Talk:Letter to the American People

Copyright issue

An editor posted the contents of the letter, presumably from the Guardian site. Whether it should be displayed or not has the potential of being a contentious issue. My removal was based on copyright considerations with a small caveat – I typically make sure the text in the edit matches are is too close to the source text but because the Guardian has removed this letter, I was unable to do so. There may also be a question of ownership of copyright, as it seems highly unlikely that Osama bin Laden transfer the copyright to the Guardian, but what doesn't seem at issue is that the original text is subject to copyright.

If the copyright issue is resolved in a way making it permissible to use, there is still the editorial consideration of whether it's appropriate. I'm not going away in on that now. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I would say that the copyright law of Afghanistan applies in this case, which means it expires 50 years after publication from my quick search. Which is around the year 2052. Maybe some small exempts could be allowed per the citation exception of the Berne Convention, but that's not the current discussion. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@@Sphilbrick Someone published a possible copyvio here as well, but it has been there for years without issue: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_American_people PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was aware of the entry, but thought it was recent. Very interesting. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden is dead, so if it is still under copyright, who exactly would be the current holder? One of his children, maybe? He certainly produced a lot of them. Afghanistan is currently ruled by the Taliban and I doubt those guys are experts in the field of copyright law, in any case. And that is not even getting into the possibility that someone other than bin Laden actually wrote it. What a (metaphorical) minefield. 2600:1014:B031:55F7:DD09:2AA2:650B:B25E (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it's a mess, but I'm pretty sure it is still copyrighted. PhotographyEdits (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright is to protect commercial works. I can't see how it applies to an open letter to 350 million people. Nobody can claim to suffer lost earnings if the letter is re-published. Mcgrubso (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not how copyright works. The law/treaty does not care about commercial utility. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Not an expert, but I think that "works in the public domain" (as this letter seems to be per here and most notably here), are excluded from copyright. Would be worth confirming with the relevant body in Wikipedia as I think that it would be helpful for this article to reproduce the letter (given that it has been done so in commercial magazines and newspapers). Aszx5000 (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I have asked the question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Letter to the American people. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

This entire discussion is ludicrous. Withholding this letter, which was written and addressed to the entire population of the US, and obviously and expressly intended for free publication and wide circulation, on some fake copyright concern, is so utterly ridiculous and absurd that it shocks the imagination. No one is buying your phony concern and pretense that this is about anything other than pure censorship. Shame on you all. Peirik1 (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone interested in reading the full letter can do so here: https://gist.github.com/hv33y/f739b8fd59143c370c2f997c4b330be2 Peirik1 (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Should be entitled "Letter to the American People," requesting a move

It's officially named "Letter to the American People" 69.249.102.223 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I have seen both titles. Can you point me to the *original* publication please? I could not find it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Letter to the American people is a different text. Letter to America was published in 2002, while the former mentions Obama being President, among other things. Here's the removed Guardian publication of the 2002 letter: [LINK] KwiApril (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Not entirely sure. This was published in *2005* with the longer title. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/al-qaeda-now/november-2002-letter-to-the-american-people/75EE98C0C805527F439C61C4B875C957 PhotographyEdits (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There is another letter written by Osama bin Laden, undated but referencing Obama. It was declassified by the US Director of National Intelligence in 2015 with the title "Letter to the American people". It is 2 pages long and its full text is here: in English in Arabic. It would cause confusion to conflate these two letters. It's simplest to refer to the 2002 letter as Osama bin Laden's "Letter to America", as that's what The Observer titled it, and leave "Letter to the American people" referring to the later letter published by the US DNI 146.198.110.100 (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@KwiApril Please see the move request down below for more discussion. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I added the letter content to the article but some users keep removing it

I added the letter content of the article in a section, which the entire article is made about, but @Materialscientistremoved it without stating any reason in his summary, then re-added it and asked him to write a summary for his reason of removal, then @Philipnelson99 removed it saying “disruptive edit”, can someone elaborate what is “disruptive” about writing the content of the letter that the entire article is about ? I spent a lot of time and effort trying to reach it, and it is the central topic of the article, so why did these two users remove it ? Qarabağın ruhu (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the article? The veracity is in doubt, and it has been removed from reliable sources like The Guardian. This is not Wikisource, and this appears to be a concerted effort to amplify a TikTok meme. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

"The veracity is in doubt". What the hell are you talking about? This letter has been widely circulated by most major news organizations for decades already, and is easily available in news archives, academic analyses, and government reports. The letter is still available in full at Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/osama-bin-laden-letter-america-transcript-full-1844662 It's even being sold on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Full-text-Letter-America-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%84-ebook/dp/B0CNNNG8QJ

The level of censorship and propaganda on Wikipedia is becoming utterly ridiculous. Peirik1 (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also the letter is copyright by Bin Laden, newspapers are arguably violating it. There is a quote exemption in copyright law, but only for small snippets. But Bin Laden would arguably not have objected to this. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits You are absolutely ridiculous. 2A02:FE1:3100:2800:3CE2:50B3:6E36:11EB (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Content section?

Should we add a section that summarizes the letter's content? I agree with @Qarabağın ruhu that the points made within the letter are necessary to include, but copying the full text would obviously be unnecessary given the fact it's freely available on WikiSource. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Translated Text is not the letter

The text in the article is not the Letter to America. The letter was released in 2002 and the text in the article references the Obama presidency, which did not begin until 2008. Tapemucky123 (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The text that has been repeatedly removed? Or the wikisource link? Pac-Man PHD (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Article's first sentence should be changed

"Letter to the American people is a manifesto written in 2002 by Osama bin Laden."

The letter has not been definitively linked to Osama bin Laden. While he is the supposed author, there is evidence mentioned within the article itself that raises doubts about this. This should be changed to "Letter to the American people is a manifesto possibly written by Osama bin Laden in 2002." Pac-Man PHD (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Doubt on authenticity

The following reliably sourced statement has been removed from the page, which now presents no doubt about the authenticity of the manifesto being written by Bin Laden. @Shadowwarrior8 , can you explain why?

authenticity is unverified and has been questioned due to its unusual focus on topics like AIDS and incest and lack of accompanying video or audio Marokwitz (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz

It was not "removed". The content of the source was paraphrased and moved to the body (see: History section) with proper attribution. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand - thanks. But if the authorship of the manifesto is in doubt, this should also be noted in the lead. Marokwitz (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not in doubt. The claim of the author was that the attribution is debatable and she herself has no solid opinion on this. Keep in mind that the author is also an American analyst at the U.S. think tank Council of Foreign relations and has her biases. Nevertheless, the author herself has attributed the letter to Osama Bin Laden in her collection of Bin Laden's statements.

Additionally, none of the reliable sources dispute the attribution of the letter to Bin Laden. The encyclopaedic source clearly attributes it to Bin laden and so has various news outlets like "The Guardian", "The Observer", "The New York Times", etc. since 2002. Therefore, that author's one-off remark is not needed in the lede. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Letter to the American people → Letter to America – Move for procedural reasons. I am neutral because I am clueless about the correctness of the title, but let's have an official move discussion to get a more formal consensus. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: All reliable sources demonstrate that the title of the document itself is "Letter to the American people". "Letter to America" only appears in news headlines while discussing or citing the letter.

• Encyclopaedic reference:

"The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts" (2010)

Osama bin Laden, “'Letter to the American People,” November 2002

• Guardian article (2002)

"letter to the American people"

• "Al-Qaeda Now" (2005) p. 217

"Letter to the American People"

• Observer article (2002)

"Online document: the full text of Osama bin Laden's "letter to the American people", reported in today's Observer. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral Weak Oppose: I have no opinion either way, as I think either are acceptable; but I wanted to mention that the letter is consistently referred to as Letter to America in Faisal Devji's book: Landscapes of the Jihad: Militancy, Morality, Modernity. I would personally consider this a reliable source given Devji's credentials. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

We do know that Faisal's book is not offering a transcript of the letter, but an analysis. Just because the book refers to the letter as "letter to America" informally in two or three instances doesnt necessarily imply that this is the formal title of the letter. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not exclusively used informally, as he cites the letter as Letter to America in the notes section of the book as well. Regardless, the jist of your argument convinced me enough to change my opinion to Weak Oppose. Not enough reliable sources refer to it this way. As I said though, I think think either title is acceptable in most cases. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per @Shadowwarrior8 Parham wiki (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Shadowwarrior8 (above); also the CIA/Director of National Intelligence filed it in their database under "Letter to the American people" here, which is based on their translation of the title. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, that is a different letter. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, my bad. I have struck that. I found this from a Cambridge University Press publication on terrorism (who reproduced it), November 2002 – Letter to the American People. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• I oppose as this is the proper title, but I believe that: "or Letter to America" should be mentioned as an alternate title, as it is currently "trending" under that title. Also, I firmly believe that the word "people" should be capitalized, so the article should be titled: Letter to the American People. TuckerResearch (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Having the title "Letter to America" sounds vague and informal. The title " Letter to the American people" sounds more direct and specifies what the letter is for. Rager7 (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Shadowwarrior8, but I don't see why "Letter to America" shouldn't be acknowledged as an alternative title. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 07:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

References

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.

Question regarding mentions of the Torah

Hello everyone, just had a question on this quote from the letter:

"It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed."

The Torah is mentioned twice here, but is he referring to it in its Jewish context or its Islamic context? When I first looked at this quote, I assumed the first mention was the Jewish Torah while the latter is the Tawrat, and I initially linked them as such. However, recent edits to this quote have left me in doubt, and I'd like a knowledgeable answer from someone since I'm not very well-versed in Islam or Judaism.

Thanks, Pac-Man PHD (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The article should be titled: Letter to the American People

I believe that the word "people" should be capitalized, so the article should be titled: Letter to the American People. Comments? TuckerResearch (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it should be capitalised per Letter to the American People (Cambridge University Press. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I did the page move as per my suggestion and the handy reference from User:Aszx5000 above. TuckerResearch (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that parts of Osama bin Laden's letter to the American people featuring homophobia and misogyny were omitted by TikTok users who otherwise endorsed the letter? Source: https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/17/tiktok-takes-down-videos-promoting-osama-bin-ladens-letter-to-america-after-text-went-vira
  • ALT1: ... that a letter purportedly by Osama bin Laden that went viral on TikTok is being used by American right-wingers to call for a ban on the app? Source: https://www.wired.com/story/far-right-bin-laden-letter-to-america-conspiracies/
  • ALT2: ... that in a letter purportedly by Osama bin Laden, he calls for the United States to convert to Islam? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20040615081002/http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html
  • ALT3: ... that a letter to the American people written allegedly by Osama bin Laden has been cited as an example of online youth radicalization? Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2023/11/16/guardian-osama-bin-laden-letter-to-america/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/James Meager

Created by PhotographyEdits (talk). Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk) at 23:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Letter to the American people; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good to go once the Twitter citation is removed. All hooks are good, but the third one is probably the best. — Sourcing is fine, however please remove the Twitter citation. This claim about views was in the Washington Post, no need to link to Twitter also. MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• @MaxnaCarta: The Twitter citation has been removed. — Knightoftheswords 00:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

GTG Y — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel

The entire letter is centered around US support to Israel, yet, the first two paragraphs of the lede, mention the word Israel zero times. Clearly the lede has not properly summarized the article's body and needs major work. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of the letter centres around America's support of Israel as the chief grievece (which the article body text includes).

I would support changing the last sentence in the first lede paragraph to something like: The letter criticizes American foreign policy in the middle east—and particularly as it applies to its support of Israel—to justify attacks on American targets; the letter also employs antisemitic tropes. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Made the change now. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Two letters

There seems to be two letters going by the same name. This article's 2002 letter, and the letter found in 2011 when ObL was killed. — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)