Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Photograph

I understand that the current photo is the one used by the FBI, but I think it's lame. The older one was much cooler better.

I think it's rather strange that a photo with the caption "FBI 10 most wanted fugitives" is used. Sure, everyone will be happy when he's caught, but this is an encyclopedia, not the website of the FBI. --82.135.4.88 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely biased. I could care less if America's police have a warrent out for his arrest, I'm here to read about the man. The fact some beureaucracy wants him arrested has nothing to do with his life story, accomplishments, and infamy. Jackmont, March 14, 2007.

Versions of this article in other languages

Someone (admins) may want to check out this article in whatever language "فارسی " is, since it just says "penile cancer" over and over...plus, I don't read "فارسی ". I haven't checked the other translated pages yet.

Neutrality of the article is disputed

This article seems to broadly advocate Islam as a extremist terorist religion. The data and reference are mostly US/UK centric views. Maybe since this is an issue that is sensitive a review board is needed to ensure impartiality of this article, this review board should contain equal members of muslims who are the one insulted in this article and other who have interest in this article. That will be most democratic way to ensure neutrality.

Please state what items that you feel have been misrepresented. Mister Tog 06:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As well, please follow the instructions above and sign and date your post with four tildes (~).Arcayne 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it, they all are compelled by their beliefs to "kill the infidel". If that's not extremist, I don't know what is. 24.231.209.204 01:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about Muslim militant fundamentalists, or all Muslims as a group?Arcayne 12:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Koran instructs Muslims to kill or enslave non-Muslims (Infidels). Some actually do it most don't. Cases of Muslims opposing this are very very rare. 70.171.45.249 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the Quran before making assumptions. Most verses promoting intolerance to unbelievers are clear that the punishment will be in the afterlife. If an unbeliever offers peace then a believer will be punished by Allah if they hurt him. If they offer war then yes...the Quran does instruct believers to kill and enslave them. The Bible and Quran are much the same when it comes to killing unbelievers. If you compare historical Islamic empires with Christian empires (spain is an excellent example) then it is obvious that Islam is much more tolerant. Fundamentalists of both religions are the same, they only see the verses that conform to their own view and misinterpret those that don't. Wayne 07:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden's birth date

Osama bin Laden was actually born in the year of 1955. (says the biography of Osama bin Laden; written by Nancy Luis in the U.S.A.)How many countries have been attacked under his name now?

Azzam's murder

I don't understand the need to bracket off the claim that OBL was suspected of having something to do with Azzam's death. It is common speculation among US intel. Gunaratna gives the claim some credibility, and the claim is reported by Burke, Bergen, Benjamin, and pretty much every book I've read about the topic of al-Qaeda. I don't understand the claim that it is defamatory. The article doesnt accuse OBL of the murder; it accurately states that he was suspected of ordering it. That said, I don't think he ordered it. OBL was in Saudi Arabia when it occurred. The murder was very carefully planned, so as not to kill any Pakistanis (in order to avoid close investigation). Certainly OBL profited immensely from it, however, as it made him the new Islamist leader. Other possible candidates include the KHAD and Mossad, both of whom had motive, but neither of whom is a likely suspect. Bergen claims the more likely suspect is an alliance of Zawahiri and Hekmatyar - this claim is certainly credible, and if accurate, it means bin Laden was likely aware of the murder and knew that he would profit from it. It occurred at a time he was getting closer to Hekmatyar (and when Azzam was promoting Massoud as the future of Islam, while Zawahiri was spreading the claim that Azzam was a bad Muslim).--csloat 07:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fatwa

Concerning Osama's "edict", which has been hyperlinked to fatwa: Does anyone know whether Osama or any of the signatories to that edict/fatwa are recognised Muslims clerics authorized under islamic law to issue such editcs/fatwas? If not, then what is written in the intro is neither an edict nor a fatwa, and it is non binding on Muslims. It is merely Osama and his mates stating their political ideaologies, and they should not be elevated and represented as edicts.

If the sources actually states it is a fatwah, then it should be stated that such and such source says a fatwa was issues, but as a side note also mention that those who issued it (Osama et al) are not islamic clerics and under islamic law it is not a fatwa and not legally binding upon muslims. Al-Andalus 05:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC).

It is recognized as a fatwa, and called such by all commentators on the issue, but you're right, none of the signatories have any legitimate authority to issue fatwa, and in fact this is usually commented upon as well in most books and articles on the issue. We should probably have a short section clarifying this; bin Laden uses the form of the fatwa as a rhetorical device, but it is surely not binding in any Islamic legal sense.--csloat 07:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I chose the word edict because it is neutral on the matter of its clerical legitimacy. Although the wikipedia entry doesnt mention its common secondary meaning as an authoritative command, all dictionaries include it [1][2][3][4] Mrdthree 17:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Fatwa and correct if it is incorrect.

Thanks for all your contributions (that goes to all), -- That Guy 05:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

From fatwa: A fatwa is a legal pronouncement in Islam made by a mufti, a scholar capable of issuing judgments on Sharia (Islamic law), which none of the signatories were. That on it's own disqualifies it as a fatwa.

Furthermore, if it had been issued by person/s with the legal authority, the fatwa must be:

1. In line with relevant legal proofs, deduced from Koranic verses and hadiths;
2. Issued by a person (or a board) having due knowledge and sincerity of heart;
3. Be free from individual opportunism, and not depending on political servitude;
4. Be adequate with the needs of the contemporary world.

Two of those four principles (1 & 3) are not met, and the other two are questionable. Additionally, there have been later legitimate fatwas issued by persons that actually have Islamic legal authority and which fulfill those four princiles that have pronounced the opposite of Osama's alleged fatwa.

Why is this a difficult thing to understand? The question is also, why do some people editting this article want to make Osama out to be some kind of scholar or legal religious authority when he is nothing more than a terrorist. You're only feeding his legitimacy.

Also, Osama is officially a wanted fugitive in most Arab and Islamic countries, and he is not a part of any legally recognised political constituancy of any Islamic country (ie. he is not a member of any government who may or may not have a partial say in the issuing of fatwas in officially Islamic countries). Al-Andalus 22:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

terrorist ??

That Guy, From That Show! seems to have many terrorist sympathies. If you ctrl-f his name, you will find him all over this page supressing any information linking OBL to terrorism or anything bad. I sususpect he is a terrorist. Discuss. 134.88.147.199 16:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

quick questions for all the pundits who seem to dictate ,this article ..

1. Isnt this bin laden guy a terrorist ??

2.If so why some people here are so against putting that tag to him ??

3. Didnt this guy make a confession(s) about his involvement in 9/11 terrorist acts ??

4. If so why we still have to use the word "alleged" ??

5. This article states ,"osama is one of the fouders of al-qaeda" , but do not give a clue about the other founders. If he's one of the founders ,i believe readers have the right to know the rest of them too

1. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The man is a nutcase, a long-time CIA asset, and, in all likelihood, dead.

2. See first sentence above.

3. I have experience with guerrilla organisations' movements and tactics, and how things usually work with "terrorism". I could blow up a building, videotape me saying I've created a new Irish branch of al-Qaeda and saying that we're responsible. The next day it'd be all over the headlines "NEW ISLAMIST TERRORIST ORGANISATION AL-TOPOTHEMORNINTOYA BLOWS UP FACTORY". The moral of the story is: any insane person can claim to be part of any organisation and the media/sheeple will lap it up like dogs.

4. Because aside from a few dodgy videos, how can anyone prove his guilt, especially taking into account his past and American ties? If you walk into a police station and say "yeah, I committed that murder last week" they cannot charge you until they can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that you committed it. The word of a few neo-con "terrorism experts" is not proof and would be inadmissable as proof in court. Coconuteire 00:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Coconuteire, I disagree with your initial assessment stated in #1. No one directing a world-wide organization is a "nutcase." He may be a sociopath, or narrow-minded, but not a nutcase, which lessens the reality of ho OBL is. As well, he was a CIA asset - past tense. He was utilized in the 70's during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. To insist he remained a CIA asset past the 80's is more than highly speculative. And lastly, the man is not dead unless we have genetic testing of remains proving it.

Also, if you are going to claim 'experience with guerilla organizations' movement and tactics,' you should back that up with citable references. Far too many people online consider themselves "experts" simply because they have read two or three op-ed pieces. When you claim experience, you are either claiming to be a terrorist yourself, or some self-important person. Either way, I just tend to gloss over whatever that person says as white noise. An expert never has to say they are; they demonstrate that they are.

While the Topo-Qaeda supposition was amusing, it would seem highly unlikely that an organization would claim responsibility for something they didn't do, specifically because of the resulting police agency attention and repercussions from the actual responsible party/organization. there may be no honor among thieves, but the international terrorist community is actually rather small, and bullsh**ers get slapped down pretty hard from within the community up to and including exposure from fellow organizations. It happened all the time with competing Basque separatist groups as well as Hamas and the PLO.

Lastly, in #4, you question OBL's guilt. He's admitted to it. Your assumption that the police will not charge yoou without proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt" displays a striking naiveté. The police will do the required amount of work to complete their cases, and someone confessing the crime - so long as the forensics match the confession - will get prosecuted for that crime. Does that mean they actually did it? Immaterial. While "neo-con 'terrorism experts'" are just as present as conspiracy theorists, proof (manufactured, contrafactural or otherwise) is certainly admissable in a court of law. It happens all the time. Let's not be pollyanna-ish about this, please.Arcayne 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

eeding to call him a "super-terrorist" or "terrorist mastermind" shows the absurdity of these sorts of labels, for good or bad, whereas it is fairly clear when someone writes a book that he is an "author". It is better just to say state specifically his activities. —Centrx→talk • 17:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Labels obfuscate the subject matter, like misplaced patriotism and jingoism and other -isms.Arcayne 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for ur reply dear Centrx, but my points still remain valid.And ur claim of making labels absurd is itself absurd..And so as ur claim of present terrorist such as osama becoming "freedom fighters" in the future.which is not only absurd but also hypothetical too..osama deserved that "terrorist lable" and anyone who deny that(esp the pundiths here) is an insult to osama him self..

talking of absurdity, how about the one osama is one of the founders of al-qaeda" ??? isnt this absurd ?? If hes one of them, who are the rest ??

wikipedia is great.But when its come to religious related issues ,esp islam , i have to say wikipedia is somewhat disappointing .it really does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.30.47.213 (talk • contribs)

Well, i would suggest that, instead of complaining about the inadequate coverage, you roll up your sleeves and get a user ID and start contributing. Otherwise, you are just another anonymous piece of white noise.Arcayne 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Osama is one of the founders of al-Qaeda. Ayman al-Zawahiri is another one. --Mr. Billion 06:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

according to wikipedia,you are wrong dear Billion. Ayman al-Zawahiriis not one of the founders of al-qaeda. look what wikipedia says of him In 1998 he formally merged Egyptian Islamic Jihad into al-Qaeda.

..Where does it say he started /founded it ?? Also that article clearly states that Ayman al-Zawahiri is a terrorist, but pundiths here are so reluctant to call osama a terrorist. Why people here are not giving enough credits to osama bin laden for his terrorist activities ?? thanks

When we're talking about the French resistance, we don't say "terrorists", and we don't say "freedom fighters". We just say "resistance". In the same way, we don't call OBL a "terrorist", neither do we call him a "holy warrior" (or something like that). We just call him a militant islamist, which gives much more information, and much less emotion. Which is what the encyclopaedic tone is all about. yandman 07:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the joke ..hope you will make some better ones in the future,because people need them when they are engaged in serious discussions.

getting back to the topic, french resistance has nothing to do with this..i dont know whom do you refer by we, but i certainly call them "freedom fighters".And if you think Osama and the french freedom fighter fought for the same cause, please elaborate.If you seriously think osama is a holy fighter , please go ahead..Do some edits, and i'll be waiting to read your new findings.

plus i never knew calling a terrorist a terrorist a sentimental issue..IS this a policy of wikipedia ?? what should i do , laugh or cry ?? Also could you please explain why Ayman al-Zawahiri is tagged as a terrorist ?? isnt this double standard ?? thanks again for all your red-herrings

Read Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. The article states further on that he has been accused by the US of being a terrorist. yandman 08:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

so what ?? My points still remain valid..Ill repeat them again for the benifit of you .

1. If Ayman al-Zawahiri is labelled as a terrorist why not his boss osama ?

al-Zawahiri is not labelled as a terrorist, the article says that some countries consider him to be one. Not quite the same thing. Anyway, if there are problems with that article, discuss them over there. yandman 13:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

well my point is the same , if al-Zawahiri is considered as a terrorist by some countries, why not you can say the same for Osama ?? After all osama is his boss, isnt he ??

2. If osama is one of the founders of Al-Qaeda , who are the rest ?? certainly Ayman al-Zawahiri is not one of them.Not according to his article here nor any article anywhere

No idea. Go to the village pump, maybe someone knows. yandman 13:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

went there and no one knew it !!! So if you dont even know, who are the other founding members of it,how can you say osama is one of the founders ??? .If you are so certain that hes one of many/some, you should be able to name atleast one/few of them..have a look at this article Warner Bros.

Sorry you were wrong advised. The village pump isn't for this kind of question, try the reference desk. However I don't get why you don't just check out al-Qaeda which appears to go in to some detail on the history of the organisation. If there are any shortcomings, I suggest you discuss them there. There is no need for us to go in to detail in this article since it's about Osama bin Laden not al-Qaeda. A reader who wants to know more about the organisation can check out the al-Qaeda article. Nil Einne 14:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

and further, Why only the US government ?? Many other nations, people regarded him as a terrorist too..So why cant we say, hes considered as a terrorist by many nations/countries ?? OR he's widely regarded as a deadly terrorist ??

"deadly" is redundant (benevolent terrorism?), PoV and not in the right tone. And we would need sources from other governments saying "Bin-Laden is a terrorist". Not "Al-Q is a terrorist organisation", or "the 11/09 attacks were terrorist attacks". But if we've got those sources, we can always work them in. yandman 13:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay these Pov thing again..let throw away deadly, and concentrate on your second point..Al-qaeda is a terrorist group and has done some terrorist attacks, but its founder and top figure/leader is not a terrorist ??? I hope you not kidding me..i never knew wikipedians dont have this thing called "common sense"

thanks

Ayman al-Zawahiri, as his article points out, was instrumental in forming al-Qaeda as it was at the time of the September 11 attacks by merging it with his old group. Abdullah Azzam was another person who helped found al-Qaeda originally. By the way, anon, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes (~). That way people can keep track of who's saying what. In addition, please don't be a dick. --Mr. Billion 23:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

i politely ask u to use bit of your head dear billion..you must be a all mighty person here in wikipedia, but please mind your language.I can come up with better words to describe you...but since i respect wikipedia a lot, i dont want to enter into a mud-slinging with anyone..So please stick to the points. I'm not satisfied with certain things in the article.further iam certainly not satified with the answers i got here.Ayman al-Zawahiri is not one of the founders of al-qaeda.No one claims that, not even Ayman al-Zawahiri himself..So you were wrong in giving him as a founder in the first place..secondly please provide any proof that Abdullah Azzam was in anyway involved in the foundation of al-qaeda ?? Or anyone else ..Then i can rest my case..

Also i would appreciate if you reconsider your decision not to call osama a terrorist..

finally(again) iam kindly ask you to mind the language you write.thanks

--Iwazaki 16:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The point of the meta:don't be a dick guideline is to encourage people not to adopt a rude attitude like the one you've displayed in saying things like "thanks for the joke" in response to other peoples' replies, or condescendingly calling others your "dear". Anyone who's read this or the WP article on Abdullah Azzam should be able to see that he was another important figure in the establishment of the organization called al-Qaeda. I only make that point because you seemed to be suggesting that Osama bin Laden was the sole figure in the founding of al-Qaeda, which is not correct. By the way, I have no problem with calling Osama bin Laden a terrorist. He fits the dictionary definition. --Mr. Billion 06:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the dictionary definition. Seeing as he defiantly fits that definition, calling him a terrorist isn't bringing emotion into the equation, it is defining him and what he does. [5]. THL 08:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, see the bottom of the wiktionary article: "The use of the label "terrorist" is often controversial or subjective". Anyway, we have to respect WP:words to avoid, and one of them is "terrorist". yandman 08:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware that WP had a list like that. However, WP:IAR may be waranted in this situation. Is it controversial in this particular case? The vast majority of the population considers him a terrorist. If I am wrong please tell me. THL 08:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yandman, I encourage you to be civil and not offend anyone as you've done in this discussion. You know, don't be a dick dude. Thankyou Twentyboy 11:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That goes for you too THL. don't be a dick either. Stop telling showing me fat naked pictures of chinese men all over the placeTwentyboy 11:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

One place, not naked, Japanese, and you were a dick to me first. Please, can we keep our dispute out of Osama Bin Laden's article. THL 13:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

hmmm naked japanese men...anyways, according to wikipedia's article on 'terrorism', it is a term with negative connotation. connotative of course has emotional and subjective aspects, so labeling any one a terrorist isn't very professional, its more of a political term used to stereotype a group of people with different beliefs and uses of violence. although i would certainly personally and conversationally label bin laden as a terrorist, it seems like a method of literary imperialism.AlexOvShaolin 14:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Akebono Taro, I take no responsibility for your eyes melting should you choose to click the link (he is a sumo wrestler/pro wrestler). Anyway, I do realize that terrorist is a loaded word, and if the consensus is to keep it out of the article, so be it. THL 05:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of you guys, please calm down! It's only an article. --ToyotaPanasonic 12:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll sum it up right for you quick:

1. You could call him that.

2. Because Terrorist is not the best or most defining word for him. It is also on the words to avoid list, as already stated.

3. Yes, but the United States hasn't indicted him for 9/11.

4. Because you still don't know if OBL is telling the truth, and I've also seen large disputes on the internet about whether the OBL Tape is actually him.

5. No. If the viewers of Wikipedia want to know the other founders, they can go to the AQ article. It just doesn't fit, it's like talking about Babe Ruth's homeruns in an article about George Bush Sr; it just doesn't go.

65.92.151.92 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, I had already conceded. I don't really care about what you just said, because he is known to be in charge of Al-Qaeda, that organization's most commonly used and effective weapon is terror, and they won't do anything without his consent because he holds their wallet. I gave in because of consensus, and I wish that could just be good enough. People as different as you and me will never be able to see the other's POV, but on Wikipedia one thing binds all of us; consensus. I will bow out to the power of consensus on this article, and please let that be enough. THL 00:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Facts, or lack of them is the primary issue. That is the Wikipedia way. You are free to believe otherwise.

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 06:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about terrorism or terror now? Terrorism is a word who's meaning is often debated but we at least have some agreement on what terrorism is even if we can't agree what is terrorism. Terror however is not something you'd fine much agreement on. I'd argue that the US and Israel, along with most para-military organisations use terror a lot and indeed it is one of their most effective weapons Nil Einne 14:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that is contradictory to state that Bin Laden is one of the founding memebrs without being able to say who any of the others are, I also agree that it is not for this page to list those founding memebers, rather the A-Q page itself. Also whilst not particularly relevent to this page, I would disagree with "they won't do anything without his consent because he holds their wallet". I thought it was commonly held now that Bin Laden had little, if any, control or direction on Al-Qaeda's current activities, and the group was now more or less a collection of self-sufficent cells operating under their own commmand. I believe the 'should someone be decribed as a Terrorist' argument has been done to death on Wiki! --Mike Infinitum 00:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a list anywhere on Wikipedia? If so just say, "He is one of the [[list of al-Qaeda founders|founding members]] of al-Qaeda. Simple and effective solution. -- THL 01:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mike Infinitum said: I thought it was commonly held now that Bin Laden had little, if any, control or direction on Al-Qaeda's current activities, and the group was now more or less a collection of self-sufficent cells operating under their own commmand.

Yes, this is true except in common media outlets that don't provide an avenue to allow all public contests to those assertions. Where public comments are allowed freely, the view shown is quite different.

I believe the 'should someone be decribed as a Terrorist' argument has been done to death on Wiki!

It Will Not Die. It is a very powerful propaganda term for either side of any particular issue.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 09:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally believe it's contradictory. Provided we know he's not the only founder then even if we don't know who the other's are he's one of the founders... Nil Einne 14:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with saying that he's one of the founders without stating the others? It's not like this information isn't available elsewhere on WP. It's not even relevent to the article who the others were. It's an article on OBL, not Al-Qaeda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.101.184.192 (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

To hell with it. There's no point in arguing. Personally, I think he should be labeled as an Islamic Facist, but wikipedia, in an attempt to be "encyclopedic" has to be the most politically correct possible. Don't even bother with it, it will never change. USMCAirstrike 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

'Nutcase' is more opinion than fact, and people who come on here are usually looking for fact. And no one can prove that he's dead. Again, more opinion than fact.

funny

i found another funny edit in this article..The fatwa issued by the slamic Commission of Spain..Although not a single islamic country publicly endorsed that fatwa, the wikipedian article erroneously says "islamic leaders from various countries supports it ". Iam confused ??!! Who are these islamic leaders, since none has done this publicly we only know the words of spanish clerics.does it carry any real weight ? secondly what are those various countries ?? Fox article mentioned only 3 countries.Can we really use he word various here ?? Since the article explicitly state only 3 countries and most importantly we have no proof that they endorsed the so-called fatwa..So why do we have to use this ambiguous statement in the beginning of osamas article.

thanks --Iwazaki 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is not notable enough to be in the main paragraph. What do you think? yandman 19:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

i think the same.this should not be in the main article, simply because its highly ambiguous..unless someone comes with some proofs to back up this claim,we should remove this part from the article

--Iwazaki 23:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

yandman, i made a couple of changes to it..But still i believe the whole fatwa passage is irrelevant and not necessary to this article..let me know what u think about it.thanks

--Iwazaki 05:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In the bin. And if you're wondering about the "what he claimed to be a fatwa" sentence, it's because an editor claims he didn't have the authority to issue one. yandman 06:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The joke that I personally find most funny is the one where two editors profess "concern" (note the sarcasm) for the article's integrity due to a supposed questionability of a fatwa (this time it atually is one) which was issued by the Islamic Commission of Spain and supported by Islamic leaders from various Muslim countries. They hold this "concern" for that actual fatwa while at the same time promoting and arguing in favour of the soundness of another "fatwa" which was nothing more than a proclamation issued by derranged lunatics with no level of institutional authority in islam but who happen to be muslims.

Also of hilarity is the protestation to even the inclusion of the previous mentioned actual fatwa issued against bin Laden out of "concern" for relavance (why not soundness?). Considering he is a muslim and commits his activities in the name of Islam, one would think it is of extreme relevance that an Islamic council has in essence excomunicated him from his own religion. Btw, that isn't the first time documents such as those have been issued against bin Laden, it's only that it was issued by an islamic body in a western country that it was moderately covered by the media. The content of the fatwa against him is extremely relevant. I even made sure the source link was from FOXNews to in advance placate any conservativism in your preferance for sources or potential of "questianable source". If need be, i can add ten more links to other media outlets covering the same report.

Also, the reason specific islamic leaders seldomly publically identify themselves when endorsing fatwas or issuing similar proclamation of their own against bin Laden should be obvious; they'd be targeted by bin Laden as every other of his political opponents. It's all political, as bin Laden himself, and his organizations are irreligious, though they happen to be muslims. They and the purpose of their organizations are as "religion driven" as the IRA's policy and members were driven by Catholicism or Zionism and Zionists are driven by Judaism. Al-Qaeda and splinters murder (in numeric order) Jews, Christians, and most numerously Muslims. Al-Andalus 08:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The horror! The horror! Did you think I was some kind of inbred redneck texan? I don't think anything from Fox is even close to being a reliable source, but that's not the point. Anyway, the problem is that this merits inclusion in the article, but not in the intro. The fact that the islamic council of a country (in which he has never been) "excommunicated" him isn't that notable. We don't go into the different criminal charges against OBL in the intro, so why should we go into this? Intro's have got to stay short. You'll notice the intro doesn't talk about those who support him either. I don't think the article goes into depth either. Have we got an article about pro and anti OBLism? And as for your last comment, I don't agree. I think he's a fervent muslim who truly believes that what he's doing is right and holy. yandman 08:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Al-Andalus, Re-read my comments again.U dont need any reading comprehension skills to fathom that.I do not argue about the importance of the fatwa.I simply think its highly ambiguous(What u wrote) doesnt carry any weight(fatwa it self).Its highly dubious because none of those so-called islamic scholars have endorsed it publicly..Also i really dont know why you have used the word various(both in the article and even here in this discussion) when fox article clearly states only 3 countries. Your sources merely echoes what these spanish clerics say,and certainly we cant take them for granted.If you can give us better evidence than parroting those spanish clerics, i have no problem having it in this article(if its not in the intro)

--User:iwazaki 11:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden did NOT confess to 9/11 he acutally said he didnt do it on a middle eastern news channel. The video the American Government are trying to pass off as a confession is clearly not Osama Bin Laden unless he got a cosmetic surgery on his face, I very much doubt he did though.

Arabic spelling

Is his name spelled أسامه or أسامة in Arabic? Both appear on Google, although there are 238 000 results for the ta marbuta ending and 15 000 for the haa ending. Adam Bishop 00:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Was there a difference? Maybe it's my browser... Anyway, I say trust the google-test. yandman 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they are different letters, -at and -ah. From my very limited knowledge of Arabic, -at usually makes a word feminine, but I guess that is not always true. I ask because I thought the other Osama I know of, Usamah ibn Munqidh, ends with -ah, but maybe they are both -at. (It's hard to find an answer since they don't pronounce -at in Arabic.) Adam Bishop 17:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I forgot you had to read it backwards. Arabic wikipedia has the first spelling, as far as I can tell, so I'd follow them. yandman 17:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL you don't read it backwards, you read it foward, in Arabic right-to-left is fowards, its only backwards compared to roman and cyrilic languages.

The spelling which ends tah marbuta is correct. LDH 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What new data if any

What new and well sourced data if any at all even really exists has emerged through Wikipedia concerning Osama who (if alive ?) is to turn 50 years old on what is to be March 10th of 2007. Amd what new and fresh data if any has surfaced and emerged on George Walker Bush of who is 61 years old on July 06th of 2007 in his exhaustive hunt on terrorists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 04:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

UBL is dead. The article should say that he died of typhus last year as the french announced. He is now in paradise with camels and virgins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Although I very much hope he is, we don't actually have any proof that he is dead. For data, seeing as how march 10th has passed, I don't know if there actually is any, but I remember seeing a news report that his followers were celebrating his birthday. I could be wrong, but check CNN. JDub90 16:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

New stuff

Now we don't have any mention of 9/11 in the intro... yandman 22:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it, Tom must have inadvertently moved it with the new material that he wanted to introduce.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 04:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

9/11

The idea that Bin Laden is behind 9/11 is widespread, and it needs mention in this article more than one line and a see also link. This section is no longer than any other section in this article. Furthermore, all the material is properly cited. I will keep watching this article, so that the article length doesn't get "massive", but to drastically shorten the section as you tried to do gives less than proper due weight. --Aude (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The idea is widespread but widespread beliefs are not what Wikipedia is about.

One good solution would be to have a few paragraphs about those who say he did it and a few paragraphs about the lack of any evidence to preserve POV. This is a WP:BLP related article so we must take much care.

But, it hasn't worked in the past here. I don't understand what the big problem is with letting the primary article regarding responsibility for 9/11 take care of these issues.

Also, WP:BLP again, we cannot state as fact that he funded and directed 9/11 without any verifiable trustworthy sources with solid facts to support it. As I mentioned in a recent edit summary, this year, Rex Tomb said that the FBI didn't have (wasn't aware of) any hard evidence when asked why no one had 'wanted' notices for OBL & 9/11. Notice that the CIA, FBI, and Interpol do not list that they want OBL for 9/11. They don't even list him on their we'd like to have a chat with these people lists. This is a serious problem especially regarding a Living Persons article.

That sort of 'he absolutely did do it' stuff MUST be removed ASAP. FYI: 3rr does not apply when you do so.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The videos include words of Osama bin Laden himself. Is Osama not a reliable source for an article about Osama? It's absolutely necessary to include mention of the videos and what he's said. Videos might not be admissible evidence in a courtroom, but Wikipedia is not a courtroom. If the material is properly cited, per WP:RS and WP:CITE than it needs to stay. --Aude (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The videos include words of Osama bin Laden himself. Actually, there has been quite a lot of debate/analysis about that (alleged statements and their meanings) previously here and consensus got the article to where it was...no edit warring, article fairly stable. Look at talk archives and page history, it took 5 years to accomplish this.

We are here to inform, not to promote our own personal views (even if they are widespread) on any particular subject. Even if we see it as 'well OBL said he didn't do it and then he said he did' and use that as FACT that he did it, OBL himself isn't anything close to being a reliable source. That problem can't be avoided.

ie: OBL can't be used as a trusted source if he previously lied about the same matter.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 18:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

But, we can repeat his words here, saying "Bin laden said 'this, blah blah blah' in such video" and go by what reliable sources say. To omit that would be to neglect major facts and details. --Aude (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The guy admitted both planning and ordering the attacks...maybe not under oath or whatever, but the evidence he did is far more conclusive than he didn't. Since the videos and other media have demostrated. [6], [7]--MONGO 20:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Be careful you don't ever become a lawyer. You'd just embarrass yourself in court. You cannot hold someone responsible for a crime just because they say they did it. The FBI does not hold Osama bin Laden responsible for 9/11 for a very good reason. If he did it, it'd be all over his FBI page. I wouldn't take the word of "other media" at face value. The "OSAMA DID IT OMG LOL" machine kicked into action mere hours after the first plane hit, without evidence, and that myth has persisted to this day. Coconuteire 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

far more conclusive is yours POV. --- ابراهيم 12:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In one of the early paragraphs, there is the following: "Altogether, 2,973 people were killed." Does this number include the hijackers themselves? A lot of 'official' counts specifically do not count them. I ask not to raise a ruckus, but to point out that we might want to re-word the statement to reflect that the 2973 who perished are not including the hijackers themselves. It would be great if a proper source were found to verify that number, seeing as a lot of news sources refuse to count them out of respect for the families.Arcayne 12:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits against consensus

It took a long time to get this article in good shape. A lot of editors worked together over a period of time to improve it. Recently, there have been a lot of POV edits and some completely ignoring (even after warnings) Biographies of living persons and previous consensus in relation to this article.

That policy is crucial regarding articles of this type. We cannot make claims about person X without solid evidence to prove those statements of fact. This is a big part of why editors need to work together to 'boil' an article down to facts rather than editor interpretations or beliefs.

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 06:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The key to BLP is verifiability and good sourcing using reliable sources. Bin Laden taking responsibility for 9/11 is well-supported by reliable sources. Your reversion to "some claim that he funded and directed them" is entirely unsupported by citations, and removes other citations. That is unacceptable. --Aude (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The majority of editors disagree and that is why consensus was reached to use an NPOV introduction rather than a version similar to yours. (talk archives show this quite readily).

-- That Guy, From That Show! 07:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, removal of reliable references that support the fact that he admitted to planning and orchestrating the 9/11 attacks is simply academic dishonesty on your part. Continued efforts to suppress reliable references is known as POV pushing, regardless of what the consensus was. Continued efforts to misuse WP:BLP in some effort to keep the facts out of this article is a bad thing, so let's not do that. Thanks.--MONGO 10:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Continued efforts to suppress reliable references is known as POV pushing, regardless of what the consensus was. Continued efforts to misuse WP:BLP in some effort to keep the facts out of this article is a bad thing, so let's not do that.

Nice try, but this is about the introduction, not suppression.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 16:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"You keep using that word..." Everyone agrees that neutrality and consensus are good. We disagree, I guess, on what those are. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick question. First a comment, a lot of the main editors of this page use the argument "Well actually, there has been a lot of debate surround whether or not X is true...". That is a truly pathetic argument, but if you all can use it so can I. Now the question. Should this article be considered a biography about a living person? There has been a lot of debate about whether or not he is still alive. -- THL 05:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Until you have a corpse and verify through genetic testing that OBL is in fact that corpse, the man is alive. "Salute optimism, await evidence" - Marcus Aurellius (I think)Arcayne 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Salon.com as a source for this article

This article uses salon.com as a reference. A concern has been raised about the reliability of salon.com. You can read the following discussion and comment if you like. SeeTalk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_WikipediaAndries 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you take issue with Salon, you MUST take issue with NewsMax.com, which is also cited as a source for this article, specifically the assertion that Bill Clinton admitted on tape that he neglected to take the Sudanese up on their offer to extradite bin Laden to the US. Google isn't quite as reliable as LexisNexis, but googling for that particular topic turns up only NewsMax.com and Sean Hannity bloviating about the NewsMax.com article. The article itself is about as NPOV as one can get, asserting without any sources or eviddnce that during "secret meetings" with Sudanese officials about bin Laden, he wasn't paying attention because he was busy thinking about Monica Lewinski. The article then goes on for pages rehashing the Starr report, interspersing quotations from that with unsourced information about more "secret meetings" between CIA, FBI, and Sudanese officials. The whole thing reads like speculation with no way to prove that any of the events detailed in it ever happened. I'm going to remove it as a source and add a line to the entry noting that Clinton and his advisors have retracted what he said on that tape unequivically, saying that he misspoke.

18.85.45.139 01:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC) mmoskwa

Never mind, didn't realize the page was protected. Anyway, I believe that what I suggested should be added. Using NewsMax as a source definitely violates NPOV. Just read the wikipedia entry and see why.18.85.45.139 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Charities?

According to this website..which seems legit http://www.tkb.org/KeyLeader.jsp?memID=6 OSama receives money fro mcharities.....--64.121.1.55 08:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with "expert in Islamic jurisprudence"

re: this line in "Education and politicization":

Osama bin Laden is an expert in Islamic jurisprudence and completed a portion of his Islamic education under the guidance of Musa al-Qarni.[citation needed]

OBL is not an expert in the sense of a trained Islamic jurist. Propose we have something along the lines of this from Messages to the World

... Nor is bin Laden an outsanding Qur'anic scholar: he lacks command of textual subtleties that mark Wahhabi exegetes in Arabia, or their Azhari counterparts in Cairo. Yet he is a well versed in the classical scriptures and traditions of Islam, and uses them to great advantage ... (p.xvi)

I don't know how useful this label is:

as there is little doubt bin Laden has business and engineering training. I don't have cites for years of graduation though. --Leroy65X 23:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

More on the "expert in Islamic jurisprudence"

The cite http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1082 has been added as source for bin Laden's alleged expertise in Islamic jurisprudence. I just got done reading the interview with Musa al-Qarni cited. It does indeed say that Musa al-Qarni knew bin Laden, and that bin Laden is a good fighter of jihad. It says nothing about bin Laden's knowledge of or training in Islamic jurisprudence.

Another cite: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=166 "Former Dean of Islamic Law at Qatar University: Our Culture Is Responsible for Terrorism," supposedly has the quote:

As an authority on Islam, he has the support of the support of 85% of the population in the Arab region.

But the interview actually says:

... I see this as a policy of having it both ways. When Al-Qa'eda leader did what he did, polls in the Arabs region showed he had the support of 85% of the population.

The cite is not true. I'm going to have to take it out. --Leroy65X 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Footnote refers to dead link

The footnote for

In 1974, at the age of 17, bin Laden married his first wife, Najwa Ghanem, his mother's niece, and a first cousin, who was from Syria. The marriage ceremony took place in Najwa's native land, at Latakia, in northwestern Syria.

...gives this link as a source: http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/051226roco01?page=2 but it's dead. --Leroy65X 18:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

New link found, old one replaced. information confirmed. --Leroy65X 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is disputed

The neutrality of this article is disputed. This is as it seems to label the religion of Islam as a terorist teaching. May I sugest you invite people from different background religion, nationality dan race to aprove this article. At least you can try your best to make this article more neutral rather than UK/US centric as it is now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.49.89.75 (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, the (inaccurate) line saying "As an authority on Islam, he has the support of the support of 85% of the population in the Arab region," has been removed. That should help. --Leroy65X 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that there's no mention of the dispute over the alleged "confession tapes." At least there should be a disclaimer under the section "September 11 Attacks" stating that fact. Do a search and you'll find the comparison images from those 5 tapes don't all show the same person. One video shows a man who looks about as much like the rest of the known images of Bin Laden as Mel Gibson does. Don't Panic 23:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision of Children Paragraph

Someone should delete the last part of this paragraph. Obadiaha 18:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Responsibility for 11 September

It says, with multiple references, that bin Laden has taken the responsibility for the 11 September events. I have read about bin Laden not taking the responsibility, only applauding what happened, but it was a long time ago, and I can't remember any of it now, except that the tape claimed to show the admission was apparently mistranslated. If anyone has any information about this: please bring it forth. Otherwise, I'll look it up later, when I'm in the mood for it. –Hetzer 23:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It is in the "September 11, 2001 attacks" section of the article. He said "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation." If you search for parts of that phrase you should be able to find the rest of it at an internet search site. On the next one released (the one I mention below wear he is wearing his ring) he say he knew about it, but he doesn't get specific, nor does he say whether or not he actually leant any assistance to, or conspired with, the hijackers. I think he gets more specific in later videos/audio/letters/etc., but I'm not too sure. 24.57.157.81 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

internal links for dates eg. 12th Sept 2006 - proposal for removal

Unless anyone has any objection within the next week, I will be removing internal links to specific dates, which have no relevance to this current article whatsoever. e.g. bin laden was born on [x/y/z] (internal link). --ToyotaPanasonic 12:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden's gold ring

I think it should be mentioned in the "Appearance and manner" that Bin Laden sometimes wears a gold ring on his right hand. Also it should mention that he is left-handed but sometimes writes with his right hand. He is wearing his ring in his December 13, 2001 confession tape, and also writing with his right hand. I'd put it in but the page is locked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.157.81 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Is he Islamic Scholar

Article is categorised in Islamic scholars? Is he Islamic scholar? If so please mention in article and provide citations.--Indianstar 14:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

He is. He didn't work for the Saudi Arabian regime because he didn't like it.--Patchouli 23:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Saudi government and many Muslims in the West regard him as a heretic while his supporters call him a jihadist and "lion of Islam."--Patchouli 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

GA failure

Failed for: lead does not summarize the article, it is a collection of facts mostly about his terror activities, refs are in inconsistent format, and article has several external jumps to web sites.Rlevse 20:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mosques in Saudi Arabia maintained by Bin Ladens

I heard that the Bin Ladens are managing a company that maintains mosques all over Arabia but I just can find any source of information on it anywhere. Does anyone here have any credible source citations here relating to this issue? --Fantastic4boy 01:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor inconsistency in the Jihad in Afghanistan section

There is arguably a minor inconsistency in this section where Robin Cook and Peter Bergen are quoted. Robin Cook did not state that the CIA trained or funded Bin Laden directly but that they supplied him with arms. The quote from Peter Bergen was not in response to Cook's quote but to a question in the quoted article that claimed that Bin Laden once worked for the CIA. On this basis, the claim in the article that Peter Bergen refuted Cook's notion does not follow from the quoted article in CNN. This is a minor point and a futher source may be needed to clarify this. Lukestuts 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Both should be removed IMO. Bergen isn't replying to Cook and Bergen is completely wrong because it is incredulous that the CIA wasn't aware of OBL previous to 1996.

For just one example, the CIA knew about Oplan Bojinka. That plot was foiled in early 1995 and the CIA headquarters was one of the targets. Bergen is usually a good source, but his statement about the CIA not being aware of OBL previous to 1996 is ridiculous in light of examples similar to the above.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 13:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The CIA did not think OBL was behind Bojinka in 1995. Bergen is most likely right about that and it should stay in, though I agree that the Robin Cook quote is not helpful. csloat 10:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bin Laden's code name

Bin Laden's CIA code name is Tim Osman, so that should be put in the article. I don't know why it's not in there already. --24.57.157.81 22:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't... The Tim Osman, Osama as a CIA agent is conspiracy theory BS, and you know it. Got any CREDIBLE links about this? No? Gee, though so!

Obviously as an asset of the CIA he would have had a code name. And yes I do have proof, here is a government document which specifically says:

ITEM 1 .... (TIM OSMAN and RALPH OLDBERG/U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
AFGHAN DESK, et al., VISITATION w/
US GOVERNMENT PUBLIC OFFICIALS [OSMAN = USAMA/OSAMA BIN LADIN/OBL]

Here is a link, but you can just do a Google image search: [8]. Do you think this document is a forgery? -- 24.57.157.81 02:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added the information now that the page is unlocked. If you had a problem with it you should have said something. This discussion is two weeks old.--24.57.157.81 00:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. It looked unlocked to me, but it's just that administrator "Nishkid64" removed the locked message and locked it even for registered users. --24.57.157.81 00:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Bin Laden IS NOT wanted for 9/11 on the FBI website

So quit freaking deleting it. k thx. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Webucation (talk • contribs) 10:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

- I agree 71.116.136.10

The FBI Wanted poster doesn't mention 9/11 because it was drawn up before 9/11. There's already a plethora of charges against him on it; he doesn't get any more "wanted" if you add more charges to the poster, so they haven't.

Here is why 9/11 is absent:

The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

There is no logical reason to emphasize the absence of 9/11 on bin Laden's poster except to further the 9/11 conspiracy theorists' argument that Osama bin Laden is innocent and the secret U.S. shadow government is the real culprit behind 9/11. Ergo, it's POV to include it. It's a tendentious enthymeme. --Mr. Billion 18:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Consider: "The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"

Fact or Fiction, Mr Billion? --24.57.157.81 00:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Too much POV in the artical.

Quote: "there is no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers" - FBI Director Robert Mueller CNN interview- Sept 2002

Quote: "In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." - FBI Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb- June 2006

Quote: "It’s bogus" - Professor Bruce Lawrence Americas formost Bin Laden expert- February 2007

That last quote was refering to the tape specifically mentioned in the artical. There are no authenticated Bin Laden confessions.

Why is none of this mentioned in the 9/11 section?

To paraphrase: "There is no logical reason to exclude the absence of 9/11 on bin Laden's poster except to further the 9/11 supporters argument that Osama bin Laden is guilty." Wayne 03:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW. I believe al Qaida is responsible for 9/11 even if Bin Laden himself may possibly not have been, however I believe the artical must be NPOV regardless of which side it favours. Wayne 04:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please add oc:Osama bin Laden

Please add the link to the Occitan wiki, as above. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.161.186.205 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Added --Mnemeson 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)