation behind why the White House chose a hard raid as far as anyone not directly involved in planning and execution speaking of it is conjecture. Jun Kayama (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.218.224.53, 3 May 2011

The article states that bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed. It cites an article from the guardian as support for this statement. The article contains no information that supports this proposition. As a result, particularly because the statement is somewhat inflammatory, proper sourcing should be found or that sentence should be deleted entirely.

Additionally, other accounts, including the official account, state that bin Laden "resisted" the SEALs. What this means is unclear, and so it is possible that he could have been armed.

Either way, this should be dealt with.

98.218.224.53 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Here's the relevant sentence from the source: As the raiding party closed in on the last unsecured room in the compound, Bin Laden, who according to the White House had no weapon, was shot dead.. Make sense? --John (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• If bin Laden was unarmed, in what way did he resist arrest? Biscuittin (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not require the possession or use of weapons to resist arrest. Furthermore, this was a military operation, not apprehension of a fugitive by law enforcement, so the whole notion of arrest as related to this incident is entirely misplaced. Jun Kayama (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cause of helicopter loss

I see we currently state that the helicopter was lost as a result of a stall. The Guardian has it that it was fired on by RPG before the crash. It seems there is some doubt over the cause; could the article reflect this? --John (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hardly strong enough evidence to merit a mention, I think. The article does not source the origin RPG claim, nor does it even state that the RPG struck the helicopter. In contrast, almost every other account of the engagement goes with the version put out by the U.S. - the copter stalled and landed safely. We should stick with that unless more sources pick up the RPG meme. Ronnotel (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Helicopters don't "stall". They can encounter a phenomenon called "settling with power", or "vortex ring state", in which they settle in their own downwash, but with an experienced pilot this is extremely unlikely. It actually takes some doing to enter this state, i.e., descending nearly vertically, then applying progressively more collective pitch and power in an attempt to arrest the rate of descent. In most cases all that is needed to escape the vortex ring is apply lateral cyclic and fly out of the vortex ring into still air. Density altitude may have been a factor, as Abbottabad is at 1,260 m above sea level. News reports so far suggest the U.S. military is unsure of the reason the machine crashed. It could have been mechanical failure. —Quicksilver^{T @} 22:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There was something said about the wall interfering with the operation of the chopper, but that sounded like a mere hypothesis. They were concerned with the mission and didn't really have time to get out the wrenches and try to fix the thing. If they're allowed back in the reclaim it, then maybe they'll be able to figure it out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate refs

Can somebody screen the article for duplicate refs? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   → To be or not to be? 18:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious error message

I am seeing a mysterious error message: ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named secretteam; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

Me and User:Geniice have checked the page but couldn't see any glaring errors. If anybody can fix it, please do! Also do tell how this is fixed as this error have eluded me for minutes! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   → Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It means a reference titled "secretteam" was removed from the page, but another shortcut reference tag is calling for the now missing reference. If someone can find it, it can be readded. Often, a bot that patrols for orphaned links may salvage it from an old revision. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How many helicopters actually used

The raid was carried out by 20 to 25 helicopter-borne United States Navy SEALs from the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU) under the command of the Joint Special Operations Command, led by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). According to The New York Times, "79 commandos and a dog were involved."[64] Additional personnel on the mission included "tactical signals, intelligence collectors, and navigators using highly classified hyperspectral imagers."[32]

mentions 20-25

but the below sentence says 4

The SEALs flew from Afghanistan to Tarbela Ghazi Airbase in northwest Pakistan.[65] The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, a U.S. Army airborne special operations unit nicknamed the "Night Stalkers," provided four modified Black Hawk helicopters, two of which were intended to be backups.[56][60][32][66] The raid was scheduled for a time with little moon luminosity so the helicopters could enter Pakistan "low to the ground and undetected."[67]

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   → For the people, of the people, by the people 20:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph says 20 to 25 SEALs, not 20-25 helicopters. Kevin (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

20-25 SEALs used, not helicopters. 20-25 helicopters would be ridiculous. Side note, did the SEALs arrive in one helicopter, or 2? I know one stalled and they put her down, but was there another dropping the SEALs off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.86.147 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

4 choppers, as noted in the quoted segment above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As for the side note: Given 20-25 personnel it requires a minimum of two MH-60s to transport that number. Unless stated otherwise, it should be considered the load plan for the chalk had only two birds loaded, with the other two providing overwatch. Jun Kayama (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Leaked autopsy photos

Can anyone verify if there is in fact a leaked autopsy photo, and if so post it? It would be public domain as a work by a US government employee. There have been several going around and noone seems able to verify whether they are legitimate of fake. Somedaypilot (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any leaked autopsy photo and all "leaked" works are very suspecious since they are hard to be verified as true --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   → Shake 'n Bake 20:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No photos have been released yet, but one is likely to be released soon. We'll know when an authentic photo is released and we will add it, no matter how gruesome it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

They have to weigh the appeasing of conspiracists vs. the likelihood of it energizing the enemy - a factor the typical conspiracist is too stupid to consider, or to even think about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a year old Photoshopped photo out there, but it's obviously bogus and predates the events described in this article. Rklawton (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently 2 years old. Yeh, they took a stock news photo of OBL and another picture and blended them together with all the deftness of a kindergartner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of death

Shouldn't Osama's date of death be listed as May 1 as he was actually killed that date? *duplicate message asked at Osama bin Laden --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Gotta catch 'em all! 21:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

He was killed on May 2 local time. This has been discussed already, over and over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/BB. Agree w/BB. Agree w/BB.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Kudos! Article praised on NPR

This article was praised to the skies on NPR this morning. Here's a transcript. Everyone who worked on it should be proud, you pwnd twitter! ;-) And whoever knows which template to use to say "this article was mentioned in the news by ..." should probably put that up at the top of this (talk) page, too. Good on you, everyone!  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was in a blog so I don't know if that counts. Here is the template if it does (feel free to modify of course)BurtAlert (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Added quote and expanded some parameters. Goodvac (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also added at Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2011. Congratulations to all editors! -SusanLesch (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved it up to the top of the page. Great job everyone! BurtAlert (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi. This article is not titled Operation Geronimo. With all due respect to the Navy SEALs it concerns a previous attempt on Bin Laden's life, and it concerns him, a human being. So until the government releases video of his death or burial at sea, please leave a picture of this person up top. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should use OBL's picture at top. And when we get a photo of him dead, we should should replace it with that. Rklawton (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

India told US about Osama's likely presence close to Islamabad

I think this piece of information does belong somewhere in the article. But I'm not sure where?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-had-twice-told-US-about-Osamas-likely-presence-close-to-Islamabad/articleshow/8156230.cms

NEW DELHI: It now turns out that Indian agencies had twice warned their US counterparts about the presence of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden in an urbanized and heavily populated area not very far from Islamabad – once in mid-2007 and again in early 2008 when they specifically mentioned his likely presence in a cantonment area. -Abhishikt 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

2007, eh? By an amazing coincidence, 2007 is when Pakistan's government floated the idea that OBL was likely dead. This belongs on the conspiracy theory page as a counter to that nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

People keep adding the "military conflict" infobox for Operation Geronimo. Consensus so far on this page has been that the "military/civil operation" infobox is more appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Operation Geronimo should be separated out of this article

Operation Geronimo should be separated out of this article. A large amount of information is beginning to come out about the military operation, and it's only going to increase over the next few days. The section on the operation is already to the point where it is too much to comfortably fit into this article. Also, the fact that this article has 2 infoboxes is even more evidence that the military operation needs its own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If Operation Geronimo was the operation to kill or capture bin Laden, your proposal would create one helluva redundancy. Why would we need two articles for the death of bin Laden? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Operation Geronimo

Just a note to everyone. Someone start a split discussion on Talk:Operation Geronimo. I have no idea why the discussion is there instead of here.—Chris!_c/t 03:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the same discussion is already at Talk:Death of Osama bin Laden#Fork of Operation Geronimo section.—Chris!_c/t 03:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the same person who proposed it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That was me. Someone keeps taking down the discuss template on this page, so the discussion really hasn't been going. But either way, I think it's best to wait until we can confirm the correct operational name -- Iksnyrk (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

Please discuss your reservations on conspiracy theory here. The section which I have added is well cited from major news outlets including Reuters, Wall Street Journal, and Guardian. Jalal0 (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the section which I have added.

Bin Laden Sea Burial Conspiracy

Many have questioned the wisdom behind immediate burial of Bin Laden in a ocean. Ocean burial is rare in Islamic Fiqh, and only carried out in exceptional circumstances. The fear of Bin Laden land burial being marked is irrational as well, since the Wahhabi/Salafi tradition rejects burial in marked grave. Even Saudi kings are buried in unmarked graves. This has fueled fear of conspiracy theory regarding the factual death of Bin Laden. In addition, the immediate burial at sea has also been question, the 24-hour rule has not always been applied by the US in the past. For example, the bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein – sons of the Iraqi dictator – were held for 11 days before being released for burial. People in Egypt have even argued that Bin Laden died long time ago, and the current death rehearsal is gain political gains, such as Obama re-election and US exit from Afghanistan. In addition, no video footage of a dead Bin Laden has been made publicly available. And the only picture released of his mutilated face has inconsistencies, there was odd pixilation and blurring and his face was darker in some areas than others. And according to Reuters technical analysis, the picture is in fact fake. MSNBC technical analysis gives a verdict of the photo being fake.

A good deal of it is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I've reformatted the section into a collapsable table. The section itself should not be included, it relies largely on original research, adds undue weight to the article, is full of weasel words and is mainly filled with speculation. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, undue weight. And typically off-the-wall conspiracy theorist logic. Doing this now won't help Obama win re-election. The right time to do it would have been 2-3 days before election day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I wont buy the argument that it is an original research, as the article has been cited. How about we wait for more verdicts from other users and moderators to flow in before we make a final verdict whether to keep or discard this section? Thanks too. Jalal0 (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not wikipedia's place or purpose to advance conspiracy theories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What sea is there in Afghanistan? USchick (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Who said the burial was in Afhanistan? They might well have dumped it into the Indian Ocean. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the news stories he was taken to Afghanistan and buried at sea. USchick (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The operative word there is "and". They probably whisked him out of Pakistan ASAP, took DNA samples or whatever, then flew the corpse over the Indian ocean and dumped him like a barge from New York dumping garbage into the Atlantic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the "help re-election" nonsense, the picture was not "released", it was cooked up by somebody on the internet. Some creative sort took a stock photo of bin Laden and tinkered with it.[15] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Maybe this section should be titled "Controversy" instead of Conspiracy theory. Questioning the wisdom of some of the decisions is not a conspiracy, and the sources are sighted and represent neutrality. USchick (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you strip away the conspiracy theorist part of it, there won't be much left. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no controversy. Just some rogue nutcases. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the "controversy" is simply unanswered questions. Some have been answered since the announcement, and I expect more answers are forthcoming. Considering they kept this operation a secret since last August or so, there may well be some more behind-the-scenes work to be completed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There will always be controversy surrounding high profile cases, so there should be a section simply for neutrality. Another controversy is that the Pakistani government did not know about such a large building in the middle of their training area. USchick (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly an oddity. The suggestion is that Pakistan was, in fact, engaged in hiding bin Laden. My guess is that they've tried to play it both ways. By being left out of the loop on this mission, they can whine and moan about the US having breached their sovereignty, etc., etc., while secretly breathing a sigh of relief that the son-of-a-[witch] is dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is true they buried him at sea – given the short time frame – they most likely dumped him of a helicopter. I do not know if this meets the requirements for ocean burial in Islamic Fiqh. I would guess burial at sea would require being lowered from a ship. Do we know the name of a ship? Somehow this reminds me of how the Argentine junta handled its political opponents: burial at see – while still alive. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Supposedly Islamic rules prescribe putting him in a clay pot or something, to make him sink quickly (maybe they brought some ex-Mafiosi in as consultants). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not generally one for conspiracies, but the immediate disposing of bin Laden's body does strike me as odd. There are skeptical people quoted in reliable sources, so that skepticism is worthy of mention.[16][17] The strangest part is that there has been no photographic proof offered.[18] When Saddam was captured, the first news reports included a photo of him.[19] If the US had the time to conduct a DNA test and a proper Islamic burial, surely they had time to take photographs. The longer it takes for those photographs to appear, the more suspicious it seems. Fnordware (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This source says the burial happened on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson in the North Arabian Sea at 2 a.m. Washington time.

• Osama Bin Laden: Navy SEALS Operation Details of Raid That Killed 9/11 Al Qaeda Leader

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment on conspiracies and controversies

I think that in order to maintain NPV we need to have a Controversy section, in which controversial topics are placed (and possibly later deleted) as they come to light (or potentially put to rest). I would not object to a subtopic on conspiracy if:

1. it is well cited, and
2. the conspiracy being reported is one that has been reported elsewhere and not OR, or an original conspiracy theory which I suspect is probably as banned as OR on WP.

Peace, Dave
You can help!
00:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Taken literally "Conspiracy" "Theory" - is not a POV problem. It is a statement of fact - that some believe (have a theory) that the government has conspired to lie to the world. Therefore, calling something a "conspiracy theory" is entirely appropriate when it involves such an idea. And if/when a theory is proven, we change the name to "conspiracy". So no, labeling something a "conspiracy theory" is not a POV problem - it's just a statement of fact. Rklawton (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, per my edit, it's the way the reliable source already being used for the section characterized the phenomenon; as in, this isn't news because it's valid, it's news because it's ridiculous, and it's in that capacity (if any) that this is relevant to this article. Abrazame (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when do we publish conspiracy theories here? O_O Oh, never mind.... We need them to be from RSs though at least. None from sites like that welfare state one. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

SEALs not "soldiers"

We need to make sure the SEALs are not also called "soldiers" on this page. Soldiers are only in the Army just as Sailors are in the Navy, airmen in the USAF, etc. TexianPolitico (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just checked the definition of "soldier" in the Oxford English Dictionary: "soldier [...] 1. one who serves in an army for pay; one who takes part in military service or warfare; spec. one of ordinary rank and file; private". The second part of that definition, "one who takes part in military service or warfare" is the one relevant to the point you make. If there are others who agree that the word "soldier" should be avoided in favor of another term, I can sympathize, but your statement that soldiers "are only in the Army" is false by the above definition. I propose to maintain the term for now. 82.176.209.52 (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

TexianPolitico is correct. SEALs are sailors, not soldiers, implicitly by their service, explicitly by JSOC, by custom within the military community, and by courtesy at their request. Calling them "soldiers" is as incorrect as calling members of an Army SF A-Team "sailors". TreacherousWays (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because soldiers might not be sailors doesn't mean that sailors can't be soldiers. The generic use of the word should be correct. 75.95.47.110 (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Generic use of the term soldier without regard to the service branch of the personnel involved is incorrect as far as military correspondence in the Armed Forces of the United States is concerned. Without even considering the whole capitalization nonsense started back in 1994, a statement such as Soldiers killed Bin Laden indicates to those who versed with military correspondence that it was an Army operation on the ground, when such is not the case. Asking for respect to protocol improves clarity for those who require it. Jun Kayama (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Whilst soldier is correct in a dictionary context, this is an encylopedia - "SEALs" is more correct, unambiguous and is no longer or more unwieldy a word to use, so should be used throughout. Jellyfish dave (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How are the sources calling them? Also, I think that most people have heard of them. You could also say commandos I guess, which is even more widely known. Call them Navy SEAL commandos (with a wikilink over Navy SEAL). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Uncited "The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip condemned the killing of a "Muslim and Arab warrior".

Can someone please add a link or ref for the following: The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip condemned the killing of a "Muslim and Arab warrior". or remove it. I could not find any mainstream source of this statement.

Thanks

It's not hard to find though. [20], [21] (comes with a video), [22] and [23] to name a few. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result: "Support for the fork is almost unanimous" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden --> Death of Osama bin Laden

This is an unnecessary content fork. It is a part of the "Aftermath" and should be in that section, rather than its own page. Most quotes will be nearly identical, and can be summed up without being included at length. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep separate article this article already has 62 citations and far more information than could be reasonably accommodated in the Death of Osama bin Laden article. {Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 16:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge back in — The number of citations doesn't really matter (it's the prose that matters). I highly doubt that the reaction should have been split out, and would argue that the reaction is not itself notable. In either case, to create a truly encyclopedic article on OBL's death, the reaction should be here and not there. --Izno (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: This article already has more than 60 sources and will likely be over 100 in the near future. This provides an opportunity to provide more in-depth coverage of the various reaction, both domestic and international. The main article (Death of Osama bin Laden) will be too long with this information included. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

60 sources is really not that many, not enough to justify a content fork. Right now, this article is under 24K and the "Reactions" article is under 35K. That is not onerous at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Simple reason, the articles are long, and will get longer over the coming days as the news develop. So its better to split the articles into smaller meaningful sections. Jalal0 (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that editors Tugrulirmak, Jalal0, and Rklawton also approved with the split in an above discussion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't mean they were right. Per WP:SPLIT articles don't have to be split when they reach 60K in prose only, not counting references. These two articles combined are under 60K WITH references, many of which are surely duplicated, so the merged size of this article might be around 50K including references. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not listing their names to claim their opinions were right. I was just making sure that all opinions were taken into consideration and directing contributors to the discussion above. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - while it may not be onerous at present, bin Laden hasn't been dead a day yet. It's obvious that both articles will continue to grow considerably. Rklawton (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Reactions" articles are generally pretty run of the mill. They should be kept short and sweet. The fact that this article will grow is certain, but that doesn't mean the reactions section should grow at all from what it is now. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a run-of-the-mill event. Reactions will vary and will likely comprise globally reported events (riots, acts of terror, and so on). Rklawton (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right that it's not a run of the mill event. That's why the death deserves its own page. But the reactions to the death? That's pretty run of the mill and WP:ROUTINE. EVERYBODY will be flocking to a microphone to make their statement. Do you suggest every single one of them is notable? This page should summarize the tone and tenor of them, that's all. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The reaction section in this article is very shallow. It represents the view of some government officials from some countries. In the specilised article we can give room to detailed quotes from even ministirial figures which would give the reader a wider perception to the whole event.Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an argument for expanding the section here, not keeping a separate article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

But we don't need "detailed quotes from even minstirial [sp] figures". That falls under routine coverage and not every comment about his death is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep topic is not a content fork at all and describing it as such is a misuse of the term. This is a well-justified detail page for a topic that is getting a tremendous amount of attention and reportage. Ronnotel (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I think there is more than enough information to justify a separate article on the reaction. I agree with Rklawton that there will likely be much more to add soon. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Definitely different Articles becauseone is not likely to change while the other may end up having more details. So, different articles, at least until all details are released for Death of Osama bin Laden.

• For reference of a similar discussion, please see Talk:2011_Tucson_shooting/Archive_1#Merger_of_Reactions_to_shooting_of_Gabrielle_Giffords. A "reactions" article was split out of 2011 Tucson shooting and it was merged back in. Same main points apply here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from but we must appreciate that this is a global event with a wider global audience all of whom will give different reactions to this. For example the Yemni government may say that they support the operation where as the Yemini opposition will most likely say they dont. This is my oppinion any way, we need to give merit to a global event.Tugrulirmak (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said at that pages' talk page, scale of local vs. global isn't enough to make this different. According to size guidelines, the article shouldn't be split. If it really gets that long and it's all worthy info to include, I'd support a split. At this time, it's not appropriate. I'm really surprised by the number of keep votes here, but I want to point out that most of those arguments are against policy. These articles should be merged, and if it's really warranted to split them, it'll happen in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I concur with Jalal0 and Rklawton. The reactions clearly deserve its own article. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 16:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, for now. This is a developing story, & putting reactions into its own article will help manage the flood of information on this event. A year from now, when we all have some perspective, a merge proposal might prove to be appropriate. -- llywrch (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge back in — The presidential speech and reactions from US citizenry and politicans should be merged back into the original as they are imperative to the understanding the importance of the Death of Osama bin Laden Iksnyrk (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, these reactions are imperative. The main Death article should contain information about the speech and reactions from US citizens and politicians, preferably as a summary of the more detailed information that appears on the Reaction article... --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I withdraw my support for Merge now, and would like to *Keep it now. The presidential address and us reactions are now included in the article. I propose we remove the merge tag too as the consensus is leaning towards keep. --Iksnyrk (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• SHELF IT FOR NOW: I thought the same thing, to merge, but maybe we should shelf it for a week or so and see where this goes. We can focus on adding content instead of trying to decide where the content will end up. Eventually it will become clear as the "news/editorial" aspect of the text is adjusted in to encyclopedic syntax. This takes time, especially when there is a lot of editorial and embellished content being added in the heat of getting it to "press"! Dijcks | ^InOut 17:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Let us focus on expansion of both articles for now. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep or split Although it is similar to the death article. It is its own article. Besides, it we merge it to the Death of Bin Laden article, it will be too long and would have to be split anyway. IF we did split it, it could be a international reaction page and keep the US and Pakistan reaction in the death article Nhajivandi (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The reply from U.S. officials and president and Pakistani should be merged back in as it shows why the event is significant and gives a dimension to the domestic reaction of a unilateral mission and to a mission preformed on their soil. But the international reactions should stay put on the forked article.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with this. Please keep the US reactions on the main page. It's imperative to understanding the importance of the Death of Osama bin Laden Iksnyrk (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Re-merge This material should not have been separated from the main article as the size of the combined prose was not at all onerous. Comments here that the article "will grow" are jumping the gun and editors cannot predict how much bigger the Reactions section may grow. In fact, it is arguable that the main wave of initial reaction is already largely spent and well accounted for. How many reactions is it necessary to record? How notable is every reaction already recorded, and should the list, indeed, be trimmed, since there is a good deal of overlap anyway, with nations stating broadly similiar and not very notable sentiments? Nations will not continue to state reactions indefinitely and most have been voiced already. This fork should not have been created in the first place. — O'Dea (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

THIS is exactly on the money. I'm shocked by the overwhelming tally for keep, but thankful that a tally isn't what determines the result of these discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep If this article were to be merged, then it would be too long and too difficult to read so it is best to not merge it. 63.245.95.2 (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for now There is no hurry to do anything here I would wait a week per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep "Reaction" sections are little more than coatracks for quotefarms. Very little of value is said, and it takes up a lot of space. I'm glad to see it in its own article. --JaGa^talk 17:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

But by your logic, it's not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia at all. Why is it appropriate in one large quotefarm of an article? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the status quo at least keeps that quotefarm from overwhelming what's important in this article. If you could get the article whittled down to a handful of paragraphs, then I would support a merge. Not before. --JaGa^talk 17:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's too stringent as far as length is concerned. There's nothing wrong with the length of the article as it stands, if a whittled down version of "reactions" were to be merged. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think the reaction article doesn't need downsizing, then it's large enough to stand on its own. There's no need to merge it here to make a huge article. --JaGa^talk 05:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Merge Unnecessary copy paste article.--RaptorHunter (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge back in It will (or should) eventually get merged back in anyway so might as well get on with it. The article is not long and the reaction section should be edited to our usual high wikistandards to ensure brevity and context. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is not long, it will be if merged, making editing hard due to lagging when performing edits. 63.245.95.2 (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and summarize It's a good compromise between deleting most of it, and leaving it in to clog up the article. A summary of one or two paragraphs should be added to the article though, since some reactions are indeed notable (e.g. Iran stood out). Lampman (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge, for the moment. Keep, at this point in time. I think that it is a matter of size. When the "Death of Osama bin Laden" page (with the reactions) exceeds 100K, it makes sense to have a separate reactions page, and that approach accords with our approach on similar articles. When the "Death of Osama bin Laden" (with the reactions) is shorter than 100K, it makes sense to have them as one page. As they are each 36K at the moment, merger would be in order ... but once it increases to 100K, splitting would be in order.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

At this point, separate articles makes sense, as the size of the two articles together has increased to over 100K.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep for now and consider a merge when things calm down. The danger is you'll end up with something too Amerocentric in the main article, That's OK for now, but it will have to be more balanced eventually. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge, both articles are not that long. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep they've been expanded. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep even if merged together at a later time. Things are moving too quickly to try to merge them now. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. As per some other comments above, let's more time (1-2 weeks) so these articles can mature before we decide on how to best proceed.»NMajdan·talk 18:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep quite a significant event that will elicit a lot of reaction around the known world. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: the reactions page seems significant enough for now, and honestly *will* grow as this is still a developing situation. --Brandon (TehBrandon) (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Article is well sourced, and very well written. Will just keep getting bigger. ℥^nding·start 22:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Both of the articles are long enough to exist separately. -Abhishikt 22:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• So I'm watching the Yankees-Tigers game, and the beat writers got statements from Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, Mariano Rivera, and others, about their reactions to the death of bin Laden. Like I said, EVERYONE will have a chance to say their peace. That doesn't make their statements worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge: Wikipedia is not a compendium of quotes; that's Wikiquote. The prose on its own doesn't warrant its own article. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: We have enough simultaneous edits without having to compete with all the people who want to get their country's reaction in print. Keep a few major comments and link to the reaction page. Once the dust settles we can consider a merge but not now while it's still hot.
• Merge NOT WIKIQUOTE. 'nuff said. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:48am • 01:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep With a caveat. Since the death of Osama is broken down into two parts: the operation in which he was killed, and the reactions afterwards, this page is either lacking, or misnamed. Since we have another article on the reactions to the death of bin Laden, my thought is that it should either be merged with that (thus making it fully encompass the death of Osama bin Laden) or renamed to the official name of the operation (thus being a more accurate description of the article). That being said, I wouldn't say to do anything with it right now. Let's let things die down a bit, and take a look at this again in a couple of days. Homo Logica (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Both are long enough and well-sourced to keep as separate articles. Jgera5 (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep As merging it will make the article too long and cluttered. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep pending future review The best way to go about major stories like this is to work on them separately because they are essentially about different things. Let them both develop at their own rate and then when the frenzy has subsided, it can be revisited as to whether a separate article is necessary or not. Otherwise, valuable data can be squelched in the name of preventing inessential material from blowing a section out of proportion. Balance and redundancy and overstatement and misstatement et al hopefully gets fixed; and the small section of one article that is covered at the other gets to evolve somewhat independently, too, even though there is usually cross-pollenation. Abrazame (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Trim and merge The reaction article is too long and, IMO, contains too many quotes -- far more than we've had for any other event, to my knowledge. Trim the reactions, leaving the most notable and news-worthy ones. Replace a good chunk of them with an overview stating something along the lines of "his death was received favorably by the governments of many nations, including...", then merge it into the main article. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Don't trim until it's determined which statements are merely redundant iterations of generic statements and which are state-specific or particularly telling. Favorably and unfavorably is precisely the sort of partying vs. mourning black-and-white contrast we need to avoid. I suppose you haven't seen International reactions to the 2011 Egyptian revolution. People tend to work with what they have, and if a statement has some bland, generic thumbs-up or thumbs-down, they don't investigate if something more relevant was said. Err on the side of too much on-point and well-sourced material at first, and then determine what to pare back once the article has stopped growing. Abrazame (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep for now The story is barely developed and is likely to keep receiving a flood of new messages in the coming days and weeks. What's the rush? It can always be merged after traffic has slowed if needed, and then can be much more easily refined. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 03:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for now Both are full, good articles at the moment and I don't see the need to rush to merge them this quickly. - Uhai (talk · contribs) 04:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Too detailed to merge.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep separate articles - There was a reason to separate the subjects to begin with. "Reactions" was getting too big and going in its own direction. Alandeus (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• comment this article is already over 80K and is almost too big already, and should perhaps be split further. On the use side Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden got 75000 page views yesterday[24] compared with this article's 832000 page views[25] and over 4 million on Osama bin Laden. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I keep telling people to read WP:SPLIT. 80K including references is not long enough to justify a split, not by a longshot. Let it get to 100-120K of PROSE (ie., not including references) before you talk about splitting this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Isn't it a stupid idea to put an article like this up for merge, I think so. The article is most defintely notable, and will, without doubt, expand. mauchoeagle _(c) 21:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for now - I would normally say merge but these two articles are expanding faster than the universe right now, when it dies down and the news ages we can revisit this. Most of each article is copy/paste from news sources and such, it will be easy to summarize but only when the edits calm down. DesertPhox (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Close as no merge There is currently an almost full no merge consensus here, I feel this should be closed now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge unnecessary content fork - Wikipedia is not a directory to include every possible piece of news. Hekerui (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep the articles as separate, if only for the sheer size of the article to be merged. As of now, the article is almost 70 KiB in size, and it is more likely to grow even more in the future. Furthermore, its contents are comprised mostly of a long list of reactions by countries, supranational organizations, and even such dubious entities as the "Libyan rebel pack", so merging it would make the resulting article too unwieldy. Indeed, one may think that there may be a lot of junk in the list, but in trying to downsize it, you would find that the whole list looks more or less the same, so it should go... but where, in order to avoid such a loss of work and information? (Sorry, I admit that as an inclusionist, I am biased in this judgment.) Should the list then be forked into another article, especially when, as stated above, the long list represents most of the contents of the article? I believe that there is nothing wrong in principle with pages consisting mostly of a long list, in fact, we have plenty of such articles, precisely to make browsing and page loading and navigation easier. No, keep only a very short summary here, reduce it as much as possible (to avoid the accusations of content forking) and put the rest with details into a separate article. 95.102.163.186 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – Wikiquote: Yet perhaps the best or most interesting suggestion would be to put the long list of reactions on Wikiquote first, and see if it works out or how it works out... or not? But that ought be the subject of another poll, oughtn't it? 95.102.163.186 (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Reincorporate WP is not the news, and it isn't a directory or compendium of each and every comment welcoming or deploring bin Laden's death. it strikes me that the vast majority of the reactions are bland "me-too" statements (I call them "sweet nothings") that I believe should be routinely deleted or grouped. It can be merged back without much ado. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as standalone article for now. Per Ohconfucius, there is little of lasting value there, but it can be trimmed down or remerged later once interest tails off a little. For now, it keeps the cludge from clogging up this article. Tactical keep. Look again in a month or two. --John (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

People saying he didn't die

POLITICO is now reporting that some conspiracy theorists are spreading rumors that bin Laden's capture and/or death was faked. Cindy Sheehan is one of these, as is Alex Jones. The source is here: [26] 173.165.239.237 (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose those are the same folks who say we didn't land on the moon, and that Obama wasn't born in the USA. As soon as they get shown up for being stupid, they move right on to the next goofy idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe more should be done to find sources to dispute this operation. Some may call it original research, but it should be noted that no man of this stature was killed and buried so quickly- in less than 7 hours! Oday and Qusay, who were of much lesser importance took 11 days before burial. Americans criticized Pakistan for letting people know too soon that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured because intelligence chould have been collected to lead to more important figures.

But for the greatest terrorist by far of them all, they released his location and death in 7 hours. Im sure that they could have found the location of other leaders such as Mullah Omar or Ayman al-Zawahiri with the information at the bin Ladin compound if they had not released any information. And burial at sea in less than 7 hours?? None of this makes sense from any military protocol released to the public. 194.254.137.114 (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense considering who's calling the shots. Rklawton (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful...you're getting close to WP:SOAPBOX with that comment. That said, he's dead until someone comes up with reliable, verifiable sources that say otherwise. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lawton, I ask you to look at this yourself. The government's version just cannot be believed. There are too many sources against the possibility of bin Ladin killed. Besides what I wrote, do you believe that a sample of bin Ladin's tissue will be flown to the US and tested to near certainty in a day? Or that they killed him and buried him in less than 7 hours? Or that US forces would not secure and throughly search the compound for clues to Ayman al-Zawahiri or Omar? This entire operation is beyond reason. 194.254.137.114 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you ARE soapboxing. Please stop. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Should 194.254.137.114 be blocked as a troll? Rklawton (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say only if they continue soapboxing or pushing fringe theories. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't care about any of this; otherwise you wouldn't be displaying such a ghastly double standard with respect to jingoist soapboxer "baseball bugs", who, like many others on this talk page, is abusing Wikipedia to further his culturally biased, ethnocentric American opinion, and to browbeat any expression out of sync with the official American government position into submission. A lot of users here are going a few steps further than simply informing users they're wrong, and helping them get informed on how to better contribute to Wikipedia; they're verbally abusing, ridiculing and insulting them. Is the English Wikipedia a platform for American POV or it is supposed to be the objective, central collection point for the most detailed information on any topic, neutral to cultural, regional and national bias? Be fair, or try to at least have a semblance of an appearance that you're fair, and reprimand both sides. Oh, and Bin Laden was killed by Navy Seals in Abbottabad. 93.125.232.127 (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's typical of conspiracy theorists, when they don't understand something or don't have all the facts, to argue that the problem lies elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sheehan and Jones are in no position to know any inside facts, so while they may be raising interesting questions that need to be answered, any claims they might make are based on nothing, and hence are irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

PLease, lets not regurgitate these idiotic conspiracy theories, V7-sport (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not soapboxing. These are all valid points which cannot be disputed. Another admin should look at this. If I add a comment in the article that it took 11 days before Qusai and Oday was buried, would it be soapboxing?? 194.254.137.114 (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I may refer you to the Admin noticeboard, Lawton, for your threats. This is the talk page. How can I be banned by adding something to talk???194.254.137.114 (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's soapboxing when you're pushing a particular point of view on the article Talk page instead of discussing how to improve the article. See the text boxes up at the top of the page? They aren't just decorations. Oh, and you might want to pay a bit closer attention to whose signatures are at the end of what commentary. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sheehan may not have insider information, but she believes that the events described are illogical. It's fair for Wikipedia to mention her opinion and reasoning without supporting it. Fnordware (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And I believe they ARE logical, and I have as much info as she does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, get yourself mentioned in a reputable source and maybe the editors will include you too. Fnordware (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And so it begins. Idiocy ascendant. Because of this drivel, there will eventually be an article titled something like "Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories". --Hammersoft (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have yet seen a single statement against what I have written. I believe in the government account of almost every other previous incident, but this operation and its aftermath goes beyond any comparable former event of its nature.194.254.137.114 (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Zygorthians using their Mk III death ray vaporized Osama bin Laden. I've yet to see a single statement against what I just wrote. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hush. That weapon is classified. It's an upgrade from the old Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide if something makes sense, if it's believable, etc. This is not a political forum. We do not report on some elusive and arbitrary "truth". We indicate what other reputable sources say, in due weight. That is the end word on it. Rants on conspiracy theories, even civil discussion of the issue in general, doesn't belong on the talk page. This page is for discussing changes (the specific the better) to the article, NOT to discus personal opinions about it, to discuss your take on its believability, etc. Reputable sources, verifiability. Reputable sources, verifiability. Reputable sources, verifiability. Repeat it like a mantra:) It's perfectly possible Obama went over there by himself, got a previously dead Bin Laden out of a secret CIA freezer, and staged the raid with some fireworks and mimes. The subset of "possible" is near infinite. Possible is not probable. Even probable is irrelevant to verifiable.Jbower47 (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. There are no reliable sources disputing the official story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In cases like this, reputable sources don't report what happened, they report what the government (or whoever) is saying to them. The reporter wasn't actually there. So one reliable source tell us that Obama says bin Laden was buried at sea and another reliable source reports that Cindy Sheehan doesn't believe it. They can both be included. Fnordware (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless Sheehan and Jones were there in the situation room with the Prez, et al, then their opinions on the matter have no more value than yours or mine. If anything, less value, because they are publicity-seekers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with those who say this must be driven by RS sources. No doubt there will be RS discussion of the timing and form of "burial", which will quite possibly point to a desire not to have a shrine to a martyr. But we are charged with sticking by the RSs, and not engaging in non-RS-supported speculation in the article (or, even, on the tp).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• The BBC [27] are today relatring reports that it is a look-alike not the real ObL who was killed. 212.137.36.228 (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your link doesn't have the look-alike content anymore. Can you provide another? Fnordware (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's quite possible that this "deather" conspiracy theory will take off much like the "birther" one did. Until it proves its lasting and pervasive nature, though, let's leave it be. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ObL died in Kenya!

Legal qualification

Could there be a section with the legal qualification of this event, such as wilful or premeditated murder? (Any sources or links thereto?) 178.41.75.206 (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No RS support for that. That would be OR/POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh, why adding reliable sources would be WP:OR/WP:NPOV??! 178.41.75.206 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the best that I could find and probably the closest to the subject matter: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/02/was_killing_bin_laden_legal 178.41.75.206 (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This was a military operation ordered by a head of state. The stated objectives were to "get [bin Laden] and bring him to justice." That implies a live capture if possible. By common legal definitions, "murder" doesn't apply. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was asking simply because the Pakistan penal code does not seem to go into such detail... The fact that it was ordered by some head of state (esp. one that has no legal authority in this matter) is completely irrelevant. Also, is your "implication" WP:OR? Note that a U.S. national security official said that the team that had hunted down Osama bin Laden had been under orders to kill him, not to capture him. (Reuters: "This was a kill operation," the official said, making clear there was no desire to try to capture bin Laden alive in Pakistan.) 178.41.75.206 (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that statement is contradicted by Homeland Security Adviser John O. Brennan. "If we had the opportunity to take bin Laden alive, if he didn't present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that." As long as there's a question regarding the actual ROE, I think we should presume Brennan was speaking officially and the unnamed "national security official" that talked to Reuters wasn't. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the official propaganda does not rule out (or contradict, when speaking strictly) the actual orders as stated above... ;-) 178.41.75.206 (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the best RS information is as Alan states. And furthermore, even if bin Laden were killed intentionally, it would be incorrect to conflate that to murder -- that is a legal determination that the killing was illegal. That is certainly not the consensus position of the RSs. Even if some people think abortions in the U.S. are, in their POV, "murder", that does not make it so. Same here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, it would be incorrect to conflate this not to be a murder, esp. based on the irrelevant (and therefore false) "arguments" that it was somehow "authorized" by the U.S. president, who had no relevant legal competency in this matter. Well, I naturally pinpointed the qualification to murder, as that was the closest that I could find in the Pakistan penal code, which should be the most relevant here, based on locality. This is supposed to be a serious discussion about proper legal qualifications, not about some irrelevant anecdotal examples. (E.g. in my country, from the legal point of view, only a human being can be murdered, and fetus is not legally a human being, so it cannot be a murder.) I am not really sure about the consensus of "reliable sources", as I have seen no relevant ones, but from the mass media, I have heard some strong criticism, even outrage from Muslim and esp. Pakistani sources. And, really, I do not consider political statements parroted across the "media webrings" to be a relevant legal qualification, all the less a reliable proof of consensus on this matter. So, in short, I offered the best that I could find at the beginning, I am yet to see any sound arguments in favour of the legality of this (not mere moral judgements!) extrajudicial killing – the term which, arguably, fits the description most appropriately, but which, according to Wikipedia, also suggests illegality. Note that I was interested in the legal qualification, and "murder" seemed the best fit; from the point of view of its political qualification, "assassination" seems to be the closest term. 95.103.211.80 (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Alan is correct here, but (even more important for wp purposes) is that the RSs are in general not calling this a murder.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is why I founded this section, to serve as a placeholder as more and more legal opinions and qualifications unfold in the coming days. And, perhaps, we should also review the relevance of reliable sources to this issue... 95.103.211.80 (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also killing enemy combatants is never murder, it's called killing enemy combatants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djkernen (talk • contribs) 01:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

/\This./\ Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I am to take the definition from Wikipedia, then Osama bin Laden was most likely a civilian, nowhere near the term "enemy combatant", unless you subscribe to the extreme U.S. POV, and not the general world-view, of course...

Please step down off the WP:SOAPBOX before it breaks. If bin Laden hadn't opted to fire on the commandos, he might have survived, and having not survived, the terms "murder" or "assassination" might have applied. As it was, he DID fire on the commandos, making himself a combatant. QED. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I will gladly step down off the WP:SOAPBOX after Djkernen and you, as I find your arguments to be tenuous at best. To me it looks like Osama bin Laden acted in self-defence against an armed commando trying to break into his house, unless, of course, the armed commando acted on a valid warrant (and there was one, issued by the hero of African liberation), or was otherwise "bound by law", and its members were properly marked as a competent authority. (In fact, according to a White House statement, Osama bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot, although this is also somewhat irrelevant to the legal basis of the U.S. action, but it does turn some zealots' statements into a bitter farce.) Alright, enough of the taunting, all that I aspire for is a serious and rigorous legal analysis of the U.S. action, but not nonsense in the style "it is good for America, therefore it is right", or anything to similar effect. Perhaps you will agree that Djkernen's remark was totally unhelpful in this regard, hence my response. 95.103.211.80 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a legal section added as well. Former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt has already said "It was quite clearly a violation of international law", I am sure more will come as well.Helmut Schmidt

We also have the Pakistan foreign ministry and Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights questioning the legality of the operation.More people here questioning it as well Legal issues, Best to have a section with the views of those for and those against.Owain the 1st (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

He's not a reliable source of anything except his own opinions. He's not a legal scholar. Nobody yet knows exactly what happened in the compound. Eventually facts will come out and be reported by reliable sources. Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball nor a soapbox. We can wait for the facts to appear, and then report them. There is no need to include speculation in the article. Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already added a link to various legal experts.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added a legality section with views from various lawyers, human rights organisations and the Americans, Pakistanis.etc.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Courier man's real name

Please correct the courier man real name as Sheikh Abu Ahmed. We can also consider adding details how this courier man was located. For more details, please see, Phone call by Kuwaiti courier led to bin Laden Jalal0 (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I got the name from a video of the Wikileaks document aired on CBS Evening News. Cla68 (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Majority of the other news outlets, like Wall Street Journal, San Fransico Chronicle and The Associated Press have given his name as Sheikh Abu Ahmed. Please see Sheikh Abu Ahmed google news search. Jalal0 (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have the sources to back it up please go ahead and make the change. Cla68 (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note: the proper English expression is "courier" not "courier man". Tvoz/talk 07:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not the courier's real name. The pseudonym given is "Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti". "al-Kuwaiti" just means "a man from Kuwait". So "Sheikh Abu Ahmed, a man from Kuwait" is the same name as the pseudonym. The name given in the Wikileaks files of Faraj al-Libi is "Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan". This is the real name also given in a CBS article. Unfortunately the referenced article gets it wrong and should be deleted as incorrect and confusing. However, this is basically "original research" even though it is obvious. What is the procedure for getting rid of an incorrect reference from a reliable source? --Mujokan (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Same as any other information discovered in an article, I'd say...simply delete the erroneous material and note the reason in the edit summary. It's not like the major news outlets get it right every time; if they did, there'd be no such thing as a "retraction". --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all still pretty confusing. In the section Identity of the courier we learn that:

1. the real name of the courier is Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan, and
2. his real name is Sheikh Abu Ahmed.

Both are sourced from reliable sources, but it seems to me that (assuming there is one specific courier whose trail led to the discovery) they can't be both correct. An earlier statement that there were conflicting news reports was removed. I don't see reliable sources stating that these two monikers (Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan and Sheikh Abu Ahmed, aka Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti) refer to the same person; they either use one name or the other. For all I know, the suggestion that they are different names for one person is an inference drawn by a Wikipedia editor. In fact, I see two (non-RS) sources that also signal the existence of conflicting reports: Another Version of the Osama Bin Laden Courier Story; In aftermath of bin Laden raid, new intelligence, shifting accounts.  --Lambiam 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I cut out a reference saying the courier's real name is Sheikh Abu Ahmed and that he is a Pakistani. As can be seen from the appellation "al-Kuwaiti", he was originally from Kuwait. I am happy for this dispute to go to arbitration -- namely, whether the real name of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti is Sheikh Abu Ahmed. It is obvious to me and I think to most people that the name "Abu Ahmed" is the same in both cases, that Sheikh is merely an honorific and that al-Kuwaiti is a designation of origin in exactly the same way as al-Libi means "the Libyan". It is silly to think it would take years for the CIA and DOD to realize that Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti was the same person as Sheikh Abu Ahmed. If people want to edit this section, please expand the paragraph that talks about the confusion over the name rather than having two flatly contradictory references as to the "real name" of the courier. If it turns into an edit war, let's just have a discussion and come to one definitive conclusion. --Mujokan (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User Art and Muscle has reverted my original edit several times, and insists on putting a contradictory reference to the real name of the courier in the middle of a sentence, where in my opinion it is likely to generate confusion. This is particularly the case as there is a later paragraph on the contradiction in names found in different sources. I had already mentioned this problem on his or her talk page and put in an edit summary referring Art and Muscle to this section of this talk page. I would appreciate it if others could come up with a way to deal with the contradiction in names without simply having two different names given as the real name of the courier, with no explanation. I won't revert his or her edits again, but I think it is clear that there must be a better solution to this problem. --Mujokan (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear about the issue. If the real name of the courier were "Sheikh Abu Ahmed", this would be the equivalent of saying that it took the US Department of Defense two years to find out that a man known as "John Smith from New York" had the real name "Mr. John Smith". If one newspaper said this, and another said that they discovered his real name was "Mike Jones", common sense would incline you to think the latter was correct. On top of this, there are very good sources, including a classified Department of Defense file, giving his real name as "Mike Jones". Now, eventually the real name will be properly established, so this is not such a big deal. However, I don't think it's a good idea to keep the current status quo saying "The courier Mike Jones, who used the pseudonym "John Smith from New York", and whose real name is Mr. John Smith, a native of Texas..." My edits have been reverted several times without discussion, so if others want to get involved that would be great. A solution would be to expand the current paragraph saying "There is confusion over whether the real name of John Smith from New York is Mike Jones or Mr. John Smith".--Mujokan (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If the conflicting reports are over whether his real name is Mr. John Smith or Mike Jones, as Wikipedia editors we must not use our original common sense to decide which is correct. As it turns out, later news reports suggest that none of the names circulated are the courier's real name.  --Lambiam 17:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is not whether his name is John Smith or Mike Jones. It's whether he's Sheik John or John Smith the Kuwaiti. There are clear WP guidelines as to how Arabic names should be written in English and those are incorporated in the section. Maybe someone who is a native speaker can confirm, but this is my understanding from reading the guidelines.Brmull (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan

I took it upon myself to cut this sentence "In 2007, US officials discovered the courier's real name, Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan, and, in 2009, that he lived in Abbottābad, Pakistan" from the "Locating Osama Bin Laden" section because it was not helpful and confusing, was not supported by its first citation, the second a CBS News video cast I didn't sit through, and appears to be a misundestanding of a Wikileaks item mentioned in some newspapers, for example here.

However he and the Wikileaks item does seem notable for the article, especially because of the fascinating suggestion the US brought the raid forward for fear of the Wikileaks item compromising its security.FightingMac (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, it's been stuck back with the first reference removed and the CBS video cast retained. But it's not right amd it's not helpful and what is worse whoever put it back didn't mention it in their edit summary. But I'm not getting into an edit war over it. Did my best. FightingMac (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

See also the section #Courier man's real name above.  --Lambiam 23:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity that the sensible edit remarking that there are conflicting sources for the identity of the courier was deleted. Regarding al-Khaliq Jan, it's clear from the Wikileaks item that he was the courier back in 2003 but there's nothing there to suggest he was the 2007 courier based in Abbottabad. As far as I can make out that CBS News' assumption and it's not right. FightingMac (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This NYT article sheds a lot of light on how the courier's identity was determined.Brmull (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Fork of Operation Geronimo section

Information about Operation Geronimo is expanding at a astonishing rate. In order to capture all verified information, I suggest we fork the raid information to Operation Geronimo.

Do you agree or disagree?

• Agree -- Iksnyrk (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree - This article is only 84K, and that includes references. A full 100K of prose (not including references)is acceptable for an article per WP:SPLIT. No need to split so quickly. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree - suggestion is premature. Let's see where this article weighs in next week, and when things aren't quite so WP:RECENT. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Disagree - per Alan the Roving Ambassador. --Kslotte (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral – The operation merits its own article. It is is however too early to split the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree - It is an entirely separate thing that needs to be split. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 03:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • How is it "an entirely separate thing"? It's pretty much the whole thing. Operation Neptune's Spear was an operation to kill or capture OBL. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree - The millitary operation should be split off, but the name of the Operation is Operation Neptune's Spear, "Geronimo" was OBL's code name. --— Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment - another source for "Neptune Spear"[28] Rklawton (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Disagree - How is this an "entirely separate thing"? The mission operation is at present the central core of the killing of bin Laden. It is not overly long - 37 K of readable prose - and there is no rush to split. And I echo Rklawton - we need real sourcing for the code name, not a casual mention on Jake Tapper's blog. Tvoz/talk 19:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree The operation needs to be forked into its own article for reasons stated above. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Normal refs

Would help out our newbie editors if we were not using the non normal references format. Not the best idea to introduce the most complicated referencing type at this time in a new and very active article.Moxy (talk)......................

It would also help our old-time editors. This reference style is a grand pain because there is no hint in the ref name as to which ref it is, and i think we are more prone to error this way. Probably lots of good reasons for it, but I don't like it either. Tvoz/talk 19:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

US helicopters involved.

I think there is a bit of confusion about the types of choppers involved in the operation : the assault team was inserted via US Army MH-60 Blackhawks and not via HH-60 Pavehawks, the latter being used by the USAF in case a search and rescue operation is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.128.253 (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - currently the article links to Pave Hawk despite saying that the 160th SOAR provided the helicopters, which would presumably make them UH-60 Black Hawks rather than USAF Pave Hawks. Jellyfish dave (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Name of operation

Was it also computer generated as with Odyssey Dawn?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The code name for the operation was "Neptune's Spear." Bin Laden's Compound 'Built for Deception,' Potential Attack --— Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Split into subsections

I created two subsections for the locating of bin Laden, one regarding the identity of the courier and one regarding the location of the compound. I gave the timeline as best I can make it out from reading accounts on the web. I tried to give references for everything.

I think this split makes the article easier to read and understand. I added one piece which may well count as original research, though I did reference two Wikipedia articles to make my case. This is that Sheikh Abu Ahmed from Kuwait and Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti are the same name. This seems obvious to me, but it may not fit Wikipedia policy.

Hope this is OK. --Mujokan (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like I screwed up the reference syntax though it looked OK on the preview. Will try to fix it now. --Mujokan (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a useful edit to me in what continues to be a problematic section. I think you're wrong to rely on the CBS story regarding Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan as the real name of the Abbottabad courier (or rather one of the two cited so far in news stories). The Guardian story here I cite in a section on al-Khaliq Jan above says this

Buried in a document from 2008 released by WikiLeaks last week are notes from the interrogation of a Libyan, Abu al-Libi, who had apparently been with Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

According to the document, Libi fled to Peshawar in Pakistan and was living there in 2003 when he was asked to become one of Bin Laden's messengers. The document says: "In July 2003, detainee received a letter from [Bin Laden's] designated courier, Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan, requesting detainee take on the responsibility of collecting donations, organising travel and distributing funds for families in Pakistan. [Bin Laden] stated detainee would be the official messenger between [Bin Laden] and others in Pakistan. In mid-2003, detainee moved his family to Abbottabad (Pakistan) and worked between Abbottabad and Peshawar.

and I think it's clear that it was al-Libi who moved to Abbpttabad and not al-Khaliq Jan.

Perhaps you can follow an earlier contributor who remarks the identity of the courier remain unclear?

Good edit nevertheless, I think. A decided improvement on the section's illiterate and confused condition earlier this morning. FightingMac (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Abu Faraj Al-Libi indeed lived in Abbottabad at one point. That doesn't preclude the courier also living there. This name is also mentioned in the Miami Herald and Daily Mail references I added as being the correct name of the courier living in the Abotttabad compound where bin Laden was staying. I am confident that the references giving the "real name" of Abu Ahmed as being "Sheikh Abu Ahmed" will be proved mistaken in time, so from my point of view I'd like to leave it as it is. --Mujokan (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On reflection I think you are right about the courier not necessarily living in Abbottabad, so I'll change that. --Mujokan (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It is FightingMac who is employing original research here, in connecting a dot from a person named in a raw intelligence dump to a differently-named person as reported in current reliable sources. None of that is "clear". If the two are one and the same it should be proven by a different source, not a conclusion leapt to by a Wikipedian. Abrazame (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree it verges on OR. But my original motivation was that of the two references cited the first in fact didn't reference the name and the second was a CBS video cast I wasn't about to sit all the way through (sorry). Meanwhile the name had cropped up in a Wikileaks item, plainly the original source, noted in many newspapers, but that didn't refer to him as the 2007 courier resident in Abbottobad. It's emerging now that the local name of the courier was 'Khan' and I suppose it's possible that the 'Jan' will turn out to be 'Khan'. It remains true that the section is confusing and really I feel should have a remark to the effect that the identity of the courier remains unclear. FightingMac (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Section good now I think though the bit about the CIA never finding 'Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan' could benefit from a citation. But the section does read well now. FightingMac (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename article to Operation Geronimo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rename article to Operation Geronimo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.146.10 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. "Death of Osama bin Laden" is not a proper name for a critical battle during the War of Terror. DarthBotto _talk•cont 16:07, 03 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree to renaming too, but should be put to a vote. Gogu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.191.148 (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

 Disagree The article focuses on the death of a single person. Using your logic, Death of Adolf Hitler should be renamed to Battle of Berlin. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Wikipedia policy is to use a the commonly-used name for article titles, not some obscure military codename. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UT

Agree. Look at operation red dawn. Operation geronimo seems a teer more encylopedic name to me.

Operation Geronimo is only one of the topics covered in the article. --Mujokan (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree to change the name of the article to Operation Geronimo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liepaja1941 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME, I assume there aren't much headlines like "Operation Geronimo was successfull". --Kslotte (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

by that logic operation red dawn should be renamed something like the capture of sadam hussien 82.40.4.248 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That would probably be sensible - not many have heard of "Red Dawn". We seem to be suffering from the mainly US male fixation with slick-sounding military codenames and cool weapon systems in this article enough already without renaming it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not from the US. It's not a macho thing either. The reason names like theses are used is because they are official names. When the US puts all it's documents away on this thats what the file will be called. Thats why we should use it to we're writing an encyclopedia not a news paper. 82.40.4.248 (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose at least for now. The operation name is not in wide use at present. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose as per above. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Very very strong oppose I believe the current name is the name that best sum up what this article is about. Renaming to Operation Gernaimo would provide confusion, etc. Also, this article focus on Bin Laden's death and not the operation that was carried out that resulted in is death --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time!  19:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: It doesn't make sense. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 19:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose and there is a serious case for moving Operation Red Dawn to Capture of Saddam Hussein. PatGallacher (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I would support a re-naming to "Killing of ..." It is more precise, and reflects what the RSs say.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Do other articles on this similar nature start with "Killing of..."? I'm on a shitty computer that won't let me examine with autocomplete. I know some start "Death of", others "Assassination of", but I'm not aware of "Killing of". Again, since the intent wasn't necessarily to kill (as they would've taken him in alive if he surrendered), I think "death" is most appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose, Operation Geronimo is only one part of the Death of Osama bin Laden. -- Iksnyrk (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose per Wikipedia naming conventions - at present, "Operation Geronimo" is not at all the most commonly used description, and it has no inherently obvious meaning. Leave it as a redirect however. Further, I agree with User:Epeefleche that the better name here would be Killing of Osama bin Laden. If he died of natural causes, "Death" makes sense - that is not the case here, and the active is generally preferable to the passive. Tvoz/talk 22:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME Death of Osama bin Laden is used more often. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Although Operation Geronimo gets around some issues about other targets and goals of storming the compound, it is not a clear winner. The proper military name should be something like the Abbottābad Raid or the Raid on Abbottābad. Battles and raids are named by their location; compare Dieppe Raid; Raid on Entebbe; Battle of the Coral Sea; Battle of Midway; it's not Custer's Last Stand but rather the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Using a code name such as Operation Geronimo is inappropriate; the purpose of a code name is to hide what is going on. For now, sticking with the current generic WP:COMMONNAME is better than choosing a weak codename. The name issue can be revisted later. Glrx (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• neutral "Abbottābad Raid" sounds OK to me. See also Talk:Death of Osama bin Laden/Archive_1#Article_renaming. Teofilo talk 16:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline

Is it possible to create a timeline of the actions that took place. Not only the raid of the compound but also the address made by Obama to the american people, the burial of bin Laden and so on. Also there are times in the Exif-Datas of the White House images, which perhaps also could be "translated" into an timeline which only uses one time zone. Good idea? --Pilettes (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if properly sourced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm, it was just a suggestion for someone that is possible to do this. Honestly I am to confused by UTC, EDT, Pakistani time, PM, AM, 24h, May 1st, May 2nd and so on... But it would be quite informativ to have such a timeline. Alone to have the times here in Wikipedia in a chronolocigal and consistent would be very helpful to reconstruct the whole action and to see how many time elapsed between the several actions. --Pilettes (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the action was on the ground in Pakistan, I would keep everything in that time zone, and maybe provide a quick note as to its relationship to UTC, for anyone who wants to convert it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There totally should be a timeline on this page, but my feeling is that's a project for two months from now, once when the "fog of war" is lifted, when the edit pace of the article has decreased, and we have a bit more clarity on what happened and when. jengod (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support future timeline. Rklawton (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support using PKT (Pakistani) time with a brief note regarding it's relationship to UTC. Rklawton (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Good idea! Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 21:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with these sentiments, but I don't think it belongs in the lead sentence, or even the lead section. It is not clear what the time is referring to - the beginning of the raid? the end of the raid? the time of bin Laden's death? Also, it slows down the flow of the introductory sentence and is too much detail for that placement. Move it to the body of the article, but clarify what exactly that time represents. Tvoz/talk 22:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a table can be made like:

Action	Pakitani time	UTC
...	May ---, --:--	May --- --:--
Obama is giving green light for the raid	May ---, --:--	May --- --:--
Choppers leaving base	May ---, --:--	May --- --:--
Choppers arriving at compound	May ---, --:--	May --- --:--
...	May ---, --:--	May --- --:--
Bin Laden is buried at USS Vinston	May ---, --:--	May --- --:--
...	May ---, --:--	May --- --:--

I mean, there are facts availabe (even if it is only an esteem) that can be displayed in a table. Of course there there will be coming more and more facts to light, but I think the matrix is availabe (and the facts that keep coming can easily be inserted and specified in the table --Pilettes (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC).

Section on effects in the U.S.

Does this section look fine:

==Domestic political effects in the United States==

In the United States, commentators and analysts have discussed the possible political effects of bin Laden's death. Statistician Nate Silver of the New York Times predicted that significant near-term improvement in President Obama's approval rating, but cautioned against overestimating the bin Laden death's long-term impact on Obama's prospects for reelection in the 2012 presidential election. Later, Silver cautioned against underestimating the electoral implications of bin Laden's death. A Washington Post/Pew Research Center poll taken shortly after the event showed that 56 percent of Americans say they approve of Obama's performance in office overall, the highest rating for Obama since 2009 and nine percentage points higher than an ABC News/Washington Post poll found the previous month.

The successful operation also seemed to burnish the reputation of the CIA and its director, Leon Panetta.

After the operation was announced, Obama was praised even by Republicans who have been sharply critical of him, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, former New York City mayor and presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani, and Republican real estate businessman and potential presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. Michael D. Shear of the New York Times wrote that the bin Laden raid complicates the Republican message in the 2012 message, as it might undermine the assertion that Obama was weak and indisive, a charge leveled at the president during the Middle East and North Africa protests in 2010 and 2011.

---

This seems an appropriate length and covers enough ground. One user reverted on the article page and has an objection; I would appreciate it if that user could explain his or here objections here. Neutrality^talk 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider a section on the domestic repercussions in the US of this event as inappropriate to the article. Wikipedia is an international project, al-Qaida has operated worldwide, and the suggestion that the effects of this event on poll ratings US etc is of any great significance is to give it undue weight. This article is long enough, without going into speculative off-topic details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We don't know the domestic political effects, and even when we do, it's unclear that it fits the scope of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We surely do know the domestic political effects through the comments of prominent members of Congress and through opinion polls. All of these are relevant to the meaning and effects of this operation. There have been several dozen articles in major newspapers about the impacts of this. This is perfectly within scope. Neutrality^talk 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's too early to know what the real impact is. Everybody thought G.H.W.Bush's re-election was assured by the Gulf War victory. Guess what. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Much of this edit is written in a subjective, speculative way. "Seemed to burnish" the CIA and Panetta? If Obama gets a bounce, he gets a bounce, but per WP:CRYSTAL, we shouldn't talk about one unless there is one to talk about. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It is sourced to the New York Times. Neutrality^talk 00:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a line straight out of Dr. Strangelove. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the snark is rather unhelpful. I'll lay it out very clearly for you. This San Francisco Chronicle article lays out that the operation contributed to a shift in the opinion of Dianne Feinstein (the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee) from a position skeptical of Leon Panetta to one in support of him. That seems rather important to me. This AP article quotes a former acting CIA director as saying the event would help the CIA rehabilitate its reputation, and also quotes a CIA critic stating the reverse. These are important developments or themes. To say simply that we should not cover them at all makes little sense to me. Neutrality^talk 04:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I really have to point out to Neutrality again that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, there are no "domestic political effects"? Real neutrality implies writing articles from a world perspective, not from a Washington spin-doctor's one. The political ramifications of this will be worldwide, and most probably greater in Afghanistan and Pakistan than in the US, so any focus on the US is undoubtedly misplaced. Yes, US forces carried out the action, but that doesn't give the US a monopoly on how events are perceived. AndyTheGrump (talk)

A rather odd statement, and certainly a rather intemperate one. I don't agree (and I don't think the community would agree) that "as far as Wikipedia is concerned" there are no political effects of this operation. There are of course domestic political effects in the United States -- and in Pakistan and in the rest of the world too. We must not neglect all or any of them. Rather, we should cover all of these -- to the appropriate degree, with the appropriate sources, and in neutral terms. Obviously we should not label a section "domestic political effects" by itself - but a section entitled "domestic political effects in the United States" (and probably "Domestic political effects in Pakistan too") is clear and certainly an important part of the event. Neutrality^talk 04:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That which is domestic to the US is international to the UK, Yemen, and all the other countries Al Qaeda has attacked. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, take out the word "domestic" and just have sections entitled "Political effects within the United States" and "Political effects within Pakistan." If that single word is the objection, that's fine. I just want appropriate and relevant content covered, not bizarrely ignored when major world newspapers, prominent analysts, etc. are all dealing with the implications of the operation on the governments of the U.S. and Pakistan. Neutrality^talk 04:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this speculation about political repercussions is 'domestic' or not, it is still speculation - and furthermore speculation about political consequences within a few arbitrary places. It does not belong in this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Our policy explicitly states: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." (emphasis mine). Here, the discussion is properly referenced, gives due weight, and is neutral. There is precisely no reason supported by policy to object to it. Furthermore, I am not sure what you mean by "arbitrary places." Significant, particularized political developments have or might have take place in the U.S., Pakistan, and perhaps a few more places. Covering political implications in these countries is necessary to a thorough article that addresses a;; important material and is "broad in its coverage." It is not "arbitrary"; we wouldn't have a section on developments in Monaco or something because there would be none. Neutrality^talk 04:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify which "future proposals and projects" you are referring to? Do you really think that the world only consists of the US and Pakistan? And how do you know what the effects in Monaco of this will be? You don't - though given the influence of oil-rich Moslem states on the principality's economy, to suggest that there will be none seems short sighted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) You appear to have completely missed the second part of the sentence: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about... whether some development will occur." (2) It doesn't matter what I think the effects in Monaco will be, or what they "actually are." Our policy is focused on verifiable, reliable sources, not what you or I think "the truth" (about effects on Monaco, or whatever) is. Remember "verifiability, not truth"? If there is an article about political effects of this operation in unexpected places, by all means include it, giving it due weight to its overall significance. Refer to my comment above. P.S.: Silly rhetorical flourishes ("Do you really think that the world only consists of the US and Pakistan?") are rather unhelpful. Please, keep the discussion focused. Neutrality^talk 05:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If I may say, I think the resistance is to your first paragraph. Rewrite your proposal, starting with your final paragraph; give a little elucidation to the part about the CIA; and leave out self-contradictory prognostications and incomplete polls. Should effects actually happen, we can add them then. I'm willing to bet you'll have a more supportive response to that. Abrazame (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this; yours is the first genuinely helpful comment I have read on this topic. I am planning on writing some more text tomorrow - elaborating on the CIA part, as well as on some new polling data came in. The only point I disagree with you on is the "self-contradictory" part - discourse on the effects (political and otherwise) of this operation is naturally split - for example, some authorities and commentators think that this matters enormously, while others think it does not matter. [29]. Any worthwhile coverage will include "all majority and significant minority opinions." Neutrality^talk 05:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the section is okay. bin Laden's death is certainly going to have major effects on countries/groups involved, namely US, Pakistan and al-Qaeda. Yes, US and Pakistan aren't the only countries in the world, but they are no doubt the major players in this event. So, having sections that focus particularly on these 2 countries is completely appropriate. However, should we add such a section right now? No, we shouldn't when we don't even know for sure what those effects are.—Chris!_c/t 05:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section?

I have a reliable source reporting on the conspiracy theories disputing this so called "burial at sea". [30] [31] Notable anti-war activist Cindy_sheehan is publicly questioning the official story. It is seems very strange that only hours after killing him, the US would hide the body deep in the ocean leaving absolutely no proof that it was actually Osama. The pictures of his death haven't been released. Test results can be forged and it seems amazing that the DNA testing was done so quickly. If reuters and the la times is reporting the controversy then Wikipedia should report it too.--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is reporting it: Death of Osama bin Laden#Controversy, Death of Osama bin Laden conspiracy theories. Feel free to expand those areas. Goodvac (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How would she be in any position to know anything about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" and a curiously elementary Wikipedia principle to have to stress to one who contributes so often. FightingMac (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan doesn't exactly have any credibility about anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Off topic here, but what makes certain people so inclined to immediately assume conspiracy? BurtAlert (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As per usual, ask and Wikipedia shall answer: Conspiracy_theory#Study_of_conspiracism – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I counter with Argument from authority--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank ya! BurtAlert (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Archaeologists ask themselves the same question, Burt. You could put Cindy Sheehan under reactions to it, but as was said, she really has no special knowledge or authority here. And none of that WP:SCUM business, she isn't an expert. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Son killed

GEO News is saying that bin Laden's son who was killed was named "Ibrahim." Who is "Ibrahim"? Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently he was allowed to testify in a custody hearing in Los Angeles in 2002 via a video link from Dubai. He lost and was ordered to put up a $4 million bond for return of the child after religious holidays and vacations.^[32] Wnt (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Question: Frank Lautenberg briefly put up a list of the bin Ladens who were allowed out on a flight a few days after the September 11th attacks on a plane frequently used by the Bush administration.^[33] But I'm having hell of a time finding the complete manifest, which I know (and the above link says) was released. Was Ibrahim bin Laden on that plane? Wnt (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Operation Neptune Spear not Operation Geronimo - please correct

ABC World News reported tonight May 3, 2011 that the name of the operation was Operation Neptune Spear, NOT Geronimo. Geronimo was just bin Laden's code name. Would those with edit access (as the article has been locked) correct the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.185.15 (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I found exactly one source that uses this name: [34] Let's wait. Rklawton (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GMA Twitted this three hours ago. I'm guessing their Twitter feed counts as reliable. [35] Rklawton (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source, no matter the tweeter. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting theory. How do you propose to defend it? Is GMA's Facebook page also not reliable? How about their website? Exactly how do you propose evaluating a news organization's media outlets for reliability? Rklawton (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's frowned upon by WP:RS (but not forbidden in all instances). Facebook pages and official websites also have the problem of being primary sources. In any case, one tweet versus all of the news articles out there suggests we need confirmation. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

My tweets are primary sources. A media source's tweets are no more primary sources than an article they publish on their own website. Rklawton (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the direct/permanent link to the Tweet. We ought to wait until one of the big, reputable media organizations reports this (the ABC Tweet is reliable but insubstantial). Goodvac (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Check above, there's another source cited, too. Rklawton (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I read somewhere his code name was Jackpot and that Geronimo was code for his capture or death. Don't quote me though. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw it but didn't consider it one of the "media giants". However, I've scrutinized that source more closely and found that the article has Reuters as the source. That's odd though, because Reuters usually publishes its content in multiple places, and this article exists only on the AM New York site. Goodvac (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hold off on adding this. According to our own article, the name Operation Neptune (aside from being a WWII operation) already appears as a 2005 event in the List of military operations in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). It seems odd to me they would reuse the name for this associated operation. We're not here to break news but to encyclopedically present what is covered in reliable sources, and I concur that Tweets are not a reliable source — in part because they are not fact-checked; they are not proofread; they are not comprehensive. Let's wait for some clarity before we confuse the issue further. Abrazame (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that ABC News would tweet stuff that they didn't bother to fact check or proofread? That's absurd. But I agree we should get more sources. Also, the name of the operation (as reported by Reuters was "Operation Neptune Spear" not "Operation Neptune". Rklawton (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

More sources[36] [37] Rklawton (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Too many forks

Just FYI, there is now a page Osama bin Laden's hideout compound which ought to be a merged to this article or to Location of Osama bin Laden. I don't feel like having another contentious debate while this story is still hot, but maybe later somebody wants to make the effort. Also, there is a piece of WP:SYNTHESIS, Osama bin Laden bodyguard, and the overwrought Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden. Abductive (reasoning) 07:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of these articles are several years old (not the compound article, obviously). Rklawton (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

At least, we assume not - unless perhaps the CIA should spend more time simply checking Wikipedia. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The article here is getting very large, and may need to be split up into pieces more. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Bullpocky, theses articles repeat the same information over and over again. Editors are supposed to trim the crap from the text that writers write. Are you an editor or a writer? Abductive (reasoning) 11:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's main disease is that deletionists think that they're in charge of other editors, when in truth there is no shortage of column space. WP:Summary style describes the way to split articles into sections without duplicating more than a summary of each. This is what should be done here, since both articles are already fairly long and likely to become much more packed with information. Wnt (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Do Not Merge - I just tried to put in one line, {{main|United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group}}. After two edit conflicts I finally got it in, but then someone else blew it away during the resolution of one of his own edit conflicts. I'd need a faster broadband connection and/or computer to edit this article productively, and merging it with anything is just insane at this point. Wnt (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about spelling

In Conspiracy theories: "the speed of the DNA results has lead to...". The correct spelling in UK English is "led". Is "lead" correct in American English? Biscuittin (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's supposed to be "led", and I have corrected that. Goodvac (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Biscuittin (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Time conversion

Could someone who understands math please convert "at midday on May 1" (presumably EST) in the planning graph to UTC and add that information? Thank you. jengod (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Name of courier's brother and wife

Please be on the lookout for reports that provide first names for the brother and wife of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti who were apparently killed in the raid. jengod (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Found and added local aliases for the two men here, along with a significant quantity of background info on them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/world/asia/04compound.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1304539227-DvxoUKcft5zqG02FxS8Rfw jengod (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Operation name

There are three operation names in the article. The actual section calls it Geronimo. The lead calls it Neptune Spear. And the infobox calls it Neptune's Spear. So which one is the actual name? I am not sure since I didn't follow the story. I think the article should be consistent and uses the same one.—Chris!_c/t 17:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The actual code name for the operation was either "Neptune Spear" or "Neptune's Spear"; I've seen reliable sources using both (and would love to find out which it really was so we could get it consistent through the whole article). "Geronimo" was the codeword to reference bin Laden himself. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As a result the article now makes no sense regarding the code name - especially since we talk about some objections to using the name "Geronimo" - we need good sourcing on this, not just a casual reference by Jake Tapper without explanation. Tvoz/talk 18:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm making it consistent - since "Neptune Spear" is ungrammatical, I'll take the leap of faith that the geniuses who come up with these names try not to be illiterate. But I point out again that "operation Geronimo" is more widely reported, and the name itself a subject of some press, so we need something more definitive addressing the name issue. Tvoz/talk 18:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the grammar of "Neptune's Spear" over "Neptune Spear." The name is troubling as this is the only mention of the phrase in .gov and .mil has zero hits for both versions. The only media source seems to be this Fox News article that appears to be quoting a "former senior intelligence official." I'd say there are no reliable sources for this name. I was unable to find good sources for "Operation Geronimo" though there was "Operation Geronimo Strike" and "Operation Geronimo Darau."

I'd like to remove all references to the operation's name until a good source for it is found. The code word "Geronimo" as being for Osama bin Laden is well documented. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, although I just spent a fair amount of time trying to get this consistent and fighting off edit conflicts, I actually agree with you -= I have not seen anything that seems to be a more reliable source for Operation Neptune('s) Spear than the many sources for Operation Geronimo. But - I did add something to the "code name" section about the differing names for the op, and there already was something in there about Native American objections (not 100% convinced this belongs in this article, but would be ok with it as a footnote) - so it's a more complex change than it might appear. Tvoz/talk 19:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Derby City News is going with "Operation Neptune Spear" (link here), which echoes what Reuters is calling it. I don't see a reason to discount Reuters as a reliable source. And yes, I know it's not grammatically correct. I'm convinced these operations are named by pulling random words out of hats. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)