Talk:Reactions to the killing of Osama bin Laden/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Baseless and useless section

The India section is totally biased and Pakistan centric. It seems as if this section was created just for the sake of Pakistan-bashing. The whole world is reacting to Osama's death and India is no different. Whats the point of giving India so much attention when the press isn't? This isn't about India. Please remove the Indian section - it's overkill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.81.207 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following nonsense from the section:

Following the death of bin Laden in Pakistan, the Border Security Force (BSF) of India has been put on high alert along India's 553 km long international border with Pakistan, in Punjab. Security has been tightened in all major ports of Amritsar, in order to thwart attempts of Pakistan based terror organizations sending terrorists(posed as businessmen or tourists) into India.

• I believe this information does not have any relevance to the article, which is about international reaction to the death of Osama bin Laden, and not India internationally canvassing its age old enemities against Pakistan. It also doesn't add much meaning. India is evidently celebrating Osama's death: great. But you don't need to add every single thing happening there (especially irrelevant stuff) and make the article read like a summary of some soap opera show. Besides, I don't think any one apart from India is really bothered or concerned as of now that busy terrorists have enough time or are desperate enough to run into India yet. Keep the rhetoric down please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.81.207 (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply to the above comments - I dont want to explain all of it, over again. It has been adequately discussed in two other sections in this very same discussion page, as to why there is a seperate India section. Even other users(non-indian) had wanted an exclusive india section. The section will remain. If the facts are too uncomfortable in the eyes of a specific user, i'm sorry but it cannot be helped.

Regarding the "anonymous user" above, who deleted the last 3 lines from the india section, i can tell you this much. The heading of this article is "reactions to the death of osama...". The term REACTION need not just be confined to "government & public response". Any aftermath arising out of osama's death is a reaction. Can you give your definition for the term REACTION? Upping the security along the border is certainly a reaction. Probably the last line that you deleted (about security measures to thwart any terror attempt), were not necessary for a global user. But the first line of the deleted info'(india alerting its bsf) alone, is atleast a must inclusion.

There is no bias in this article. The article is clean. False accusations by the anonymous user, such as "baseless and useless" are evidently "trolling" and "hounding" in wikipedia. Everything is well sourced. "Indiatimes" is a company run on colaboration with the U.S based "TimeWarner.co. They are highly reliable. Even under the "United States" section, the last line reads "U.S senators feel Pak has sheltered Osama". It is a fact which is well sourced. That info' has every reason to be in this article, regardless of whether it is acceptable to a specific user or not.

Under the Pakistan section, there is an info' which says "Kayani announces reduction of U.S military peronnel in Pakistan, to the minimum essential". If this is relevant to this article, then certainly "India putting it's border security in high alert along indo-pak border, following osama's death" is also a must inclusion. By the way, who said the press is not concerned about india's response?? If the press in pak' is not concerned , i cannot take that as a factor. The press in india is extremely concerned about it. Also foreign multinational media giants like "Time warner.co" & "reuters" are concerned about india's response, and have reported it. The world certainly wants to know about india's response which is too big to be omitted. India section is a must inclusion in this article.

Message to the anonymous user(ip) - By the way, i've been editing in wiki' for about 1.5 years in a wide range of global articles....I dont have to take editing lessons from a one "anonymous user ip:123.211.81.207" who had just entered wiki' a few days back.

The "user:123.211.81.207" is engaging in rude bashing, by using abbreviations like "wtf", etc in the history page comments(revert comments). Please watch it, as it is evidently "hounding" in wikipedia. The anonymous user is requested to "first learn the basics of wiki' editing, before starting with an edit". I end the discussion here. Happy Editing. Hari7478 (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• The above anonymous user seems to be too biased towards pakistan that he is not being able to bear the fact that India too plays an important role in this article. His biasness can be seen in his contribution page. 123.211.81.207 and he definitely is not following the WP:FIVE. The User hasn't even read what's written in the above section and 3 sections have been wasted in discussing weather India should get a Separate section or not, Although the response is anonymously in support of keeping India due to various proven sources. If this User does not follow the Wikipedian principles of Five point, administrators will have to take some firm action aganst that IP and User. Hope the discussions are Not diverted again.--Tall.kanna (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect Tall.kana your user page indicates you are Indian and so naturally you will be biased towards a Indian pov so I dont think we should get into whos bias and whos not I recommend consensus based on people outside of India and Pakistan Ichigo0987765 (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

People can be from another country and still be objective. Otherwise we would have to have no males editing the page on man, and no women editing the page on women. It's an unreasonable standard. Let's try to address the content, not the person adding it.

Homo Logica (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

[1] based on these racial comments I rest my case these editors should be not be allowed to edit anything on this page especially the Indian section I will report for racial slurs and I hope Homo Logica would also stop supporting such racist editors Ichigo0987765 (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"agree with your point. I too dont know whats his problem. We have not questioned about their section.He seems to be jelous about the Indian section and Indian Popularity.--Tall.kanna (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)"

wow this pretty much sums up the deluded mindset of the above users in question they think its some popularity contest starring India and Pakistan. I do not need to justify my edits to these editors period. Ichigo0987765 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Indians, Pakistanis, both of you have the right to edit the section on India's reaction to the death of Osama bin Laden. Both of you must cooperate with each other and work professionally with one another. Let's disregard who is Indian and who is Pakistani. Let's talk about the edits themselves. What is good about the revision? What improvement is needed. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the third on the topic. A more in depth conversation, and more up to date, is above. in this section. Homo Logica (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

China and Israel

Here are some sources on China.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gg3VbghEVKFnXDP7NJbT7L2O9QMg?docId=CNG.dd035276a74a1dfc4910aded0e7a6b3b.b71

http://www.eurasiareview.com/osama-bin-laden-pakistan-and-china-analysis-15052011/

http://www.eurasiareview.com/aftermath-of-osama-bin-laden-the-china-factor-analysis-14052011/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/pakistans-praise-of-china-an-angry-message-to-us/article2016012/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704740604576301112983040114.html

Looks like there is a meet planned soon, between Pakistan and China. We should gather sources beforehand, and from the meet, for the proposed China section. We can see if we have enough material to warrant its own section.

I'll try to do the same for Israel as well, though a cursory review seems to indicate that there is not.

Homo Logica (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are the three main English-language news sites. YNET English version, The Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz English My gf is very busy atm with studies and so I can't have her check the Hebrew ones. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

First Draft View

China said on Monday evening that the death of Osama bin Laden was a milestone and a positive development for the international anti-terrorism efforts. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu made the remarks when asked to comment on the killing of the al-Qaida leader.[43] China supported Pakistan amid growing questions in the U.S. about whether the country was complicit in harboring Osama bin Laden[44]

China has supported the statements by the Pakistani government regarding ignorance on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. Jiang Yu, spokeswoman for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said "Pakistani government's determination to fight terrorism are staunch and its actions have been vigorous."http://www.eurasiareview.com/osama-bin-laden-pakistan-and-china-analysis-15052011/ Wen Jiabao, China's Premier is discussing the issue with the U.S. in offical talks. He has asked the United States to respect Pakistan's sovereignty, and acknowledge its sacrifices in the war against terror. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/05/19/China-assures-Pakistan-on-partnership/UPI-55161305783120/

Vice President of the University of International Relations stated that bin Laden's death, and the aftermath of such, would not affect Beijing's policies towards Islamabad.http://www.eurasiareview.com/osama-bin-laden-pakistan-and-china-analysis-15052011/ Political analyst Hasan Askari stated that while China and Pakistan will remain close, China won't risk their relations with the West over it, citing technological and monetary concerns. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gg3VbghEVKFnXDP7NJbT7L2O9QMg?docId=CNG.dd035276a74a1dfc4910aded0e7a6b3b.b71

An online poll of 500,000 Chinese citizens, conducted by Phoenix television indicated that 60% agreed that bin Laden's death was a sad event because "he was an anti-US warrior." http://www.eurasiareview.com/osama-bin-laden-pakistan-and-china-analysis-15052011/ On Sina Weibo, Chinese citizens were celebrating bin Laden's death, since his agenda has been responsible for deaths in Xinjiang. Tech-savvy Chinese activists and intellectuals have used the event to criticise, or call attention to, china's domestic policies. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704740604576301112983040114.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homo Logica (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Homo Logica (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Someone is going to town today. This article should be reviewed and possibly restored to a previous version given the number of edits. Is an article like this one capable of GA status? --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've contacted a number of users from relevant projects to get a general review of the article (of course, that was last night). I'm trying to work it up to GA, but it's slow going. Check out Improving the Article for the current list of things. Just making a general list of things that need to be covered would be useful at this point.

Homo Logica (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Why and the hell is Noam Chomsky being called a "political dissident"? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a dissident; Andrei Sakharov was a dissident. Calling Chomsky a political dissident, given the way the term is almost always used, is a pathetic joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.153.36 (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability and a future nomination for deletion

I remain convinced that this article should not exist. I believe it was kept due to the recentism, but this entire article violates WP:NOT#NEWS and most of these reactions are not encyclopedic. I want to start off a discussion about your thoughts on this before I nominate it over the summer. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Individuals

Is there any information on the reactions of Osama's immediate family? I'm particularly interested in what the wives were yelling during the the raid. 76.121.246.33 (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Now what?

Could an article like this reach GA or FL status? Is there an example of a similar article with a quality stamp of approval? Given the "Death of Osama bin Laden" article now holds GA status, I think it would be nice if this one could as well. What is the next step for this article? --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

YouTube videos

An IP wants to add a section about YouTube responses, but he/she has no secondary sources to indicate these responses have any merit. It's all original research and primary sources (the videos themselves). XLinkBot removed this section, and so have I, but the IP persists. Rklawton (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Improvements

I'm going to contact the various groups associated with the article and get the article rated by them. Ideally, I'd also like suggestions for what can be improved in the article to bring it up to, potentially, GA or FA status for the respective projects. If you're here from one of the projects, please post in here your thoughts. 20:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.87.186 (talk)

Thanks for getting this article (list?) back on my radar. I'd love to see this reach at least Good status as a companion to Death of Osama bin Laden (Good status). --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the other thing. I certainly see why it is formatted (mostly) like a list. It makes sense. That said, do you think it might be better if we formed them into coherent paragraphs, making sure to include all responses? I keep feeling like it should be done, but I look at it, and it feels like it wouldn't be as "right" that way.

Also, while I was putting the requests up, I saw a few already had requests there from 9 months ago for this page to be reviewed. A few others had requests for other pages that seemed to have languished for a few years. I'm a bit concerned that it might not actually get re-evaluated.

24.11.87.186 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure prose is best when quotations serve as primary text. I am wondering if a formatted table would be more appropriate. Columns: Nation (flag included?), Representative(s), Response, Reference. Thoughts? --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nation	Representative(s)	Response	Ref.
Ethiopia	Office of Communication Affairs of the Government	"Ethiopia feels and shares the agony and suffering of nations who lose citizens to senseless terrorist attacks... The Ethiopian Government salutes all parties involved in this operation, particularly the US anti-terrorist operatives, for hunting and destroying this unrepentant leader of an international terrorist organization. Although the death of Osama Bin Laden does not mean the end the anti-terrorist struggle, it is, nonetheless, a big victory for the global anti-terrorist forces.... [O]n this happy occasion, we congratulate the entire people of America and the Government of the United States. In our own immediate vicinity, Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda has wreaked havoc in stateless Somalia, killed and maimed many innocent people in Kenya and Tanzania, and has for years been engaged in terrorist activities aimed at destabilizing the Horn of Africa."
Kenya	Raila Odinga Kenyan Prime Minister	"It's a major achievement in the war against terrorism."
Liberia	Ministry of Foreign Affairs	Quote...

... etc. This format would pretty much require complete quotes, though. Multiple rows could be used for the same nation if multiple representatives are quoted. Flags may not be necessary, and column widths could be defined and consistent throughout the list for different sections. Just a thought. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. It looks a bit cumbersome, and I don't know that it'd work any better. I might be best the way it is. You're right that prose probably wouldn't work. Also, I noticed that terrorists were grouped in with peaceful organizations. Any thoughts on how to split them?

24.11.87.186 (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If this table format appears to be too complicated, there is always the option of simply having the nation and the response (without having a separate column for representatives and references)...

Nation	Response
Ethiopia	Office of Communication Affairs of the Government: "Ethiopia feels and shares the agony and suffering of nations who lose citizens to senseless terrorist attacks... The Ethiopian Government salutes all parties involved in this operation, particularly the US anti-terrorist operatives, for hunting and destroying this unrepentant leader of an international terrorist organization. Although the death of Osama Bin Laden does not mean the end the anti-terrorist struggle, it is, nonetheless, a big victory for the global anti-terrorist forces.... [O]n this happy occasion, we congratulate the entire people of America and the Government of the United States. In our own immediate vicinity, Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda has wreaked havoc in stateless Somalia, killed and maimed many innocent people in Kenya and Tanzania, and has for years been engaged in terrorist activities aimed at destabilizing the Horn of Africa."
Kenya	Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga: "It's a major achievement in the war against terrorism."<insert ref here>
Liberia	According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Quote"...

Unfortunately, I am not aware of a similar list with Good or Featured status for comparison. This list would set a precedent if enough contributors worked together to determine an appropriate format. Similar lists include International reactions to the death of Muammar Gaddafi, International reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya, etc. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and added tables to the "Countries and territories" section of the article. All of the information is the same... it is simply presented in table format now. There are still separate tables for each region, with similar column widths for consistency. If this format is not preferred, feel free to revert (all in one diff). Likewise, feel free to improve the tables or content, or extend the format to other sections as well. In my opinion, the tables present the content in a more organized, consistent manner and provide the opportunity to place a prose "lead" in each section if needed. Feel free to discuss here. I still believe this list has potential to reach FL status, given a major overhaul. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)