Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

(spelling)

I would just like to point out that the name mohommad was misss spelt as it is spelt as Muhammad which is the name of the prophet. This is un acceptable and should be removed as soon as possible.(Adamd4903 (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

Are you referring to the English spelling of bin Laden's name in the introduction? Proofreader77 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is part of a larger issue: Is it Muhammad & Usama bin Ladin, or Mohammad & Osama ben Laden ? The first way is, as far as I know, more traditional, and is more suitable for Arabic names. The second way is more commonly used in Iran and/or by people transcribing the Persian language, but actually the traditional way is even suitable for Persian, especially as spoken in Afghanistan. Still, we see this heavy Iranian influence reflected in spellings such as Hezbollah instead of Hizbullah that, per se, have nothing to do with Iran, but of course the Iranian spelling reveals that they actually have a lot to do with Iran. Western reporters et al. just thoughtlessly copy one or the other spelling without understanding the underlying origin. Jakob37 (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(GRAMMAR)

"It was during his time in Peshawar that he began to wear camouflage-print jackets and carrying a captured Soviet assault rifle, which urban legends claimed he had obtained by killing a Russian soldier with his bare hands."

should be "to carry" (to wear & to carry - the participle was separated and then gerrundized...)

In addition, any chance of getting the link fixed? camouflage-print links to camoflauge but should instead link to camouflage. Sorry, I would do it myself, but apparently I'm not autoconfirmed. :( Jtsoldier (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, nevermind. Doned it myself... Jtsoldier (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

time line data

Some Wikipedians might do well to try and to incorporate some of the time line data into this wikipedia article about Bin Laden's where abouts during the month of what was December of 2001 from the book called Kill Bin Laden by Dalton Fury. This seems to be an honest accounting and a chronicle of someone of who briefed in great detail about alot of things about Bin Laden, the west may never know about and who himself was sent to kill Bin Laden back in December of 2001. Intelligence suggests for that our special forces were within the estimated range of about a mile of Bin Laden's location in December of 2001. The book provides a map of Bin Laden's location. It might provide some truth and fact about what happened during that month in what I think was the Khost province of Afghanistan during December of 2001. Bin Laden was over head on VHF radio. 76.241.132.170 (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Occupation ?

There seems to be a glossing over of OBL's early life during the Soviet occupation, and a convenient lack of information regarding his life in the West. Also, he has, according to at least one new source, just released a tape condemning Israel's current actions. Happy hunting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.11 (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FBI's Top Ten

Is he number 1 on the FBI's most wanted? Becuase it seems that he isn't . --Melab±1 ☎ 19:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The FBI does not rank by number within the list of most wanted. [1] Proofreader77 (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

He has the highest bounty however. 24.167.172.229 (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

can we really state he believes in anything?

shouldn't we say he claims to believe in this and that, instead? We can't know if he truly believes what he says he does or what he tries to have others to believe in, don't you agree?--TiagoTiago (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? He has made his beliefs quite clear in the past! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobsdad (talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"founder of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda"

RedGazzele (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we agree not to use the word "terrorist" to describe something since it is an emotionally charged word that doesn't have neutrality?

No. We didn't agree on any such thing. Do not presume consensus where an ongoing (if slow-boil) argument continues. If you wish to rehash the argument, I believe it is still active on this talk page, or, more generally, at WT:WTA. Ray (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it was not agreed. Not using a word that literally thousands of RS's support (and AFAIK know none disagree with) would be absurd. IronDuke 00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality, and avoidance of passing judgment, affirming or denying. Please debate the merit of this policy at WT:Words to avoid, not here." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.174.194 (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't "opinion" if you follow the standard English language definition of terrorism. Merriam-Webster dictionary. Simple. Osama himself said, in an interview (online of course) with NBC: "The terrorism we practice is of the commendable kind for it is directed at the tyrants and the aggressors and the enemies of Allah . . ." - so even OSAMA says AQ is a TERRORIST organization. Even if he didn't, it still would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.245.243 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's Neutrality Policy and, coincidentally, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, The word "Terrorist" is strictly based on POV, and therefore does not correspond with the Neutrality Policy. Hence, the organization is more accurately and neutrally described as "Islamic extremist" as it's description has now been changed to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarshshah007 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is certainly possible that United States are considered terrorists by the very people we call terrorists. It all depends on Point of View, which is where the POV policy comes in... Ghost650 (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, actually. IronDuke 21:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Your argument, while valid, lacks substance. Perhaps you can elaborate on "No?" Ghost650 (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy to expand. 1) WTA isn't policy, it's a guideline, and one that admits exceptions. If OBL isn't an exception, who would be? 2) NPOV isn't a matter of imagining what some theoretical opinion poll might reveal about what A thinks of B. We write about what scholars, reporters, and analysts say, using the terms they use, in the proportion and manner that they use them, as best we can. I've never seen any RS that disputes that OBL is a terrorist -- not one. IronDuke 18:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Per the guidelines, exceptions are given in cases when specific sentences are quoted and properly cited. However, in general the word should be avoided. In the sentnece in question there is no citation following the sentence in which he is described as "the founder of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda."Ghost650 (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can achieve a consensus of editors on this page that not calling Osama bin Laden a terrorist is truly in the best interests of writing an accurate, truthful encyclopedia that fairly represents the viewpoint of a relatively disinterested observer, you may then change that sentence. But please don't wave WP:WTA in our faces; the editors on this page are quite familiar with that guideline, and we are furthermore aware that on Wikipedia the specific case (i.e. this page) overrides the general case where guidelines are concerned. Indeed, that's why they're "guidelines." Ray^Talk 23:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest changing "the founder" to "a founder"? There are numerous mainstream sources, e.g. the Telegraph [2] that indicate he was not the sole founder. Orimono (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I see this hasn't been changed yet, and I'm unable to make the changes myself on a semi-protected page. Not even Wikipedia's own Al-Qaeda article states Osama Bin Laden was "the founder" and I feel it's misleading to say that he was. If not "a founder", then how about "one of the founders"? Thanks. Orimono (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden or Osama bin Laden?

Would somebody like to decide whether the 'bin' in 'bin Laden' should be capitalized or not? Sometimes it's given a capital letter when his name appears in full in the article (Osama Bin Laden), sometimes not (Osama bin Laden). I would have thought that the most suitable form was Osama bin Laden, as given in the title of the article.

There is a similar problem of consistency when his surname is given alone. When it does not appear at the beginning of a sentence, when it is of course capitalized, it is sometimes given as bin Laden and sometimes as Bin Laden. Again, I would have thought that bin Laden was the most suitable form.

I am not an expert in this field, and would be happy to defer to the judgement of somebody familiar with the conventions of dealing with Arabic names in English. Indeed, I do not really care whether the consensus favours bin Laden or Bin Laden. My point is merely that it would be nice if Wikipedia could spell the name of the world's most famous terrorist consistently.

Djwilms (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely names are always capitilized? Jacobsdad (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist

"Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality, and avoidance of passing judgment, affirming or denying. Please debate the merit of this policy at WT:Words to avoid, not here."

".....is a member of the prominent Saudi bin Laden family and the founder of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda"

Clear Contradiction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.174.194 (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Allegation should be attributed to source saying so, or removed according to wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.95.139 (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is stupid. If a person engages in behaviour that has been clearly defined as terrorism then he is a terrorist period. Also wikipedia places far too much imporatance on journalists in general. The claim that something is fact because it has apperaed in the new york times is just plain ignorant. This pages states that the new york times considers him to be a terrorist this is completely irrelivant. Validating a claim this way only manages to make the editors seem inbred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.199.61 (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Really Bin Laden? And FBI-recognized "terrorism"

There have been disputes from notable sources if the man on the video found on the tape on the invasion of Afghanistan is really Osaba Bin Laden. The video is of bad quality, not 100% verifiable face identity, and he's seen using a watch and a finger ring, both forbidden by Islam (considering he's supposedly a radical islamist capable of mass murder for his religion only, that's a lot to say). Besides, he's seen writing with his right hand while his FBI file says he's left-handed.

Another topic regarding 9/11 attacks is it's FBI recognition. In the article, section about the attack, it says FBI had recognized him as the intellectual author, but other sources, including the FBI official page, do not confirm it or refute it, with a FBI officer saying they have no hard evidence linking Saddam with the attacks. Links: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm (FBI government page with no 9/11 charges to Saddam, altought it includes other attacks for which he is considered responsible) http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html (article quoting an FBI spokesman as saying they have no hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to 9/11 attacks -one of many-)

I think this should be added to the article. Including all relevant viewpoints and sources is encouraged by wikipedia guidelines. The Osama Bin Laden wikipedia articles in other languages as spanish include this and other controversia and viewpoints, in this article notably omitted. --190.174.95.139 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to bring up the prophetic reality of having Osama bin Laden as the Misah Ad-Dajjal?

My dear friends; is there some way that we might review and discuss the option of identifying Osama bin laden as the one Muhammed called the Ad=Dajjal; who would promise men Paradise but deliver them into Hell? As the "one-eyed: or "Wahhabi" who made of Muhammeds life an idol instead of the Perfect man who worships Gid; a perfect example of "shirk"; infidelity; as above those who claim to have faith without knowledge of what worship actually is; and worship cannot be learned: it must be found.

At any rate; let me know; St. Paul himself described "the man of lawlessness" at II Thessalonians in the "House of God" acting as if he "were God" as in judging the West as Osama bin Laden did: and probed he is the "man of sin" as far as fulfilling prophecy; both in Islam and Christianity. Unicorn144 (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Tim Osman?

How come Tim Osman redirects here, but there is no mention of "Tim Osman" in the entire article? The only information I could find about "Tim Osman" is that it was the name assigned to Osama bin Laden by the C.I.A. during the campaign in Afghanistan in the late 70's through the 80's to expel the Soviet invasion. LazyLaidBackEditor (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Still nothing... 45.50.220.225 (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

On transliteration

The sentence "Because there is no universally accepted standard in the West for transliterating Arabic words and names into English" is surely inaccurate in two regards: firstly "into English" should surely be "into the Roman alphabet" (a transliteration is just a change from one writing system to another, not from one language to another); secondly "in the West" might be taken to imply that a scheme for transliterating into the Roman alphabet does exist in places other than the West. So I figure this sentence should instead read "Because there is no universally accepted standard for transliterating Arabic words and names into the Roman alphabet" Mimetic Polyalloy (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Clinton Administration

The claims that Clinton had the chance to apprehend bin Laden from Sudan are debatable, but are treated as unchallenged fact in the section. Mansoor Ijaz, the only source for this claim in the article, is not a credible singular source. In fact, accroding to Mansoor_Ijaz, "The 9/11 Commission found that although 'former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Laden to the United States', 'we have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.'". So, please, drop the subject or cite information from both sides more comprehensively. Also, four of the five links are to the same page, so combine them into one citation at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.160.40 (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with this; the way the article is written, it makes it look as if there are multiple sources, when there is only one, and the single source is from the "opinion" section of the newspaper, meaning there is no fact-checking. The whole thing seems specious. ThatGuamGuy (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)ThatGuamGuy

It's rather obvious what the intent was. It should be addressed. -- Fifty7 (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Clinton protected Bosnia and Kosovo, both of which had clear ties to terrorism Zalgo 04:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

---

Islamic terrorists are the new generic movie villains of Hollywood

This site: [Movie villains] talks about the fact that Bin Laden's followers are the new generic movie villains of Hollywood.Agre22 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

Surprised

To see that the whole 'clinton let him get away' thing has made it onto what I'd thought would be a highly watched wiki article, IIRC that turned out to just be bullshit some Sudanese guy was saying...fairly obvious bullshit too, but I can't remove it because the articles locked to prevent vandalism. Well done with that one :p 92.3.128.120 (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC) And on a secondary note, I'd suggest a different source for the most wanted man thing, although I agree that he is probably the most wanted man, using the FBI list implies that the 2nd guy on that list is the 2nd most wanted in the world etc etc...92.3.128.120 (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Clinton's missed opportunities

The article discussing Clinton's refusal to accept extradition of Osama bin Laden should not have been completely removed, only edited as not stating factual information. Also, the previous statement that it was "bullshit" and written by some "Sudanese" are opinionated and erroneous, Mansoor Ijaz is of Pakistani descent, but an American-born citizen who has worked as a negotiator.

In addition to his editorial in the LA Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2001/dec/05/opinion/oe-ijaz05), there is a secondary source accompanying him (U.S. ambassador) in http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64828-2002Jun29. Additionally, Vanity Fair does an investigation with interviews with multiple sources here http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2002/01/osama200201?currentPage=1. The book "Losing Bin Laden" by Richard Miniter explains in greater detail the failures of the Clinton administration to catch bin Laden, and certain pieces of the book are paraphrased in the World Magazine http://www.worldmag.com/articles/8206.

Administrator, please edit these articles into the Clinton/Bush section of the article, it is currently one-sided marking all of Bush's failures to capture bin Laden, but all of the sources/references to the Clinton's administration's actions/inaction have been deleted, except for stating that it has been his mission the entire administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsharker (talk • contribs) 08:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

-This entire page is opinionated and erroneous, Osama Bin Laden is about as believed in and as real as Santa Claus. Do the research. It's not hard. --206.123.214.254 (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Is he even alive?

There is a small mention on this page that he might be dead that references this article. I think we need to give more mention of the speculation that he is long dead and had nothing to do with 9/11. I am not convinced by this 9/11 conspiracy theories stuff, but I do think we may have our facts wrong. This is only one article, but I am sure I can gather further evidence, including graphical proof and other documentation. The official story says we should believe the same people that told us the USSR would not collapse, the Berlin Wall would not fall, Iraq had WMDs, and that Khrushchev would never put missiles in Cuba. It really deserves significant mention here to uphold the tenets of Wikipedia:NPOV.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, he was killed by a daisy cutter in Tora Bora in 2001. He was making videos all the time up to that point, a man anxious to tell us his story. Audio tapes are easy to fake. There have been only a few video tapes since, each with suspicious aspects. Perhaps old footage was manipulated. Zawahiri has been the group's main spokesman for a while now and Bin Laden wouldn't let that happen if he was still alive. Kauffner (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I, personally, have no problem with mentioning that he might be dead, but without certainty the death date certainly should not be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle-eyedsteve24 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

9/11 researcher David Ray Griffin has produced a book, "Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive" (May 2009),examining in depth the question of his status, and coming to the compelling conclusion that bin Laden is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.186.93 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bin Laden visited Los Angeles and Indiana in 1979

Per this recent source ---> Osama in America: The Final Answer by Steve Coll, The New Yorker, June 30 2009 ... should probably merit a mention in the article. Agree/Disagree?   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an 'appraisal' or positive criticism section?

In mean in order to balance out the 'criticism' section. It appears quite non-neutral which is understandable considering he is a murderous maniac but he has large groups of fans in the muslim world, millions at least. They worship the mofo as some kind of god. We shouldn't mention just the Western view of him... M99 87.59.79.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

The notion of Muslims "worshipping" bin Laden, or any living human, as a "god", is extremely offensive to Islam. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Osama Ben Laden was Saudi, but his father came from Yemen, he had no ties with the local tribes, that is why th Kinng gave him so many contracts, that is why he was so rich.Beeing the son of an emmigrant made Osama more vulnerable to be rejected by the Saudi in 1990 when he wanted to help to fight Sadam Hussein. MARIE MORGAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.124.235 (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Fight Saddam" -- He was protesting the decision to let American troops into Saudi, i.e. he was siding with Saddam and against the Saudi government. Al Qaeda was just a logistic and records keeping group at that point, so idea he could have fought anybody is a bit farfetched. Kauffner (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden's name

This article is inconsistent with the name used to refer to Osama bin Laden. The article suggests that "bin Laden" is not an accurate shortening of his name, yet this is used interchangably in the article along with "Osama" and "Osama bin Laden." If "bin Laden" is indeed linguistically inaccurate, it should not be used in a Wikipedia article, regardless of Western conventions.

Mustelid (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

We go by what the sources say, not by our opinion of the "proper" transliteration. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mustelid, the second to last paragraph in the section regarding variations on his name states that

Strictly speaking, Arabic linguistic conventions dictate that he be referred to as "Osama" or "Osama bin Laden", not "bin Laden," as "Bin Laden" is not used as a surname in the Western manner"

Yet the following paragraph refers to him, incorectly, as "Bin Laden." I think, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should stick to what is proper as opposed to what has been forced upon us by the ignorant mass media.Ghost650 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Afghan Jihan?

May I ask why the Soviet-Afghan War is referred to in the infobox as Afghan Jihad, not as what the article itself is titled? Surely it should be Soviet-Afghan War given Wikipedia's common name policies? I may have missed something... SGGH ^ping! 19:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted portrait

Does anybody know what has happened to the portrait of Osama in this article? It was deleted in June because it was supposedly available on commons but I can't find anything there. I've checked the french and german articles too and they also don't have a portrait anymore. I've asked the admin who deleted it to take a look but thought that someone else might know something. Smartse (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The photo was remove based on this statement on 20:25, 23 July 2009 MBisanz (talk | contribs) deleted "File talk:Usama bin laden.jpg" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G2, test page. using TW)” and under Licensing it say to see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Osama_Bin_Laden.jpg. Personally I disagree with the deletion. It should be PD as all other 10 most wanted photo are concidered PD.

The argument went that the FBI didn't take the photo (after all they would have captured him if they could take the photo) and therefore it is not PD. I got the version that was previously deleted from the english wikipedia when it was copied to commons restored. The English WP has fair use images but commons does not. Smartse (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I know the argument, I just don't agree with it. If that argument held true than a large number of images taken from FBI sources would also not fall under PD as it uses images taken by many sources and releases to the public. After all most terrorist and a large number of “At Large” criminal don’t have FBI “Mug Shots” or images they took, but no one deletes them. This image was probably only tagged since he is the one most people think of regarding September 11th. Apparently I'm in the minority or am wrong since the image was deleted (before I even saw it), but it is my opinion.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(Kosovo and Macedonia)

That place was roaming with CIA and western agents, not to mention NATO troops. To use Washington Times or Charleston Gazette editorials is not sufficient, if it happened we would have many official documents. Otherwise it's a smear. We now that Serbia is trying to link to Albanians to Bin Laden for obvious reason so be careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keep it Fake (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and Osama's death

Please stop adding undue weighted conspiracy theories. The fact that FOX news once mentioned Griffin's theories do not make them notable. And doing original research to bolster those theories doesn't help either. This theory that he died in 2001 is silly considering he's appeared in multiple videos after that; he may be dead now but we should not have an entire paragraph at the beginning of the section showcasing a theory that has long since been discarded by everyone except a radical fringe. csloat (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous reports from a variety of sources that support the claim Bin Laden died in 2001, certainly more than for any other theory of what happen to him. Watson, Karzai, and Musharraf all thought he he died at that time and these opinions were reported by RS. That's notability right there, regardless of what happened later. For the CIA to close to its Bin Laden unit suggests they believe he is dead. As for the videos, you don't think they can be faked and done with actors? Why is Bin Laden's left arm paralyzed in 2001, but not in 2004? Personally, I concluded OBL died when the first reports came out in 2002, long before Griffin's book. I have not seen anything since that made me think otherwise. Kauffner (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I conclude it's wishful thinking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I will bet that not one of those people who said they thought he died in '01 still believes that, if they even said it. If you think all the videos were faked, you live in another world than most of the mainstream media and reliable sources. You may personally have concluded this way but most of the world's journalists, intelligence analysts, and scholars have correctly come to a different conclusion. Wikipedia should not give undue weight to such theories even if some editors find them persuasive. Isn't there a page on conspiracy theories to do with 9/11 where this could go? What's next, anyway? "I demand to see Osama bin Laden's birth certificate!" csloat (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Pakistani government still thinks he's dead,[3] even though Osama Bin Elvis is still pumping out the audio tape.[4] What I put in article summarizes what prominent people were saying on this subject back in 2002. Yesterday's conventional wisdom is a conspiracy theory? I shouldn't be expected to show that the theory is true since it is presented as only one possibility among several. The other death theories presented are mostly just one-source rumors. You find them more credible? Kauffner (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The question isn't whether they think he's dead; it's whether they think he died in 2001. I don't even have to click the link to tell you they don't think that. But, clicking it anyway, this is what I read in the report's conclusion: "There have been reports that he had died of natural causes in the past, but they have never been corroborated, and security analysts believe intelligence agencies monitoring jihadi websites on the Internet would have picked up some chatter." That is the sort of statement that is much more common in reliable sources and it is what should be included here, not your cherry picking to establish a conspiracy theory. Your theory was never "yesterday's conventional wisdom" nor is it today's; many experts have examined the 2002-2006 tapes of "Osama bin Elvis" and concluded that they are indeed tapes of him. Anyway the problem here is not that the theory is laughable but that it is not notable enough for the undue weight we provide it here. A sentence mentioning such theories exist would be fine, but a long paragraph written after a date on a timeline to make it seem more "objective" is what I object to. csloat (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Dalle Molle Institute in Switzerland did voice analysis and found that it wasn't Bin Laden's voice on the tapes.[5] If you think that the tapes are authentic, then it follows that Bin Laden is still alive, since he is still putting out tapes. But the section we are discussing is about death reports. I don't see any basis for saying that claims for 2001 are somehow less credible than those for 2005 or 2006. There is a whole paragraph about the Bhutto/Frost interview, although it seems likely that she just misspoke. Kauffner (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

How many tapes has "Osama bin Elvis" made since 2002? You've got one study from one organization in Switzerland about one single tape from 2001, up against the CIA's and NSA's (and every other intel agency as far as I can tell) claim that the tape is genuine, PLUS numerous other tapes since then, many of which have been authenticated. And I'm not saying to take this institute's conclusion out of the article; it's just the bogus collection of cherry-picked claims put together as per David Griffin's conspiracy theories that we need to delete. csloat (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article called Location of Osama bin Laden, which seems better suited for detailed speculation about his possible fate. Perhaps the information could be moved there? I agree that there is reliable sourcing, but Commodore Sloat's point about undue weight also has merit. Ray^Talk 03:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "Bin Laden is antisemitic"

How can an Arab be antisemitic? Arabs are a semitic tribe, too. Don't you mean he is anti-Jewish?--dunnhaupt (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No, antisemitic and anti-Jewish mean the exact same thing. Yes, Arabs are a semitic tribe; no, that doesn't mean antisemitism applies to them. See here. HTH. IronDuke 20:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

New language

Admins, please add this to the article: http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden --Norru (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Done.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

BIN LADEN NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11 ACCORDING TO FBI

Im sorry but Wikipedia fails again to review it's content - Bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11. Even the FBI Website has NO MENTION of the attacks on their most wanted list - http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Therefore, How can information with no proof nor grounds be put up as truth. There is absolutely zero evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11. The videotape of his confession was fake and if you follow the timeline and history of the Bin Ladens and Bushes history you can see there is less evidence then ever before. Let alone if the FBI website can't even state/prove he is responsible for 9/11 why would it be put up as fact? Also, why is this website so right-wing??? All the questions and evidence pointing towards 9/11 being an inside job is none exsistent.

Bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11 - Iraq and Afghanistan should have never been attacked - as the alleged 19 attackers (All from Saudi Arabia) Which 7 or 9 have been interviewed since the attacks by the BBC are alive and well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaxiomducey (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hah. Don't feed the trolls, please :) Ray^Talk 20:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Death

Pakistan President Zardari said in a statement that Osama might be dead now.--110.37.17.109 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC) [6] [7] [8]

Source? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

His grievances?

You can read this entire article and not learn any of his stated grievances with the USA. How could this be?

His grievances are stated in his 1996 declaration of jihad against the US, and his 1997 CNN interview.

The wiki entry is worse than worthless. It is utterly misleading. Leaving out his stated grievenaces provides no insight into his motives and his recruiting strategy.

Then stop complaining and fix it. See WP:BRD. Wperdue (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Islamic scholar?

The article is listed under the scope of WikiProject Islam taskforce Muslim scholars, but I can't find throughout the article indication that he was a scholar of any kind and did not receive the proper education nor degrees to be deemed as an Islamic scholar. I have therefore removed the WikiProject Islam/scholars tag from the talk page.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Small Misspelling

Y

Under "Bush Administration," the word "composed" is misspelled, "conposed." I'm unable to edit the page so I'll leave that for someone with more privileges to fix. 87.16.46.157 (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected the spelling thanks IP :D--NotedGrant Talk 16:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirected from "The Emir" (The Prince)

Why does "The Emir" redirect here? Looking at Emir it says it means a prince/commander and may refer to Mohammed. Kestasjk (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word Terrorist

Its perfectly ok to use the word terrorist. The truth is never offensive, and his own description of his attacks constitutes terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.202.177 (talk • contribs) 22:41, March 8, 2009

That's your opinion and mine too, but WP is not about our personal opinions, it's about facts (and in part opinions) that are reliable sourced.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well even though the precise definition of "Terrorist" is unclear, it's unambigious that Osama falls into that category. Since wikipedia is, de facto, truth-by-consensus, there's no reason to beat about the bush with supposed objectivity. Every one who reads this page will agree that bin Laden is a terrorist. Every major government recognizes him as a terrorist. He is a terrorist as defined by the English language. This is the English language version of Wikipedia. I simply can't believe that you're making the arguement that bin Laden's terrorist status is in doubt. I'll throw your own words back at you: provide some scholarly discussion - some debate, rather - your precious "reliable sources" - on Osama NOT being a terrorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.245.243 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden is certainly a terrorist and Al-Qaeda is certainly a terrorist organization, but I must admit(and I've had a change of heart about this) Wikipedia directly calling them terrorist does seem a trifle amatuerish. I do think terrorist should be use to describe the Sept. 11 attacks, because that word accurately and fully describes what those attacks were. Simply stating Sept. 11 attacks doesn't give as complete a description of what they were. In short, move the word terrorist from before Al-Qaeda and insert it Sept. 11 and attacks. Thoughts?Johnhenney (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think calling them terrorist sounds unprofessional. Terrorist is not a scary word, and adults can use it without being gross, even if it makes the professionally sensitive squirm. The reason we don't put terrorist in front of the Sept. 11 attacks directly is an article naming issue -- the article is named September 11 attacks, and it's generally bad practice to link to a redirect in lieu of the main article. Ray^Talk 16:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If terrorism is the right way to refer to the Sept. 11 attacks, then terrorist is the right way to refer to Osama bin Laden, just as carpentry is the proper way to refer to acts of woodworking and carpenter to refer to the worker performing it. 76.185.63.93 (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ray is right on here, IMO. And OBL is, as you say, very plausibly a terrorist. I'm not sure I know of an RS anywhere that disagrees. IronDuke 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've not been on this talk page for weeks but I see people are still arguing about it. Think for a second: would saying "OBL is a terrorist" add meaning to the article? I doubt it. It's superfluous. That's already apparent in the lead section because of his links to al-Qaeda and masterminding 9/11. Oh, and IronDuke: no sources to the contrary still doesn't necessarily make "OBL is a terrorist" a fact; it just makes it a unanimously/widely held opinion. However, it is a fact that OBL has been called a terrorist. It's also better to use the "X says Y is Z" argument as you then get context: why has X called Y a Z? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, the fact that al-Qaeda is terrorist is a fact, seeing as it has been shown that they consider themselves terrorists (of the "commendable" kind). Sceptre ^(talk) 19:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It makes it a "fact" for Wikipedia purposes. All we have our sources, and the sources are in virtual unanimity. There is no debate here. IronDuke 19:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any policy or guideline that says that? UNDUE doesn't say it. ASF is a bit grey on it; such a label is sure to be subject to dispute. Asserting that he's a terrorist also creates a problem: under who's definition? There are thousands. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If there's sure to be a dispute, then surely you can point to said dispute -- among reliable sources. And "thousands" of definitions of terrorism? I think not. But even if that were so, there are many words that admit multiple possibly controversial meanings, such as "assassin," that we freely use. IronDuke 21:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember a discussion several months ago, where we discussed how public opinion of him in Islamic countries was higher than Bush in America (with a link to a reliable source). While it may not prove a dispute about him being a terrorist, it may show that the whole world doesn't seem him as us Westerners do. And regarding the definition of terrorism: we could do well to limit our definition to just one of the many. The legal definition would probably be the best one to choose: If he's been indicted by Interpol for terrorism charges, why do we have to say that scholars and journalists see him that way too? We may have hundreds of available sources, but we may not need to use more than one. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a practical reason and a informative reason. The informative reason is that by noting the variety and scope of people who consider him a terrorist (i.e. just about everybody alive who's not morally depraved), we give more information to the reader. The practical reason is that if we just use one source, it's inevitable that somebody will come along and challenge that source, and try to get Osama declared a "militant" as if he were Sam Adams or somebody like that. Ray^Talk 15:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not everybody alive considers him a terrorist (or at the very least, a bad man); he does have a relatively good approval rating in US-skeptical Islamic countries (though it has fallen in recent years). Saying they're "morally depraved" is borderline racism. And yes, he is a militant. A militant we see as a terrorist. British people in the eighteenth century would have—and did—see people like Sam Adams as terrorists (or the contemporary equivalent thereof; hell, the British didn't recognise the US' independence for seven years). I also don't think that people would challenge the Interpol source. It's the most objective and neutral source you can get when it comes to terrorism. Any additional references are superfluous; Interpol, no doubt, has its experts which decide on whether to issue warrants for crimes, with (hopefully) more stature than the miscellaneous scholars. And I don't think we should allow journalists like the BBC, NYT, etc, get their moral judgements into this article; no news organisation is really neutral, and this is a place where we need neutrality in both the writing and the sources. (incidentally, I don't think the BBC are specifically calling him a terrorist; their editorial guidelines discourage the use of such terms without attribution). Sceptre ^(talk) 16:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It can hardly be racism to hold a strong opinion about people with a particular moral framework, Sceptre. I might suggest that there's a kind of subconscious bias in assuming that people with that framework would be of a certain race -- you want to be careful, there. The "soft bigotry of low expectations" line in the American political debate was addressed rather squarely at those attitudes.

But anyhow, getting back to my point, and I apologize for letting my distaste for the people who disagree get in the way -- we educate the reader by the scope and variety of sourcing, and a broad collection of independent scholars may have more stature when it comes to these things than Interpol, which, for all its pluses, is a government bureaucracy governed by the needs of consensus and diplomacy. In a marketplace of ideas, one is often more likely to be convinced by a large variety of carefully reasoned opinions, than by a mere pronouncement from authority. I propose we give our readers the option of choosing for themselves.

And yeah, I'm aware the Beeb is at Ground Zero over the political correctness wars. I would rather Wikipedia didn't go there, and stuck with plain language that everybody understands. Newspeak not necessary ;-) Ray^Talk 16:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather have one neutral source than several systemically biased sources. And I'm opposed to this notion that we need more citations than necessary. Articles about controversial topics sometimes overcite to prove that something is a majority viewpoint; for example, look at Stormfront (website). Twenty-two sources are cited in that first paragraph. Losing half of that won't lose the impression that it's a majority viewpoint. I think that the majority of people would trust an international law enforcement agency over several (western) scholars and journalists. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's agree to disagree on the philosophical implications. As far as article-editing goes, I agree that multiple footnotes can become highly unwieldy, but the Stormfront (website) actually handles it quite well, by leaving a small tasteful footnote in the text and having the full breakdown for interested readers. I think you miss my point; while it's important to have an idea what the majority viewpoint is, it's more important to give the reader the shape of the field -- a spectrum of viewpoints. Encyclopedias are not just repositories of dicta, but also about letting the reader learn so he can decide. And whatever our differences on what types of sources we prefer to use, the reasoning of WP:PRESERVE suggests that we shouldn't remove reliably sourced work by our fellow editors. Ray^Talk 18:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

PRESERVE doesn't apply to redundancy. Which is what I'm arguing over: I think that adding journalists and scholars into the mix just makes it a mess. It also makes things complicated as each one of those sources will probably have a different definition of what a terrorist is. I think that a better solution is to make a new section dealing with perceptions of bin Laden. Then we can discuss: why have these people called him a terrorist? And who are these people? As a reader, I don't want to have to click on Peter Bergen to find out he's a terrorism analyst for CNN. We can also give the opposing view when we discuss on how the Muslim world sees him. That's much better than just calling him a terrorist. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Merriam Webster defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" - sounds reasonable. However it is quite clear (to me at least) that this definition would include Hitler, and Churchill and Roosevelt and Truman and many many others. These people are not normally called terrorists though. In the first case this may be because his terrorism is displaced from attention by his genocide, in the second and third it is probably because the term terrorism is only used pejoratively. That puts into question whether we can ever use the term neutrally. In summary, OBL is clearly, by the definition above, a terrorist, but the term terrorist is a pejorative terms rather than a mere description of his actions. Personally I think writing "OBL systematically uses terror (induced by the killing of civilians) as a means of coercion" carries more weight than calling him a terrorist. Thehalfone (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Because of the conflict here, why not compromise. If it is unacceptable to some for him to be called a terrorist, and it is unacceptable to others not to have a word suitably describing him, then lets go for something more moderate. for instance we could say "the islamic extremist group Al Qaeda" or even just the extremist group. that shows clearly what they are and is not too tense of a description.--Utkarshshah007 (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone seen WP:TERRORIST? The policy exists because the definition of terrorism is inherently subjective. You have to attribute the use of the label "terrorist" to a source. You know something like, "The United Nations considers ObL a terrorst." (Disclaimer: I don't know the UN's policy on ObL. Just an example.)--RDavi404 (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh wikipedia, you never fail to amaze. Water is wet . I came here with a question on my mind: Why is 9/11 or the war in Afghanistan not mentioned in the intro? I think my question has been answered. LokiiT (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent Information

Why do we not have any recent information about Osama? Where is he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.241.110 (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well he's not in my kitchen, I was just in there.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

please

Can someone tell me if there's ANY good reason to include that horrible PsyOp poster? I know that it's not Wikipedia's policy to censor things, but I don't see its inclusion as justified, at least not in this article (one on psychological warfare, sure). I seriously think that thing is going to give me nightmares. Thorns Among Our Leaves (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It was far from my first choice, but following an admin deletion of our previous image of OBL, we needed a free image of him to use. For bizarre reasons, we're not allowed to use fair use images of living people, even if they're fugitives hiding in the mountains. This was the best I could find; if you can find a better, I'll be glad to move this image off the page. Ray^Talk 15:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bin Laden clerly said he's not involved in 9/11 attack. The image let think the contrary, it's a problem Nico92400 (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 tape

I didn't see a mention in the article about the 2009 tape. Is this accidental, or is there a rationale for this omission?75.82.133.73 (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least five threads.--Oneiros (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed--Oneiros (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Objective Article, opening statement

It isn't exactly objective to reefer al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization, you might as well change it to freedom-fighting organization. This article shouldn't be influenced by teh american hatred for teh Osama 81.225.224.216 (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Did really *he* claim responsibility for 9/11?

The guy in the video has a much broader nose and looks quite different than previous Osamas. So we cant be sure which of them is the real Osama. Therefore I suggest we change "Osama claimed..." into "some guy claimed responsibility" (or similar). Here is a comparison of the different Osamas: http://www.infowars.net/articles/november2007/291107Laden.htm and here: http://www.rense.com/general18/face.htm At least one of the Osamas in the various tapes must be a fake.

This is the information of the FBI of Bin Laden (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm)

"USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD."

Where it mentiones the 11-S? Which is the base for assure that he is responsable of the 11-S? Please, if you don't have the answer, correct the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.116.186.163 (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Part of the Politics series on Islamism???

I am requesting that the side bar entitled "Part of the Politics series on Islamism" be removed. rezaan hussain may call him self a Muslim or he may say that he follows Islam, but it is painfully obvious he is not a Muslim. He uses the name of Islam to justify his acts of terrorism. Thank you. CantoV (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it might help if you took a look at Islamism. Happy to say more if that's not clear enough. IronDuke 00:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, IronDuke, sorry about that. Just a day or two after I removed that I realized the differnece between "Islamic" and "Islamist." The bar can be re-inserted into the article. My mistake. I'm also trying to change the page Islamic terrorism to Islamist terrorism now that I understand the meaning. CantoV (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, I'm 100 per cent Muslim, and I can say with utmost certainty, he's a Muslim, there's nothing in Islamic fiqh that would say otherwise. I know the media likes to play on peoples emotions i.e. "He Hijacks Islam; a peaceful religion", which is nonsense propagated by Non-Muslims who frankly have no idea. Believe it or not Islam has a side of war, included in many passages of the Qu'ran, so when a Muslim declares war on non-Muslims it's valid unless there's an existing treaty, if you have proof he's not a Muslim when he says he IS, then show it. Instead of using the emotional factor to try to edit out facts. This is "The Politically Correct American encyclopedia" this is a factual encyclopedia. Ineedtoeditsomething (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the Quran and realize the fact that he is not a Muslim. He is a kafir. CantoV |talk 10:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Propose changing "best known for..." to "widely known for..." or "most known for..."

I feel as though the word "best" has a positive connotation that would be more suitable in another context. Referring to his "best known" acts as the September 11 Terrorist Attacks seems inappropriate. Perhaps a more neutral word would suffice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.89.78.218 (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

needs more sources and information on allegations of Doctored Tapes

I just saw a BBC documentary that aired 2 days ago that clearly shows several ex CIA agents and other experts clearly expressing concern of several official views on Laden. A predominant feature is faking of tapes. This needs more exposure here. --Leladax (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

False paragraph

"Strictly speaking, Arabic linguistic conventions dictate that he be referred to as "Osama" or "Osama bin Laden", not "bin Laden," as "Bin Laden" is not used as a surname in the Western manner, but simply as part of his name, which in its long form means "Osama, son of Mohammed, son of 'Awad, son of Laden". Still, "bin Laden" has become nearly universal in Western references to him."

This paragraph is absolutely false. "Bin Ladin" is a regular surname in Arabic and he is known as "Bin Ladin" in Arabic. Please delete this nonsense. It is obviously an original research by somebody who doesn't live in an Arabic-speaking country.

The following sentence is also false:

"The spelling with 'o' and 'e' comes from a Persian-influenced pronunciation used in Afghanistan where he was for a long time."

The actual pronunciation of "Bin Ladin" in spoken Arabic (including Saudi and Yemeni Arabic) is "Ben Laden." This is not a Persian thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.178 (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Aw come on, for christ sake, there really ought to be an exhaustive and a precise and confident time line and break down that carefully outlines all of Bin Laden's actions and movements from 1999-09-01 and well into to 2002-12-31 or later. How about a thousand of us all go into our local libraries across the nation here in the US and we all carefully absorb the text written in various books about him. This Wikipedia article is steeped in so many errors and flaws to numerous and countless. In the interest of focus and pin point accuracy when writing this Wikipedia definition of him. It should probably involve something that is alot more highly reliable and trust worthy than just highly questionable audio tapes and video forgeries and endless miles of media sensationalism and propoganda and lies that have occurred between 2001-09-11 and now. I beleive that he died somewhere in mid December or late December of 2001 by over head bombing and not by enemy bullet fire. But his ghost is kept well alive even in January of 2010 . There are so many prevailing lies that are both blatant and subtle for which are clouding the truth and are protecting the liars even to this very day. That much is clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.147.236 (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Err, no, Bin Laden is not a surname whatsoever "Bin" means son in Arabic, so a common surname is Son of Laden? How does that even make sense. This is arab culture, I know the media plays off like it is like calling his son Omar bin laden (which technically he is since you can skip generations) but no it's no surname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ineedtoeditsomething (talk • contribs) 09:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Detroit incident

The Arabic main page for Wikipedia has a blurb about Bin Laden and the Christmas incident on the plane to Detroit. Can someone more fluent in Arabic than I check this out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.213.11 (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Change Osama to redirect to the Usama (name)

Osama is a pretty common name among Muslims. Osama bin Laden may be the the most famous person with that name, and people may refer to him as "Osama" colloquially, but bin Laden is rarely referred to as "Osama" in professional context; usually his full name or last name is used. Even more importantly, "Osama" is a name before it is a person. It is very likely that people search the name "Osama" on Wikipedia after reading about Osama bin Laden to look up information about his name. Just as "Adolf" is an article about the name, Osama should redirect to the article about the name "Osama".Immakingthisaccounttohidemyipaddress (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The comparison to Adolf is extreme considering at the time Adolf was the most popular name to give to boy for many countries. Only reason no one does that now is due to Hitler being named Adolf. however, prior to WWII, many people had that name including famous kings and queens. Osama although a name used by many people, is not nearly as prevalent and should not be compared to Adolf. Also, the page Osama for the name is just a list of people with the name whereas the Adolf article is much more extensive with many more different people making it necessary to not direct to Hitler. Yialanliu (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason so few people are listed on the Usama (name) article is most likely due to the page's difficulty to find. A search for "osama" lists a ton of articles with other people named Osama--most of whom aren't even on the list! If we were to move "Usama (name)" to "Osama", the quality and thoroughness of the article's content would grow dramatically. Immakingthisaccounttohidemyipaddress (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No one calls him Imam Mehdi

The page is protected so I can't edit it, but there's a paragraph with his aliases, no one calls him Imam Mehdi, this is a lie. If you look at their cited source it's not in there, Imam Mahdi is in Islamic culture known as someone who will have the name Muhammad bin Abdullah; there's no source either way so please someone delete that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ineedtoeditsomething (talk • contribs) 09:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thankyou--NotedGrant Talk 10:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tapes

So I was reading this article and saw a lot about how Osama bin Laden may be dead. However he’s still putting out tapes like after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the underpants bomber) tried to blow up the airplane over Detroit. Also I think he recently put out a tape about the evils of climate change around the time of the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. So I think it would improve the article if someone more knowledgeable about this made a section called something like “Tapes made by bin Laden after September 11, 2001” or maybe a more general article called “Post 9/11 attacks”. Clark.d.kennedy (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Propose change to "Reports of his current whereabouts" section

Firstly, James Jones, the national security adviser to President Obama, stated on CNN's "State of the Union" on December 6, 2009, "The best estimate is that he [Osama bin Laden] is somewhere in North Waziristan, sometimes on the Pakistani side of the border, sometimes on the Afghan side of the border." (source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/06/sotu.01.html)

I think this should be inserted into bin Laden's "Reports of his current whereabouts" Section after this sentence:

"The detainee said that in January or February (of 2009) he met a trusted contact who had seen Bin Laden about 15 to 20 days earlier in Afghanistan."

And then should come the current sentence:

"But, the US has had no reliable information on the whereabouts of Bin Laden in years, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted on December 6, 2009.[150]"

I propose that following this sentence in "Reports of his current whereabouts" Section:

"Pakistan's Prime Minister Gillani rejected claims that Osama bin Laden would be hiding within his country.[151]"

that this sentence should follow:

"Some recent reports in the Pakistani media claim that bin Laden is hiding in Karachi." (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8461192.stm). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1orbitx (talk • contribs) 03:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced quote in heading paragraph

"On March 14 2010, a joint Task Force of Americans and British were given coordinates of his whereabouts, the Task Force headed there, tortured and executed him." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.236.178 (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Tapes

Why is there not a comprehensive discussion of the tapes that Bin Laden puts out to prove he is still alive. Many of these tapes have been authenticated or at least accepted as probably authentic by the US government. At the very least it would put the periodic claims of his death in to perspective. It would also help to address the question of whether we would know if Osama was killed. Some believe the US government might have a vested interest in convincing the world Osama is dead when he is not. Others that they would keep quite about his death to continue to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Therefore this important issue would benefit from a cool, unbiased, "just the facts" perspective. 96.233.108.14 (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Dialysis?

I've heard a claim from a professor named Kevin Barret that Osama Bin Laden is on dialysis. Any factual basis for this claim. I've have not heard this before listening to Kevin Barret. It would seem hard for him to remain so mobile if he needs the services of dialysis. 67.54.192.38 (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Bush (2000-2008) Administration

There is no Bush (2000-2008) Administration. There was, however, a Bush (2001-2009) Administration. 187.20.48.135 (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Bin Laden in Iran

On May 4th, 2010, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in an interview on Good Morning America with George Stephanopoulos, denied allegations that Bin Laden is living in Tehran under the protection of Iran's Revolutionary Guards. The claims were made by Alan Parrot, a leading falconer, in 'Feathered Cocaine', an Icelandic documentary on the world of falconary. Falconing is a popular sport in the Middle East and Parrot claims to have learned through his contacts of Bin Laden's whereabouts. The claims have plausibility since in late 2009 it was confirmed by Iranian Foreign Minister, Manuchehr Mottaki, that one of Bin Laden's daughters had approached the Saudi Embassy in Tehran, and there were reports in Saudi and British media that a considerable number of Bin Laden's family were being sheltered in a compound in Tehran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mideastobserver (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Osama's initial denial

Where is a source where Osama denies the attacks? I remember this being reported - can we put in a reference to one of the reports of the denial, and find what exactly he said? Wikidea 17:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Empircal Evidence / Concrete Truth

Any concrete evidence to help support the contention of that he is alive or dead. Personally, I beleive he is dead. But then again, I am not looking at his corpse in the soil and the mountains of Tora Bora —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.136.237 (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

9/11 confession

The leading expert on Bin Laden and his tapes has now gone on the record saying Bin Laden admitting to the 9/11 attacks is totally bogus. Good read. Looks like there's some updating to do, as it appears conspiracy theories might not be that far off...

http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Osama_tape.htm

I think all this information is totally bias. It does not prove any conspiracy theory... but it is obvious Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11.

How do you come to the conclusion that he obviously had nothing to do with 9/11? Jim Michael (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the article. TheNextSocrates (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This article does not conclude that he had nothing to do with 9/11. It actually does the opposite - he is the head of al-Qaeda, who caused the 9/11 attacks. Jim Michael (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE stop wasting everyone's time by refusing to accept fact. Because you are too lazy to read the article, I will quote my point here. "'The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's most wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,' he was told Rex Tomb. In Bin Laden's first interview after the 9/11 attacks he denied any involvement. This isn't like a kid caught thieving in a sweet shop - terrorists always claim responsibility for attacks they have perpetrated otherwise why bother killing people to send a political message?" TheNextSocrates (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Latitude and Longitude

Can anyone from Wikipedia make a carefully reasoned and a isolated pin point location by latitude and by longitude care of Google Earth and by Google Maps as to what was Bin Laden's precise location for 2001-09-11 and beyond here on earth. Surely the United States government and the United States military know this and so do the FBI and the CIA know this information, well within confident and accurate limitations. And I am sure so do many other governments outside the United States. Where was Bin Laden and what were his footsteps from the morning of 2001-09-11 and leading into the months and the years that were the air and ground assault on Afghanistan. This information can be reasoned by the mass absorption of books in our libraries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.61.46 (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Symbol

On the subject of his death, if he is then he would be regarded the same as Hitler to the Neo-Nazis or Palpatine during the Second Imperium Crisis in Star Wars. (I know this is more along the lines of forum talk, but I thought I'd put my 2¢ in.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.77.38 (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

imagen

cambiar imagen de OSAMA por esta:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:A_bounty_leaflect_prepared_by_the_USA_for_use_in_Afghanistan_(front)_-cc.jpg

Johanapc (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation: Change the current image for this Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The only common definition of "anti-Semitic" (in the English language) is something like "prejudiced against Jews." Although "Semite" does not necessarily mean Jew, it doesn't follow that it is up to wikipedia to boycott the (century old) word "anti-Semitic" just because it not make sense if you analyze it literally. It's not up to wikipedia to take on the dictionary and try to redefine a word.

Beliefs: Osama bin Ladin is an antisemite.

Or is he simply anti-Jewish? Arabic people - like Saudi Arabians - are Semites and know they are. If you are an anti-Arab, you are also an antisemite unless you are pro-Hebrew.It is the same here, he is an anti-Jewish but not an antisemite as he is not against Arabic people. 86.132.4.167 (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, usama bin laden believes completely that the world is owned by Jews. he has stated the need for their political removals in the rare interviewing in which he has personally appeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.224.189 (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The only common definition of "anti-Semitic" (in the English language) is something like "prejudiced against Jews." Although "Semite" does not necessarily mean Jew, it doesn't follow that it is up to wikipedia to boycott the (century old) word "anti-Semitic" just because it not make sense if you analyze it literally. It's not up to wikipedia to take on the dictionary and try to redefine a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.114.28 (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The portion that mentions that bin Laden and his followers are actually adherents Wahhabism is misleading. While they may claim to be adhering to the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhab, their voiced opinions and actions bear no resemblance to his teachings, someone should edit this so that people are not misled into believing that Wahabbism is reflected through the actions and teachings of al-Qaeda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.234.48 (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

As of 3:00 AM August 3rd, his "Personal Life/Childhood" section is screwed up on the last paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.223.173.62 (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Under 'Criminal Charges'

"Despite the multiple indictments listed above and multiple requests, the Taliban refused to extradite Osama Bin Laden. It wasn't until after the bombing of Afghanistan began in October 2001 that the Taliban finally did offer to turn over Osama bin Laden to a third-party country for trial, in return for the US ending the bombing and providing evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks."

This is factually incorrect. Although it does concede we began bombing Afghanistan without showing the Taliban any evidence of Bin Laden's guilt, the Taliban detained Bin Laden and asked for proof before the bombing started. One of many accounts of this below.

http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing005.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340388/Bin-Laden-under-house-arrest.html

The 'proof' remains classified to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.239.22 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You are actually incorrect as this article states that the bombing began on October 7, 2001 (and many agree with that timeline) - http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/gen.america.under.attack/ and this article shows that the negotiations to hand him over to US authorities went on after October 7th. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11 > Please do not post subjective information and/or your opinion on here. Let's stick to the facts that can be backed up by various resources. Thank you. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ultrameganotok, 14 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} This section should be removed. Source is not academic and this information is invalid with latest intelligence community informant's knowledge.

Osama Bin Laden does not agree with this statement: Osama bin laden, originally known as Danny Aburas. attended Salisbury east high school up unitl year 10. Jenna taught him how to make explosives in her rape dunjen.

Bin Laden believes that the restoration of Sharia law will set things right in the Muslim world, and that all other ideologies—"pan-Arabism, socialism, communism, democracy"—must be opposed."Messages, 2005, p. 218."

Edit request from Ultrameganotok, 14 September 2010 #2

{{edit semi-protected}} Bin Laden believes that the restoration of Sharia law will set things right in the Muslim world, and that all other ideologies—"pan-Arabism, socialism, communism, democracy"—must be opposed."Messages, 2005, p. 218."

I withdraw my previous request that this be edited. There are people in the CIA who still want the world to be uneducated and stupid.

removed template, author withdrew request. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

External links

Hi I find the following to be useful information about Muslim scholars on OSama bin Laden and also on extremism and terrorism in general. PLease consider adding the section with follwoing links:

Islamic scholars on Osama bin Laden

Islamic scholars on Extremism and Terrorism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrryds (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING. You've already been given a final warning to stop spamming. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Road building and other engineering projects?

I do not see Bin Laden's civil engineering works mentioned. For example "We have been waiting for this road through all the revolutions in Sudan," a sheikh said. "We waited until we had given up on everybody - and then Osama Bin Laden came along.[9].

Ann Coulter criticized Patty Murray is any of what she said true: "He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. He's made their lives better." from "PATTY MURRAY: THE STUPIDEST PERSON IN AMERICA" [10] Geo8rge (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing word.

"As a result of his dealings in violent, extremist jihad, Osama bin Laden lost his Saudi citizenship was disowned by his wealthy Saudi Arabian family."

... should probably be

"As a result of his dealings in violent, extremist jihad, Osama bin Laden lost his Saudi citizenship and was disowned by his wealthy Saudi Arabian family." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.117.201 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done, fixed, thanks for catching that. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

terrorist Islamist !

Written: "the founding leader of the terrorist Islamist organization al-Qaeda." The word "Islamist" should be removed, because Islam is anti-terrorism. Not anyone said that he is a Moslem, is a Moslem! because religion is action not speech.

Ahmadhoob (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It was poorly worded, it's been changed to Islamic extremist. Even though most reasonable people agree this man is a terrorist, the usage of this word would certainly damage the integrity of this encyclopedia b/c it is a subjective 173.79.1.90 (talk)

you have your words wrong. Extremist is subjective depending on your point of view. You may be extreme by my standards, but you may not be extreme by someone else's standards. A terrorist is not subjective. A terrorist is someone who carries out terror attacks, and a terror attack is a purposeful attack directed against non-combatants with the intent of causing fear and thereby advancing a political agenda. I do not think that any rational human being can look at the 9/11 attacks and say they were not acts of terrorism. I don't think any reasonable historian will look at them and say they were not. Since this man is the head of his group, and his group has claimed responsibility for these attacks, it is not a POV issue to call him a terrorist. Furthermore, the article [11] sites "terrorism experts" in discussing this group. So you will have to change this text to read "extremeist experts". And it goes on to mention terrorism or terror in context many, many times. So either that article is entirely wrong and Al Quaeda is not a terrorist network or organization, or this article has become extremist in the sense of being stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.248.196 (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

further stupidity is the fact that the article on [12] that this one links to, says that this label is a superset of terrorist. If terrorist is a POV word then this cannot be used to describe Islamic extremists and it is simply obfuscating to label a terrorist as an extremist and then define an extremist as one who may be involved with terror. That is weasely. It's things like this that weaken the encyclopedia and give right wing nutjobs ammunition to attack it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.186.248.196 (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Image

I believe the image - a digitally manipulated photo utilising the features of Gaspar Llamazares and thus consequently removed by the FBI - is not the best choice of pictures to use on this article and therefore I would suggest that a different photo be used. Can be the BBC for instance be successfully attributed to using one of their images of Osama bin Laden? Dark Prime (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

-Haha. Hahahaha. Sorry, but what's funny about your question is the same thing that makes this whole article hilarious: which picture of "bin laden" would you use? The short, stocky one? The taller, thin one? The one whose nose changes position in relation to the rest of his face? Tell you what, do a google image search for "Emmanuel Goldstein" and just pick from the results.

Sorry, but as a matter of fact I do believe in Santa Claus Osama bin Laden. Dark Prime (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Name

The article states the he should be refered to as 'Osama' or 'Osama bin Laden', and not 'bin Laden'. Then the whole rest of the article refers to him as 'bin Laden'. are we a little confused?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.246.217 (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Strictly speaking, Arabic linguistic conventions dictate that he be referred to as "Osama" or "Osama bin Laden", not "bin Laden", as "Bin Laden" is not used as a surname in the Western manner, but simply as part of his name, which in its long form means "Osama, son of Mohammed, son of 'Awad, son of Laden"." So why isn't he Osama bin Mohammed then ?Eregli bob (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

anti-semitic

how can he be anti-semitic when he is a semite??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.251.132 (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Because he hates Jews.Cromulant (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Silly 75.208.251.132. Anti-semitic means "anti-Jewish" even though technically "semitic" is a language group that would include both Hebrews and Arabs - that's not how it's used in common speech. Rklawton (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-read and re-write

Some body please re-read and then rewrite this entire article for focus and accuracy and intelligence.

October 2004 tape (footnote) Osama must have had major surgery to change his appearance or the worst double imaginable. I thought this tape had been laughed off the planet by now.159.105.80.220 (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

College

Origins of bin Laden network. By: Baldauf, Scott, Bowers, Faye, Christian Science Monitor, 08827729, 9/14/2001, Vol. 93, Issue 204.

This article says Osama studied Engineering. He was to work at or take over his father's company. Is this true or false? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

MIDDLE EAST POLICY, VOL. IX, NO. 2, JUNE 2002

OSAMA BIN LADEN: EMBEDDED IN THE MIDDLE EAST CRISES Ann M. Lesch Dr. Lesch is professor of political science, Villanova University.

This article says he graduated when he was 22 and had a degree in "civil engineering" from the uni of Jidda. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There are varying accounts of Osama bin Laden's time at Abdulaziz University, Jeddah. The best-sourced account I've seen is from Lawrence Wright who interviewed one of bin Laden's contemporaries from the period. He studied economics but began working for the family firm while at university. Unable to balance the two, dropped out a year before graduating. See The Looming Tower pp78-82. --Copper button 19:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of bin Laden

Seriously? A section called criticism of bin Laden discusses a relatively esoteric point of Islamic scholarship. Umm... is there anything else he's been criticised for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.77.200 (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

quick fix

someone needs to remove the "|" after the "most wanted terrorists" link on the second paragraph. CBF logging in to do it myself (semiprotected page by the looks of it) 27.32.100.152 (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture

the digitally aged photo published by the FBI was invalidated (see the bin Laden article) and should not be used as the portrait on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.236.82 (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit weired to use a photo which is not actually of him as the main picture of the article? Especially when others are available? I would insert an older but actual photo and then move the manipulated one down to the middle somewhere. Maracana (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I replaced it because the previous photo was too low quality. If anyone can find a free HQ image, be my guest to change it. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Should definitely be changed immediately. Its ironic with the article itself, and proven invalid. Its better to have no photo than a picture of a spanish politician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.118.241 (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

caught in northern pakistan near afghanistan border

first intelligence report came in august 2010 with cooperation of Pakistani security forces —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.151.0.13 (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Death

The first part of the "Death" section has a typo; the same sentence is repeated twice.

There are reports of death Monday 2nd may 2011 8 am (However, apparently the actual operation may have happened a week previous) It could be noted that Obama delivered this historical speech at 11:35 Post-Meridian, Eastern Standard Time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiirulez (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand, first he said he died last week then he said he died today.

http://www.ajc.com/news/reports-bin-laden-dead-931726.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spo0nman (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Says in the intro that he died in December 2001... shouldn't someone change that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.179.196 (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Until it is a confirmed fact lets not change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.116.49 (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

News reports say that the US has had his body for about a week, so the date of death on the page is off. Zoso1012 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The city where he died is wrong. It should be Abbottabad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.248.57 (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Article currently says he died on May 1st. Obama released that he died last week, but only the confirmation that it was him was on May 1st. It was not the date of death.72.241.15.61 (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but he then shortly said: "Today, at my direction, the United states launched a targeted operation against that compound." --Kaydeethree (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I just heard on the news (CNN) that they found out President Obama gave the final go-ahead to the special forces on the same day as the royal wedding in England -- April 29. I don't have a source yet, but be alert and aware for that. That means bin Laden probably died on April 29 or April 30. 214.27.58.2 (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

News to me. I've been listening to CNN the whole time. --Kaydeethree (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I just heard the speech a second time. Obama very clearly says that the operation was launched "today" and the death date should indeed say May 1st. sean (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

On second thought it might be May 2nd. "Today" is ambiguous. sean (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The "go ahead" would be given well in advance of the operation, so there's no reason he couldn't have given the "go ahead" for the operation which then culminated on May 1st. Rklawton (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Archival

Due to current events, I have manually archived all comments prior to 1 May, to Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 17.  Chzz  ►  05:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Death

They Killed Goldstein, Viva Oceania! [13] Can we give some credence to the fact that he might be dead? It has been speculated a few times and the main dates are pinned down to July or December 2001, with a few other dates suggested. Angelo Codevilla, of the American Spectator, says that there has not been a credible sighting of OBL since 2001 and that all the subsequent video and audio are very clearly not him (due to voice and appearance). Then, professor David Ray Griffin wrote a book entitled Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive, which provides a strong case and a date of death: 13 December 2001. And then there is the fact that OBL denied involvement four times* after 9/11, before suddenly arising to claim responsibility (on Griffins asserted death date). He appears very differently in the video published on that date, and unlike his [wahhabism|religious beliefs]]. Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto both claimed he died years ago, for kidney failure (2001) and assassination (2004?), respectively. akim I would like to take the example of Alois Brunner, who is believed dead (he would be 99 now), but its unknown when. Here we have some dates and can then note that these are speculated or unconfirmed, but have some shadows of evidence to ground them. At some point, it will have to be recognized that he is dead. Why wait until 2057, when he would be 100 and the odds are ridiculous? I am willing to do the work on this, but I would like some support and comments from others to see if I am thinking realistically.

Please put a talkback on my talkpage if you reply. I tend to forget that I posted on a talk page.

*These articles I cited also make the case that OBL wasnt even involved in 9/11 and Codevilla suggests it was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I would love to get that more prominence in this and the 9/11 article, but there is so limited citing on it. I dont know why people dont even think of this possibility. The government cant because they would have to admit they were wrong, but independent sources certainly could speculate more about it.

Metallurgist (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose he might be dead, seeing as the US military and its Commander in Chief are both saying he was killed. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Live blogged, death was after 1AM 2 May 2011, need's updating. Here and Usama bin Laden page. http://twitter.com/#!/ReallyVirtual

Here is another source that indicates it was 2 May 2011 after 12:30 am local time (3:30 pm Eastern). Pakistan is Eastern Daylight Time + 9 hours. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/01/usama-bin-laden-dead-say-sources/ 214.27.58.2 (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I am psychic... Metallurgist (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a Fox News story from December 2001 talking about his "peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication" [14]. Here is an article from CNN discussing the possibility of Osama bin Laden's failing health from January 2002 [15]. Another article from CNN January 2002 where the president of Pakistan says Osama is most likely dead as he was unable to get proper treatment for his kidney failure [16]. User:Churdtzu —Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

So he died in 2001 from lung ailments, in 2002 from kidney failure, and both 2004 and 2009 from a gunshot, in addition to being killed yesterday? Wow, he's like Elfego Baca. But I don't think he's coming back from this one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If bin Laden is dead, habeas corpus ("show me the body").--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That means "I have the body" and you're misusing the term here. Besides, his body is apparently in Davy Jones Locker. =p They should release images though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Scottandrewhutchins - no trolling. If you persist, you will be blocked (again) from editing. Rklawton (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no independent evidence is being provided, and without that I'd tend to not accept the US government & military as a credible source. At the very least the language about his death should be changed to "the US government has announced that" or "ABC News is asserting that unnamed sources have told them", and so on, reporting what's being said instead of what's being asserted to be true, at least until there is independent proof. Because apparently, OBL has been considered "dead" before, and the US government and military don't have a good recent track record of honesty. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We really should probably cover his alternate death date(s), which seem to coalesce around mid-December 2001. There is a lot of evidence to support this and really no evidence to support the recent claims; just claims, and a lot of questions. Not going to get into all that, but I have seen quite a few sources covering the disputes. A few people even think that he is still alive, but that would be ridiculous and baseless, especially since the fallback for skeptics is already prepared (he was dead already). Metallurgist (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does this page indicate bin Laden's death on May 2 as a fait accompli, when the only evidence we have that this is the case is an announcement from the White House? All of the media reports are based solely upon this announcement. That would seem to me to violate NPOV. Eric (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Awaiting President Obama to possibly confirm his death

President Obama is about to speak on TV, possibly to announce Osama's death. Will update as soon as the announcement is official. Safiel (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

CNN is saying they have outside confirmation. But I agree we should wait for the President's statement. 75.93.212.49 (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

MSNBC has confirmed it... Piandcompany (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the burlington free press, the United States Government has his dead body and president Barck Obama will adress the nation on Sunday, May 1.Mrwaco29 (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Page text.

Practically all media sources report and confirm his death, but an official confirmation would be nice. JorgeGuberte (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden was killed one week ago today; 5/01/2011, which put his death at April 24, 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wannabeme22 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ki4mor, 2 May 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} He has been killed, all over the news add a death date. Date of death is not May 2, but May 1 Ki4mor (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood Moxy (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't of killed bin laden. instead we should of made him live off the fecal matter of every united states citizen for the next 20 years or how ever long he would have lived. That sorry sack of poo doesn't deserve all this attention. Everyone remember USA is the greatest nation in the world and now it's time to bring our boys home! Leave those people in shambles they hate us anyway it's our turn to be the bad guys for once. If I had my way we would have dropped the biggest bomb possible on those people and got rid of them all a long time ago! No one else should die because of this A-hole I hope he rots in hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.146.220 (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The comma between 1 and 2011 in his death date at the top of his InfoBox needs to have a space after it.

Small thing, but it's kind of annoying. Can someone fix that? 96.232.165.52 (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Someone fixed that. Mastercampbell (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 161.253.105.39, 2 May 2011

Please change the age of Osama bin Laden to reflect that he died at age 54, instead of it saying that he was born at age 54 and died at age 0 (code error). 161.253.105.39 (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fixed by another admin. –MuZemike 03:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request by Marlith

Please add a {{current}} to the page header. Marlith (Talk)  03:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Steven Walling 03:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from CaesarGermanicus, 2 May 2011

CaesarGermanicus (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Um...... Osama's death was reported last night. Why hasnt this signifigant event been written yet? This seriously concerns my trust and support of Wikipedia.

Sincerely, CaesarGermanicus

• That's just commentary, not a request. Protonk (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Also, the official news of this event is just over 12 hours old, and new news/data is continuing to come in. There is NO other encyclopedia that brings current events (including encyclopedic content) to print both reliably and as quickly as Wikipedia does. One must allow the collaborative effort to come through with a bit of patience as reliable sources come available. Show me another encyclopedia (or even a news channel/source) that has such fresh data. Dijcks | ^InOut 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rockclaw1030, 2 May 2011

I have seen the news and would like to post on the fact that Osama is now officially dead.

Rockclaw1030 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden is confirmed dead, per ABC News, NY Times, WSJ, and oddly TMZ. It's official! —Terrence and Phillip 03:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Full protection reduced to semi. —DoRD (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose we lock it

In light of the current media happenings, I think we should lock this before it starts getting vandalized. 98.26.81.41 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Appears that the article was protected a few minutes ago. --joe decker^{talk to me} 03:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, at least move to semi protection so we can update it. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support protection for obvious reasons. Rklawton (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi protection would be fine. The admins are obviously not keeping pace here. Per FOX, US has the body, confirmed using DNA from family member. Per AP, Place of death was islamabad, he was living in a mansion. Cause of death is a bomb per CNN —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Request for semi-protection so that non-admin editors can update and edit the article. —Terrence and Phillip 03:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong place; this request belongs on WP:RPP. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  05:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Another source for Bin Laden's death

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/01/usama-bin-laden-dead-say-sources/ says he was killed by a bomb

CNN is reporting he was killed outside a mansion in Islamabad, Pakistan--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

BBC is reporting it too.

• Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-obama-statement-idUSTRE74107920110502 Rklawton (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• And CBS News is also reiterating bin Laden's death: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/01/national/main20058777.shtml —Terrence and Phillip 03:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Does Wikinews count as a reliable source? http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_dead,_report_US_officials —Terrence and Phillip 03:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE http://twitter.com/#!/ReallyVirtual

Remove section

I suggest that this section be removed: Reports of his current whereabouts. Thoughts? Jujutacular ^talk 03:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Or just rename it. Rklawton (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename it, yeah. Don't delete it -- it's useful because that information had an impact on political discussions of the time. The historical significance of where people thought he was hasn't disappeared with his death. --Aquillion (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in shock. I found out playing Millionaire on Facebook of all places, one of my fellow players was watching NBC when they announced it. As for this section, I say let's hold on until the major spurt of activity dies down a bit. I agree we can't discuss his current whereabouts anymore; it's in U.S. custody in a coffin, or some disgraceful wrapping. CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

His current whereabouts, or at least his dead body, is currently in US military custody. It should be merged with his death section. —Terrence and Phillip 03:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's wait until we have more details. That section might still be worthy of inclusion, with a rewrite. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Death of a terrorist

Osama bin Laden was killed by a rocket fired from a drone about 3pm Nz time.President Obama is going to give a press statement in 15mts.

We got that already. CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Appears he was killed on a day prior to the announcement. We'll wait until the date is confirmed before we change it again. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

President Obama said OBL was killed outside of Abbottobad (not Islamabad as stated in the article on Wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.151.176 (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Noticed a problem

Resolved

there's 2 "Death" sections, might want to condense that--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed  Chzz  ►  04:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Death of bin laden needs its own article

Resolved

Just a thought but the rumors of Death and the real death of osama should have it's own article here linked to this page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We only have two sentences so far. When we get more information you can create a new article.--RaptorHunter (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See Death of Osama bin Laden  Chzz  ►  04:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dylankd, 2 May 2011

Obasa Bin Laden

Dylankd (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Declined, as there is no specific request here. --John (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In "Childhood, education, and personal life"

At the end of the second paragraph, if this man is deceased, shouldn't it say "He also wrote poetry" Instead of "He also writes poetry"? Greisen (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Greisen

Death date is wrong

Several users have claimed the death date of 1 May is incorrect. For now, the only evidence we have is that Obama stated "today" in his conference. The date will not be changed until someone provides a reliable source showing a different date. Thank you.  Chzz  ►  05:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The died-on-date listed is wrong. It says May 1, 2011. That is WRONG. He died one week ago according to press reports, and it is just now being revealed today. [17] GOOD RIDDANZ (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I also saw this. Please fix. HankyUSA (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Current date is consistent with presidental speech.©Geni 04:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Obama, he died today; I'd say much more a reliable source than various press. --BignBad 04:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

When did Obama today say he died today? The 'LIVE' broadcast I heard said he died several days ago and they only revealed it today once they confirmed it was him with DNA testing.

Edit request from Wannabeme22, 2 May 2011

Osama Bin Laden was killed one week ago from this day 5/01/2011

Wannabeme22 (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Current date is consistent with presidental speech.©Geni 04:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Death date

I would like to point out that he probably died on the 2nd of May Pakistani time.

He was killed on the 24th, according to reports. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

EXACTLY! THANK YOU! 04:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

According to what I heard on CNN not long ago, he died eight hours before but they only announced it now. I haven't heard of him dying a week ago as others said. We'd best sit on the presumed death date (today) until otherwise is confirmed. CycloneGU (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, according to Obama's speech on CNN, he died today. --BignBad 04:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The President said "Today, at my direction, the United States carried out that operation... they killed Osama Bin Laden and took custody of his body." Source is Al Jazeera report, but was available in any video on 1 May 2011. Victorianist (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Early reports said the 24th, but that alleged fact disappeared after the speech. It would be nice to find out the precise LOCAL date and time for whatever "today" means in this case, and its UTC equivalent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The "one week ago" quotation was about when the US received the information that Bin Laden would be holed up at the compound. It didn't go anywhere. People mis-heard.

|}

I've got the relevant part of the speech quoted verbatim below. Rklawton (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

latest on death

Two days ago OBL aged 54, was killed by a small team of US special forces at a luxury compound 50km north east of Islamabad ,the capital of Pakistan.The body is in the custody of US forces.Pakistani special service forces have been watching the villa for some time -some reports say a month.It appears that President Obama was informed before the US team stormed the villa and killed OBL in a firefight(not a drone fired from a Predator drone as previously reported).It took 2 days to make a postive DNA identification using a sample provided by one of his many sisters.

According to CTV News, Obama tried to make it clear that none of the people involved were American. I think we should avoid saying who was involved at all until we know for certain exactly who actually was involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.129.43 (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you watched his actual statement he said Americans were involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.93.125 (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

CNN is reporting that it was a helicopter raid by US Navy Seals, and "that the entire operation only took around 40 minutes" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.61.188 (talk • contribs)

Fox is also saying it was Navy Seals and that it took around 40 minutes. Although they're saying that it was around 40 men and 4 helicopters. --98.27.245.226 (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The date of death was April, 24 2011. People are confused between the announcement of his death, May 1 and the actual date of his date. Here is the transcript of the president's speech, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead, that article was issued on May, 1 2011 and note the beginning of paragraph 9, first sentence. Here is the excerpt of that paragraph if for whatever reason the link is dead or the article is not working. "And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice." Please change the date to April, 24 2011. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mars Lanius (talk • contribs) 21:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No where in that quote does it say he died on April 24th - just that orders were issued then. Rklawton (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

To quote from the article on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (before the table of contents):

“ In 2011, the British news agency, the Telegraph, received leaked documents regarding the Guantanamo Bay interrogations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The documents cited Khalid saying that, if Osama Bin Laden is captured or killed by the Coalition of the Willing, an Al-Qaeda sleeper cell will detonate a "weapon of mass destruction" in a "secret location" in Europe, and promised it would be "a nuclear hellstorm". ”

That article includes citations. Seems like this might merit mentioning in this article? TerraFrost (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless it actualy happens no. Try Death of Osama bin Laden.©Geni 04:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear hellstorms? we've had those already, but not in Europe and not because of Al-Qaeda. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious

"...along with lifelong friends Anthony Kardous and Enos Fingy" seems suspicious. Google results show mainly Facebook pages and the like.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.222.77 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 2 May 2011

Fixed, thanks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Death on May 2nd?

Obama's speech was made on May 2, around ~9:30AM Pakistan time.

So unless his death was kept secret for about 10 hours, current evidence seems to indicate he actually died on May 2nd local time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzemla (talk • contribs) 05:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It was kept secret for awhile (read the speech), but it's not clear if it's more than 10 hours - so it's possible OBL died on the 1st or the 2nd local time, so we'll just have to wait and see. Rklawton (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It was announced in Washington in the evening of May 1st. The speech was at around 11:30pm EDT on May 1st, which is May 2 3:30 UTC, and Mr. Obama said "today". Unless/until reliable sources are provided to show another date, it will not be changed.  Chzz  ►  05:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

He said "today" because it's nonsensical to say "tomorrow"... But good point about UTC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzemla (talk • contribs) 05:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a local tweet from Abbottabad complaining about the strike helicopters at 1am local time, meaning there it is very likely that OBL was killed in the earliest hours of May 2. 71.184.69.63 (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

http://twitter.com/#!/ReallyVirtual 71.184.69.63 (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera via C-SPAN broadcast a report from a local producer that also put the attack at after 1:00 A.M. Rklawton (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

From this link :http://www.whtc.com/news/articles/2011/may/02/bin-laden-killed-in-dramatic-night-time-raid-near-/ , "Senior Pakistani security officials said the operation, carried out at around 1:30 a.m.", obviously this is PKT, making the day of bin Laden's death 5/2. With this information I believe the date should be changed as soon as possible to reflect the correct date; as not to spread misinformation. Rayne117 (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support good source and consistent with other witness reports. It's also consistent with the POTUS' speech where he only says that he "authorized" the attack in the morning of the 1st. Rklawton (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

1:30am on Sunday.. that's the May 1st. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Osama-Bin-Laden-Terror-Chief-Tracked-Down-In-Pakistan-By-CIA-And-Killed-By-Crack-US-Troops/Article/201105115983664?lpos=World_News_Top_Stories_Header_1&lid=ARTICLE_15983664_Osama_Bin_Laden%3A_Terror_Chief_Tracked_Down_In_Pakistan_By_CIA_And_Killed_By_Crack_US_Troops Morphh ^(talk) 13:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lock the Page

Until things settle down and more official reports have been published, this article should be locked from editing.Inter16 (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. See WP:PROT. It's a wiki; anyone can edit. Anything lacking reliable sources can be removed. Discussions can happen here.  Chzz  ►  05:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently only semi-protected to prevent vandalism from unregistered and new users. Applying full protection would prevent legitimate, regular users, who do follow Wikipedia's rules and guideline, from updating this article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The date of death was April, 24 2011. People are confused between the announcement of his death, May 1 and the actual date of his date. Here is the transcript of the president's speech, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead, that article was issued on May, 1 2011 and note the beginning of paragraph 9, first sentence. Here is the excerpt of that paragraph if for whatever reason the link is dead or the article is not working. "And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mars Lanius (talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

President Obama announced the death of Bin Laden on May 1, 2011 at around 11:30pm EST (8:30pm PST) so naturally, the date should appear as "May 1, 2011" and not May 2nd as posted incorrectly. President Obama made the announcement from the US so it shouldn't matter that it was May 2nd in Pakistan. Also, in answer to the previous writer's comments about the President announcing that he "determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice", does NOT mean he did this a week ago. I HIGHLY DOUBT THE PRESIDENT WOULD WAIT ONE ENTIRE WEEK TO MAKE SUCH A CRITICAL ANNOUNCEMENT and have to hide it from the media for an entire week. For what reason? Minimally, the Wikipedia should be changed to read "THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF OSAMA BIN LADEN'S DEATH TOOK PLACE ON MAY 1, 2011". This is the date when Pres Obama made the announcement from the White House, in Eastern Standard Time in the US. No one will ever know "when" the killing took place but definitely not a week ago! 1biggrin (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)1biggrin

Minor point

The "see also" link, Osama bin Laden as destructive Cult leader, links to a minor comment in a somewhat tangential article. The idea is interesting (personally i agree), and with more sources, could be incorporated into the main body of THIS article, but i dont think this works as a "see also".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ssshanemjlll, 2 May 2011

The folowing should be edited as parts of the aritical are not needed and should not be included.

 Not done Sorry - not sure what you mean - could you elaborate if the problem still there .Moxy (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Death

Main article: Death of Osama bin Laden

On May 1, 2011, President Obama announced that Osama bin Laden was killed earlier that day by "a small team of Americans" acting under his direct orders, in a covert operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan, 32 miles (51 km) (or 93 miles by road) north of Islamabad, affirming earlier confirmation by US officials to the media. The site is just a few kilometers from the Pakistan Military Academy in Kakul. DNA from bin Laden's body, compared with DNA samples on record from his dead sister, confirmed bin Laden's identity. The body was recovered by the US military and is in its custody.

The as the crows fly is not needed to convey actual distance and is a nonprofessional entry

Ssshanemjlll (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Not sure what your saying - could you elaborate if the problem still there.Moxy (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.42.2.248, 2 May 2011

Fox news said his birthday was July 30, 1957. And they have his name as Usama.

69.42.2.248 (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

declined. We've been getting a spectacular number of errors from fox news about this and Osama is the generaly accepted spelling.©Geni 06:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fox News has a reputation for being rather slip-shod when it comes to fact-checking, it's unsurprising that they got the wrong birthday. As for the spelling of his name, it boils down to different ways of translating Arabic script into the English alphabet (witness various spellings of the Islamic holy text - Koran, Qur'an, Kuran, and Curan). "Osama" is the most commonly used spelling, and I'd just as soon go with the BBC spelling rather than FOX's. Badger Drink (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Usama" is a variant transliteration, as with Kadaffi's name, of which there are several spellings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection is needed

This article is likely to be hit by a spate of steady vandalism. I suggest we put it under protection immediately.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Looks like it has been done. Page is now semi-protected Mastercampbell (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Even *I* am tempted to edit in something along the lines of "the bastard was sent to Hell" and even cite Dante's description of what Canto he wound up in. Rest assured this particular article will be in need of protection for a significant period of time. Kudos to whichever admin turned it on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.148.141 (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

'Bin Laden' vs 'Osama bin Laden'

The article suggests:

Strictly speaking, Arabic linguistic conventions dictate that he be referred to as "Osama" or "Osama bin Laden", not "bin Laden", as "Bin Laden" is not used as a surname in the Western manner, but simply as part of his name, which in its long form means "Osama, son of Mohammed, son of 'Awad, son of Laden". Still, "bin Laden" has become nearly universal in Western references to him.

Considering this, I think we should change all instances of 'bin Laden' to 'Osama bin Laden'.

Mastercampbell (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

But his name is an anomaly, as "bin Laden" is used like a surname even by his family -- e.g. in the Saudi Binladin Group. -- tariqabjotu 07:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have little comment on the linguistics here, but two points: 1) Most Western media used "Bin Laden" as a shorthand. 2) This article currently alternates between "Osama" and "Bin Laden". Obviously, we should pick one and change the others. I don't know which is absolutely right, but currently they are different by section. Ocaasi ^c 17:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Bin Laden" just means "son of Laden", and is colloquially acceptable in English-speaking populations as shorthand for "Osama bin Laden". In certain US states, Pepsi is, in the vernacular, a type of Coke. Here in Encyclopedialand, however, one must be more careful; for it is on here we may appreciate that Coke and Pepsi are competitors, and it is on here one may discover that "Osama bin Laden" is, itself, shorthand for a longer string of tribal specifiers. Just as "Hussein" was not Saddam Hussein's last name, but rather the "first" name of his father, "bin Laden" functions only to identify Osama's ancestry; it does not denote the man himself. To call him just "bin Laden" is, fundamentally, as nonsensical as referring to Ivan the Terrible as just "the Terrible", or to Mack the Knife as just "the Knife". It's gotta be "Osama" (his given name) or "Osama bin Laden" (his given name plus some ancestral information); it can't be just "bin Laden" (the ancestral background of a nameless subject). Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no, it is not like calling Ivan the Terrible "the Terrible". As I said, as in the Binladin Group, "bin Laden" is used as a last name by his own family. That's, after all, why the guy is commonly known as Osama bin Laden, rather than Osama bin Muhammad, which would make far more sense as Muhammad, and not Laden, was his father's name. Similarly, it is why he is known as bin Laden, rather than bin [an even more distant descendent] (and let's remember whether he had a relative named "Laden" is dubious on its own). As far as his family is concerned and given what common nomenclature dictates, bin Laden acts as a last name. -- tariqabjotu 02:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

His family (which, if I recall correctly, disowned him) may have turned "bin Laden" into the inheritable surname "Binladen", but Osama neither treated nor inherited his "last" name as a surname. To paraphrase Sigmund Freud, sometimes a Johnson is just the son of John. And sometimes John's son becomes a Johnson--but rarely, if ever, vice versa. So, Osama's family may have turned the patronymic "bin Laden" into the surname "Binladen", but Osama himself retained the patronymic. And, as explained here, the patronymic alone communicates descendence minus the descendant, evoking an old, derogatory (and, in the context of this article, irrelevant) implication that someone had had a child out of wedlock. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of death

Wasn't it already May 2, considering local time in Pakistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.181.125 (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes: "According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, the attack on Bin Laden’s compound north of Islamabad seems to have happened at about 1:10 am local time, which would be 4:10 pm Washington time." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.245.63 (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

According to a press release from Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated 2 May 2011, he was killed "in the early hours of this morning." see: http://www.mofa.gov.pk/Press_Releases/2011/May/PR_150.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noiseball (talk • contribs) 10:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Who killed him?

Several different news channels are reporting several different descriptions of who exactly killed Bin Laden. So far I have heard, "A small group of American soldiers including Franco Milazzo", A navy seal team, Marine snipers, and the 101st airborne. Anyone know who actually killed him?Editforpeace (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Buried at sea

Here is an article about it copied from ABC News Radio [18] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

best we can tell it all comes from a single AP wire report quoting an un name offical. Its got a high enough WTF factor that we should wait for further info.©Geni 08:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Any word on images released to shut up most of the conspiracy theorists? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not yet. Hopefully soon. I'm somewhat surprised no images have been released and that the U.S. military disposed of the body before showing it to press. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's entirely possible that they are trying to handle things more sensitively for the family than they did for the Husseins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That would make the most sense, don't want people saying we're hoisting him around like a trophy and all. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

foto of bin Laden

Please change the photo of benladen - File:Osama bin Laden (CIA photo).png on more qualitative: File:Osama Bin Ladin Digitally Aged 2009.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scythian23 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Is he really caught?

I ask this, because he is still on FBI's top ten most wanted list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.146.118 (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

They'll probably remove it in a few weeks. It is probably not high on their list of priorities. Some lucky serviceman just got himself a fat stack though. ;) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no "fat stack". Servicemen cannot collect rewards while performing their duties. Neither could a cop collect a reward for finding a criminal-it is their job! --Ishtar456 (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence, beyond statements from US officials. Strangely, no picture has been made available, and the alleged DNA test seems to be awfully quick - but perhaps it could be performed onboard a carrier or something? Most likely there are legitimate reasons for the lack of evidence, but we'll see what surfaces the next few days. Ketil (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

He’s on the FBI’s website. I agree with Flinders: changing the page is probably pretty low on their priority list right now. Heck, it’s not even 8:00am in Washington DC time yet, so it could just be that the IT or PR people who update the website aren't even in the office yet. Give them a couple hours or days and they’ll get around to it. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 11:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ketil, you want a photo? Here is something I found: http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/02/6568249-we-think-that-bin-laden-death-photo-is-a-fake

Yes, but as the link points out, it's an old fake. Ketil (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

WIERDGREENMAN, Thane of Cawdor THE CAKE IS A LIE (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

FBI most wanted now lists him as deceased. doomgaze (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I have seen the FBI usually leaves the "Most wanted" poster up for quite some time. Sometime up to when the replacement is announced. I think its kind of a way to say "Hay we got this one" for a while, but that is just my own opinion.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of death vs date of announcement

It appears there's some confusion over the date of the death, and I think some of this is due to the announcement. Obama's press conference started before midnight EDT on May 1; however, it appears that the strike happened in the early morning hours of May 2, since Afghanistan is 8.5 hours ahead of EDT at the moment. It would seem to me that the correct date would be May 2. However, due to the above problem, appropriate sources are difficult... – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 10:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is May 1st, 2011. Obama announced it at 11:30 and the news did at 10:30. That's still May 1, not 2nd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.142.87 (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned, there is a time difference of 8.5 hours. Bin Laden was killed on May 2 in Pakistan while it was still May 1 in the US. Time travel is indeed possible! :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 12:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There should be a distinction made between the two. His death date should be listed as the 2nd, but the date of announcement in the US should be the 1st. Riverawl (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the announcement date from the intro section where it's most visible, in favor of the date of death. It's still in the "Death" section, and I think it should remain there, but that probably needs to be clarified. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 12:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Yazzackie, 2 May 2011

Please change his date of death on the primary description from may 2, 2011, to may 1st, 2011, his actual date of death.

Yazzackie (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it appears it was May 2, local time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's what the source claims, but May 2 in Pakistan seems to be pushing the chronology a bit. He is dna tested, and then allegedly flown 1600 kms to the coast for burial at sea, all in a few hours. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not impossible; it's not unprecedented for US army/air force transport to cover the travel to the sea in a few hours. We do have independent verification of a raid; that is, the Twitter user in Abbottabad who, in his words, live-blogged bin Laden's death without knowing it. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I just think it would be easier to display Western time, maybe add the Local time as well? It doesn't work very well to just have one, especially when there is no label of the time zone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazzackie (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a global project, why would we use "Western time?" It is standard to list when an event occurs where it happens. We might use UTC for things spanning time zones, etc, but in this case, local time is correct. (For the record, I'm in EDT, and thus in "Western time" myself.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Killed Americans. Killed BY Americans. He dies on our time. Not his. Needs to be changed to the 1st. 71.79.250.247 (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Was the corpse found really Osama's?

I was wondering if the corpse was just a look-alike. 218.186.17.249 (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If it was, Obama and others will have egg on their faces. However, it seems like his death has been accepted by both friends and enemies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Egg on their faces? I don't get this. So the Taliban has confirmed his death? 218.186.17.249 (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the image that was published in few non western media channels? I wonder if it's really this of Osama after he was killed or just an image that was released after extensive processing. --Gilisa (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is strange that they took custody of the body anyway. Why not just leave him behind? --91.125.243.64 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

To prevent them from building a shrine around the body. That's as obvious as can be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure they have confirmed it. I was just watching BBC News and they quoted a Taliban spokesman saying that "if" the USA had indeed killed Osama, then there will be retribution against the US and Pakistan. Note my emphasis. doomgaze (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats what DNA testing is for.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The photo floating around the web of his "corpse" is a fake. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a stock photo of bin Laden that some internet geek doctored. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

needed info

Don't forget the info from the article by Matt Appuzo of the AP showing that in 2005 a multi-million dollar compound was built and that's where bin Laden was when they got him. Where did the money for that come from, honey stores? 4.249.63.135 (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipeda should not be so sure about the death vents. These informations came from the same environment who lied about the weapons of mass destruction and on numerous other things. I think it's pretty clear that if there isn't a body, there is something to hide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.182.19 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The text under "Impact on United States civil society"

This text is extremely opinionated and seems to be below certain quality control standards I thought were applied to this web site. Where do facts end and opinions begin? Under this section it seems. How does one go about disputing the neutrality of a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.233.182 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with the above post. This section of the article is not unbiased. The quotes from the CBC journalist are appropriate and show a valid viewpoint. The criticism of Fox News is not and smacks of a liberal bias. This section needs balance. 99.108.181.74 (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[RETRACTED] Zephalis (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC) "Liberal bias"? You do know that Fox News is the most right-wing (conservative) television news in the U.S. right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephalis (talk • contribs) 15:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The criticism of Fox News. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I misread it because the grammar is bad. Should've been one sentence ("is not and" is bad grammar, esp in a new sentence, on a new line [from the word appropriate]) Zephalis (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this paragraph is extremely POV in its commentary on Fox News. (And I personally hate Fox News with a passion!) There's far too much irrelevant material regarding Fox News that has nothing to do with bin Laden. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. You'd think that Fox News had single-handedly passed the Patriot Act and led the troops into Iraq. It's an anti-Fox editorial that needs to be filed down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This section is a clear example of systemic bias, treating his impact on US civil society as more important than any other country. PatGallacher (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Not done

Osama death date

Osama Bin Laden died on May 1st, 2011 not May 2nd. Please correct this.

 Not done See above. Rklawton (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Location

34°11'15.82"N 73°14'33.12"E - Is the supposed true and factual location for where he is said to have been killed ?

It's possible. I checked it on google maps. It's a split-level building with a wall around it and kind of a courtyard inside the gate. It's also not far from the PMA building. So it kind of fits the profile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard the exact location on the news, or even the nearby street name. However, they have zoomed in using Google Earth, and what i am seeing appears to be extremely accurate both from their outside shots of the building and from the nearby pool that I saw in the Google Earth view. CycloneGU (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

More location discussion here: http://ogleearth.com/2011/05/finding-osama-bin-ladens-abbottabad-mansion-with-google-earth/ Dog Food Danny (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Samkozlov1, 2 May 2011

The death date for Osama Bin Laden is a day off. The actual date that he was shot (and killed) and the day that he was announced dead was May 1st, 2011; not May 2nd, 2011. Please allow me to edit the date.

Samkozlov1 (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done see above. Rklawton (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he died 18 hours ago as I type. The media has reported #ReallyVirtual on Twitter as the first to unknowingly report the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound. Seven hours later (11 hours ago as I type), he noted that ISI confirmed bin Laden is dead while others made the connection on his Twitter. See @ReallyVirtual. Death date and time were 18 hours ago, that must be the death date we use. I think that was about 5:00 p.m. EDT, which I think is after midnight in Pakistan, so May 2 is correct. CycloneGU (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It scares me to know that people treat Twitter as an independent and valid source for information. Especially when the tweeter has some random name and is just some random person that could live anywhere. Unless he tweets photographic evidence that Osama was there and that the building is not there, it cannot be used as a credible source. Zephalis (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Credible source? I never said that. But nonetheless, it documents a first-person account, and the media has used that user's postings in its reports, thus I would make an exception based on that. CycloneGU (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

First posts about death

At 4 p.m. EST a Twitter feed from Sohaib Athar, an IT consultant in Abbottabad (the city where bin Laden was found) gave first hand accounts of the attack.[19][20]

The first posting on Wikipedia was on Sunday, May 1, 2011 10:35 PM EST, 6 hours later.[21]

Wikipedia history:

1. 02:37, 2 May 2011 User:Kylelovesyou [22] unsourced
2. 02:39, 2 May 2011 User:Muboshgu reverted.[23]
3. 02:43, 2 May 2011 User:Drivingmad unsourced [24] followed by several posts in next two minutes.
4. 02:46, 2 May 2011 User:Merrill Stubing CNN REPORTING IT LIVE 1045PM EST BREAKING BIN LADEN IS DEAD[25]
5. 02:47, 2 May 2011 User:Muboshgu reverted.[26]
6. 02:47, 2 May 2011 User:Themoodyblue unsourced.[27]
7. 02:48, 2 May 2011 User:Safiel reverted. (removed Category:Living people using HotCat)[28]
8. 02:49, 2 May 2011 User:TitaniumCarbide added Template:Recent death.[29] Flurry of unreferenced edits and first vandalism follows.
9. 02:50, 2 May 2011 User:WikipedianMarlith first source.[30]
10. 02:52, 2 May 2011 User:Basket of Puppies NYT source added.[31]

Errectstapler (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Chew-choo, chuwarin! We’ve got him!15:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Date

He died on '2 days'. 'May 1' or 'May 2' depending on your time zone and UTC zone.15:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:TIMEZONE I'd say it should be May 2 then, as that was/is the local date. --Skysmurf (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. CycloneGU (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request by 86.161.216.49 (talk)

He was killed by headshot twice. It also needs to be added in the Obama Admin section that Obama successfully defeated Osama. 86.161.216.49 (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the first, the second isn't encyclopedic. ^Khukri 15:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If you look up "Osama shot in head" you'll find lots of news reports about it. 86.161.216.49 (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If There Was Any Doubt - Not Anymore

CNN just reported that the DNA has confirmed that it was bin Laden who was killed yesterday - or today Pakistan time. CycloneGU (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Because words from unknow people confirm it...--Metallurgist (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the sources are in the intelligence community, they would hardly give information to the free press unless it was on the understanding of anonymity ... that's just the way it works. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Death Location

Several locations have been suggested in the press. See some discussion here: http://ogleearth.com/2011/05/finding-osama-bin-ladens-abbottabad-mansion-with-google-earth/ Dog Food Danny (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This matches military photos: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=34.169293,73.24261&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=37.136668,72.509766&ie=UTF8&ll=34.168707,73.243339&spn=0.009481,0.017703&t=h&z=16

Photo source ABC news: http://abcnews.go.com/International/slideshow/photos-inside-osama-bin-laden-kill-zone-13508190 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.89.128.5 (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert and Administrative Freeze Request

Due to the volatile nature of the situation, I believe we need to revert the page to 2011 Apr 30, and put it under Admin lockdown until the dust settles. There are people who use Wikipedia as an unbiased source for information and at the moment, this article is in shambles. Administrative lockdown was used during the 2004 Bush Jr. election resulting in the most unbiased article about G.W. Bush available at the time. I don't want to see Wikipedia being referenced and discredited just because a few editors take Twitter as the ultimate in journalistic tools. "Reporting" needs to be done on Wikinews if anything with maybe a link to there from here.

A statement should be issued on the page addressing concerns, something along the lines of:

Due to the lack of factual evidence surrounding the announced death of Osama bin Laden, this page has been frozen due to evidentiary and neutrality disputes. For more up to date information please see the Wikinews article, <insert wikinews link here>

Zephalis (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Declined - this article is developing much like all our other high-profile, breaking event articles and conforming with Wikipedia's standards and best practices. Rklawton (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu stuff

why is there a lot of ubuntu stuff in this article?

Marta del setenta y ocho (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably spam that has already been deleted. --Kslotte (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Date format

I see the date is in American mm-dd-yyyy format; however, Bin Laden was a Muslim Saud national (both the Islamic and Saud calenders use international date formats). WP:DATE dictates that if a subject has strong national ties then the date format adopted should follow the national date format. Is there any particular reason why the American date format has been adopted here, before I correct the format to the version tied to his nationality? Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Date is fine as-is. Not worth the hoopla to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines determine what is fine and what isn't, not your personal feelings on the matter. I will ask again: is there a policy based reason for the current date format? Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See below? All this stuff is exactly what I meant by "hoopla" - everybody understands the date format either way, so why change it? Those are guidelines, btw, NOT rules. If we went strictly by guidelines, most wiki articles should be immediately pulled for not being properly referenced. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Reading WP:DATE, I can't find a whole lot of policy one way or the other. Given that this is a truly global event (the Americans may have "done it", but the rest of the world actually cares too) I'd say the international format is more appropriate, but that's just my opinion. --Skysmurf (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I could see a case for him having "ties" to the US...as in, he wouldn't be famous if not for blowing up the WTC and being a focus of a war. But I think your rationale makes more sense based on how we treat other such subjects, I say go ahead and change it if you'd like. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly support such a change as per WP:DATE. doomgaze (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with above-expressed comment regarding this having ties to the U.S. Also with the guideline that directs that we shouldn't go about edit-warring on existing date format when there is a legitimate reason for them. As the guideline states: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic."--Epeefleche (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This has ties with pretty much every country in the world, not just the U.S. of A... --Skysmurf (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, Skysmurf. But before Osama really got into the news by turning two tall building into a lot of dust, his other major thing he did that made him truly notable was flattening some US embassies. There is clearly a very strong tie to the U.S. here so it’s more fitting to use U.S. spelling and time conventions. Greg L (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rest assured, I'm not going to edit-war over this. And I certainly won't deny that there are strong U.S. ties. But I do think the reasoning is flawed (as in the "so" part of your argument). If the date format is to remain as it is, the "don't change unless really necessary" policy is in my opinion a much better argument than the "We're Americans, it's our thing so we format it our way" line of thought. --Skysmurf (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• I try not to edit to please myself. I am American but when writing articles like Kilogram that have no strong association with America, I am first in line to go with Euro-style date formatting. In the case of date formatting and which dialect to use (colour v.s. color), Wikipedia adopted a trade-off between ensuring contributing to Wikipedia remains fun (it’s a hobby engaged in by volunteers) and doing what is purely best for the likely readership. It’s certainly a gray area in many cases. In this particular case, it seems that the strong tie to America is sufficiently well established to make it more than a 50/50 flip of the coin. Osama had been given clearance by a leading Muslim cleric that it was quite certain that God would be pleased by the killing of up to ten million civilians by means of weapons of mass destruction. Were Osama to have found the means, he would have certainly done so. If it were ten million people in Germany, I’d be first in line to say “There is clearly now a much stronger national tie to Germany, so let’s use their date-formatting method.” But that’s certainly the hard way to get the article to read most naturally for the likely readership… Greg L (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)