![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
What's the meaning of "carried out on foot" in the "Raid" section? The remark is in the context of the helicopter crash. But surely the body was ferried away in another helicopter? The citation is from the UK's Daily Mail, one of the UK newsapapers distinguishing itself by running the fake picture of Osama's corpse long after it had been identified as a fake here and disseminated on Twitter. I'm loathe to delete "carried out on foot" unilaterally but nevertheless suggest it ought be deleted. FightingMac ( talk) 14:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Dave
You can help!
00:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
You already noticed the vandalism? Somebody has to revert the Ubuntu stuff... -- Pilettes ( talk) 15:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed there is a new article titled "Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_death_of_Osama_bin_Laden. I propose that this article should be merged with the present article under the already existing section "Reactions". I agree in having a separate article on the the death of Bin Laden but I believe that having a separate article dedicated only to the reactions to this event is redundant. ( Lucasaraceno ( talk) 15:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC))
I maintain that a separate article for Reactions is necessary, however I agree with Muboshgu that details of the Presidential address belong on the main Death article. Therefore, I will be removing the Obama speech video and wikisource from the Reaction article. That being said, I think further detail about the gatherings throughout the US in reaction to the speech/death belong in the Reactions article. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me it would be appropriate if the article followed some sort of chronological order. Details of the raid, followed by Obama's address, followed by a Reactions section summarizing details of the Reactions article, followed by Aftermath sections. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
How or why is the exact location of the compound important in this article? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey so I am an inexperienced wiki user and can't figure out how to edit the page, however ABC is reporting that the gov't actually built a replica compound to train for this mission. Source here: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/khalid-sheikh-muhammad-capture-osama-bin-laden-courier/story?id=13506413&page=2
Please add. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.70.238 ( talk) 18:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Dave
You can help!
01:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Osama bin Laden hideout.jpg Tugrulirmak ( talk) 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/latest-on-the-osama-raid-tricked-out-choppers-live-tweets-possible-pakistani-casualties/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.77.117 ( talk) 19:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
In the summary box in the upper right, one of the times is listed as PST. Clicking the link shows the page for Pakistan Standard Time, abbreviated PKT.
There have been contradicting reports about weather the mission was to kill bin Laden or if capturing him alive was also an option. The initial reports indicated that the mission was "kill not capture." [1] But a spokesman later said bin Laden would have been taken alive if they had the opportunity. [2] Fnordware ( talk) 20:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is there NO Mention whatsoever of Pakistan in this operation?? Its been made clear by the president of the US and the secetary of state Clinton that Pakistani intelligence was vital to this operation, Ofcourse im sure the American editors here would like to downplay the Pakistani role to help nurse there battered ego post 9/11, Also why is no mentioned made in the casualty section for the downed US helicopter?
Pakistani intelligence should be added to the combat info box.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/latest-on-the-osama-raid-tricked-out-choppers-live-tweets-possible-pakistani-casualties/ S Seagal ( talk) 21:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Pakistan should be added to the combat info box because they arrested the rest of the people including two of his wife and the others present: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/bin-ladens-wives-children-arrested-in-raid--1-son-killed/2011/05/02/AFwSTuZF_blog.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Seagal ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Proof Pakistan arrested people at the house:
http://english.sina.com/world/p/2011/0502/371338.html http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-05/02/c_13854992.htm
Since Pakistani forces made arrests at the house they should be included S Seagal ( talk) 21:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/in/photostream
- - - P050111PS-0210
- - President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. Please note: a classified document seen in this photograph has been obscured. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
- - This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.
I notice someone added a {{POV-title}} header to the article. I wonder if they'd be good enough to explain their reasoning for adding it. The article reads as reasonably well-rounded (for one that's only a couple of days old), balanced, and comprehensive as to the extant information. And there's certainly nothing non- neutral about the article title, is there? His name was Osama bin Laden and he died, and the article describes the circumstances of his death. Someone want to try and clarify this, please? Anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller? Bueller? -- Alan the Roving Ambassador ( talk) 22:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with you, there was some madness when the article started this morning, and then it got locked and people came here to contribute and its turned out okay - that confused me too Mwheatley1990 ( talk) 22:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If someone has time, writing skillz and the power to temporarily lock the item, I think the now-five-graf-long lede of this article could use some more concise phrasing... jengod ( talk) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't consider the title "Death of Osama bin Laden" to be expressive of a neutral point of view. By using the passive voice, it de-emphasizes the fact that he didn't simply die, he was in fact killed. To talk about his "death" rather than his killing is to suggest that nobody actually actively killed him. A much more appropriate title might be "Assassination of Osama bin Laden", in line with other articles about the killing of influential figures. Owen ( talk) 22:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
A sentence needs a verb to be
passive voice. "Death of Osama bin Laden" does not have a verb in it.
Troodon311 (
talk)
22:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sohaib Athar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sohaib Athar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait. did he die on May first or second?
I think it would be best if we could balance out the pro-Geronimo reactions at the end of the lede, either by quoting a negative reaction or by providing the official reaction of the Pakistani government. There are two opposing quotes from Pakistan here. Adding them in would sound more like Wiki and less like CNN. I would do it myself but would want to hear discussion 1st.
Thanks
Dave
You can help!
02:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It now seems likely that the woman who was killed was the courier's wife rather than Bin Laden's wife: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BIN_LADEN?SITE=AZMES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT.-- Lastexpofan ( talk) 01:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I mean, I don't know exactly when he was killed, but judging from the local time here (EST), I'm guessing he was killed in the early morning, so shouldn't it be the 2nd instead of the 1st? Bmecoli ( talk) 04:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC) correct! thank you for pointing that out.
If we treated all deaths as UTC rather than local time we could end up changing a lot of people's death dates, and in some cases it might not be easy to establish the exact time of death. Bin Laden is of greater global significance than most, but it would be difficult to know where to draw the line e.g. the death of President Kennedy? PatGallacher ( talk) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This image has metadata saying it was taken at 2011:05:01 16:05:04. I don't know what time zone that is supposed to be. -- Ysangkok ( talk) 08:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The 'net sez 34°08′46″N 73°13′01″E / 34.14611°N 73.21694°E is the location of the compound. Here's a picture on Flickr of that building: [3] Abductive ( reasoning) 06:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
~~~~
.
Abductive (
reasoning)
06:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
203.31.40.68 ( talk) 07:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Based on the present text in the main page "Karachi's Geo News described a helicopter crash and "heavy firing" on the evening of May 1 "near the PMA (Pakistan Military Academy) Kakul Road"" It seems possible that the actual compound location is not as indicated but closer to the PMA.
203.31.40.68 ( talk) 08:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Al Jazzera reports the compound was within a few hundred metres of the PMA
[cricobr talking] At the moment there appear to be two places on Wikimapia which claim to be the compound: the more extravagant compound which which is currently identified in the article: 34°11′14″N 73°14′32″E / 34.18722°N 73.24222°E, and the simpler, but also large, and more isolated compound at: 34°10′09″N 73°14′33″E / 34.169275°N 73.242588°E. Just now I have found this image from the New York Times front page: [4] which I believe fits closer to the second of the two compounds. I believe the photo shows the compound as seen from the north. The roof lines and the protected terrace at the back fit with the satellite image. Notice also the steep hills behind the house; these hills fit with the steep hills which rise to the south of the house as seen on: [5] (map centred on the second compound). There is also an electricity pylon in the photo which may help in identification, though it does not seem to be identifiable on the satellite images. I propose that the location coordinate be altered to the second coord, as the more isolated, less ostentatious, house is the more probable hiding place, and fits better with the NYT photo.
Cricobr ( talk) 15:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
[cricobr talking] About 1.5 kms almost directly south of the second compound mentioned above is an electricity substation: [6]
Running north from that substation appears to be a line of pylons at approximately 300m intervals (the shadows at the following locations are virtually identical):
If we are to trust the NYT photo the compound is almost certainly the second compound cited above. I will now change the coord in the article.
Cricobr ( talk) 15:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The article currently talks about the compund being on an "imposing hilltop", but it's difficult to reconcile that with photos and aerials etc of the compound which seems to be increasingly accepted as the right one, which appears to be in flat valley bottom. ( http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/02/world/asia/abbottabad-map-of-where-osama-bin-laden-was-killed.html) 66.134.170.155 ( talk) 17:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
"Mansion" is a misleading phrase to discuss the building in which the Bin Ladin raid occurred. "Compound" is a neutral word. As it was a residence that was heavily fortified "fortified house" is accurate. "Mansion" is filled with suppositions, which have no relevance, or accurate citation. The BBC story used as a citation, refers to it repeatedly as a "compound," the use of "Havili" is a local generalization of the residences in that district and have no direct relationship to the "compound" in question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.171.238 ( talk) 23:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be at either:
125.162.150.88 ( talk) 08:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
"Despite overrunning the Taliban and al-Qaeda positions they failed to capture or kill him." Thanks Captain Obvious. Wouldn't have known that if it wasn't in here... <sarcasm> tag just in case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.113.201.240 ( talk) 18:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Please change this citation (currently #31) to Osama Death from Obama Death.
Accuracy of specific details is questionable in this (and most) blogs. The USAF has not had MH-53 Pave Lows in its inventory (in any component) for three years. The only CSAR helicopter is the MH-60. The CV-22 replaced the MH-53 in the CSAR role.-- Reedmalloy ( talk) 18:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Main text para 2 - the house was "built in 2005" according to Reuters - the BBC right now [12] have local residents saying it was built "about 10 years ago" - interesting because of course it would mean OBL was there for a long time. Also note in the BBC article that residents talk about "armour plated cars entering and leaving regularly" - now who could possibly drive in armour plated cars around an army town other than government officials, ISI, etc? Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 18:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Should we used {{ operational plan}} or {{ infobox military conflict}}? User:Themane2 kept on forcing the use {{ infobox military conflict}}. I was told by several editors earlier that {{ operational plan}} is better because this was not exactly a battle and there weren't clear "commanders" in this operation. Any thoughts?— Chris! c/ t 02:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
State department has since clarified that neither UBL, nor any other household occupant, used a woman/wife as a human shield. This seems like clear misinformation meant to tarnish a reputation, and should be removed in line with NPOV. 98.237.115.154 ( talk) 03:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It's barely one day into this article and it looks really smooth. Thanks to every contributor for making Wikipedia look so good. — AjaxSmack 03:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Why does this article use "Abbottābad" when the article is at Abbottabad? "Abbottābad" isn't even listed as an alternate spelling in the Abbottābad article. -- JaGa talk 06:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Parts of this article are getting so detailed it might be worth considering a fork to a separate for some of the material, i.e. details on the hunt and the raid. jengod ( talk) 06:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Why the SEALs were given vs other Special Forces? Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 08:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, 'Special Forces' is a particular type of Army personnel. Special Operations Forces (or SOF) is the more correct term. And why the SEALs? Heck, why not?
Closed there is already a move discussion open. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Death of Osama bin Laden → Death of Osama bin Laden/edits 1 –
I would like to suggest adding the coordinates of the bin Laden compound to Google Earth, so that this article appears in that application.
I have seen how to do this at
this wikihow article but don't know whether this is a common practice, and also don't have the experience to do this myself.
DylanTusler (
talk)
11:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Socrates2008 ( Talk) 12:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states that bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed. It cites an article from the guardian as support for this statement. The article contains no information that supports this proposition. As a result, particularly because the statement is somewhat inflammatory, proper sourcing should be found or that sentence should be deleted entirely.
Additionally, other accounts, including the official account, state that bin Laden "resisted" the SEALs. What this means is unclear, and so it is possible that he could have been armed.
Either way, this should be dealt with.
98.218.224.53 ( talk) 15:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I see we currently state that the helicopter was lost as a result of a stall. The Guardian has it that it was fired on by RPG before the crash. It seems there is some doubt over the cause; could the article reflect this? -- John ( talk) 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Can somebody screen the article for duplicate refs? -- Tyw7 ( ☎ Contact me! • Contributions) → To be or not to be? 18:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I am seeing a mysterious error message: ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named secretteam; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text
Me and User:Geniice have checked the page but couldn't see any glaring errors. If anybody can fix it, please do! Also do tell how this is fixed as this error have eluded me for minutes! -- Tyw7 ( ☎ Contact me! • Contributions) → Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The raid was carried out by 20 to 25 helicopter-borne United States Navy SEALs from the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU) under the command of the Joint Special Operations Command, led by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). According to The New York Times, "79 commandos and a dog were involved."[64] Additional personnel on the mission included "tactical signals, intelligence collectors, and navigators using highly classified hyperspectral imagers."[32]
mentions 20-25
but the below sentence says 4
The SEALs flew from Afghanistan to Tarbela Ghazi Airbase in northwest Pakistan.[65] The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, a U.S. Army airborne special operations unit nicknamed the "Night Stalkers," provided four modified Black Hawk helicopters, two of which were intended to be backups.[56][60][32][66] The raid was scheduled for a time with little moon luminosity so the helicopters could enter Pakistan "low to the ground and undetected."[67]
-- Tyw7 ( ☎ Contact me! • Contributions) → For the people, of the people, by the people 20:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph says 20 to 25 SEALs, not 20-25 helicopters. Kevin ( talk) 20:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
20-25 SEALs used, not helicopters. 20-25 helicopters would be ridiculous. Side note, did the SEALs arrive in one helicopter, or 2? I know one stalled and they put her down, but was there another dropping the SEALs off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.86.147 ( talk) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone verify if there is in fact a leaked autopsy photo, and if so post it? It would be public domain as a work by a US government employee. There have been several going around and noone seems able to verify whether they are legitimate of fake. Somedaypilot ( talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't Osama's date of death be listed as May 1 as he was actually killed that date? *duplicate message asked at Osama bin Laden -- Tyw7 ( ☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Gotta catch 'em all! 21:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This article was praised to the skies on NPR this morning. Here's a transcript. Everyone who worked on it should be proud, you pwnd twitter! ;-) And whoever knows which template to use to say "this article was mentioned in the news by ..." should probably put that up at the top of this (talk) page, too. Good on you, everyone! – OhioStandard ( talk) 21:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. This article is not titled Operation Geronimo. With all due respect to the Navy SEALs it concerns a previous attempt on Bin Laden's life, and it concerns him, a human being. So until the government releases video of his death or burial at sea, please leave a picture of this person up top. Thank you. - SusanLesch ( talk) 21:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this piece of information does belong somewhere in the article. But I'm not sure where?
NEW DELHI: It now turns out that Indian agencies had twice warned their US counterparts about the presence of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden in an urbanized and heavily populated area not very far from Islamabad – once in mid-2007 and again in early 2008 when they specifically mentioned his likely presence in a cantonment area. -Abhishikt 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
People keep adding the "military conflict" infobox for Operation Geronimo. Consensus so far on this page has been that the "military/civil operation" infobox is more appropriate. Cla68 ( talk) 22:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Operation Geronimo should be separated out of this article. A large amount of information is beginning to come out about the military operation, and it's only going to increase over the next few days. The section on the operation is already to the point where it is too much to comfortably fit into this article. Also, the fact that this article has 2 infoboxes is even more evidence that the military operation needs its own article. Rreagan007 ( talk) 00:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a note to everyone. Someone start a split discussion on Talk:Operation Geronimo. I have no idea why the discussion is there instead of here.— Chris! c/ t 03:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Please discuss your reservations on conspiracy theory here. The section which I have added is well cited from major news outlets including Reuters, Wall Street Journal, and Guardian. Jalal0 ( talk) 12:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the section which I have added.
Bin Laden Sea Burial Conspiracy |
---|
Many have questioned the wisdom behind immediate burial of Bin Laden in a ocean. Ocean burial is rare in Islamic
Fiqh, and only carried out in exceptional circumstances. The fear of Bin Laden land burial being marked is irrational as well, since the
Wahhabi/
Salafi tradition rejects burial in marked grave. Even Saudi kings are buried in unmarked graves.
[1] This has fueled fear of conspiracy theory regarding the factual death of Bin Laden.
[2]
In addition, the immediate burial at sea has also been question, the 24-hour rule has not always been applied by the US in the past. For example, the bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein – sons of the Iraqi dictator – were held for 11 days before being released for burial. [1] People in Egypt have even argued that Bin Laden died long time ago, [3] and the current death rehearsal is gain political gains, such as Obama re-election and US exit from Afghanistan. In addition, no video footage of a dead Bin Laden has been made publicly available. And the only picture released of his mutilated face has inconsistencies, there was odd pixilation and blurring and his face was darker in some areas than others. [4] And according to Reuters technical analysis, the picture is in fact fake. [4] MSNBC technical analysis gives a verdict of the photo being fake. [5] |
Comment Maybe this section should be titled "Controversy" instead of Conspiracy theory. Questioning the wisdom of some of the decisions is not a conspiracy, and the sources are sighted and represent neutrality. USchick ( talk) 13:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
There will always be controversy surrounding high profile cases, so there should be a section simply for neutrality. Another controversy is that the Pakistani government did not know about such a large building in the middle of their training area. USchick ( talk) 13:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If it is true they buried him at sea – given the short time frame – they most likely dumped him of a helicopter. I do not know if this meets the requirements for ocean burial in Islamic Fiqh. I would guess burial at sea would require being lowered from a ship. Do we know the name of a ship? Somehow this reminds me of how the Argentine junta handled its political opponents: burial at see – while still alive. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not generally one for conspiracies, but the immediate disposing of bin Laden's body does strike me as odd. There are skeptical people quoted in reliable sources, so that skepticism is worthy of mention. [16] [17] The strangest part is that there has been no photographic proof offered. [18] When Saddam was captured, the first news reports included a photo of him. [19] If the US had the time to conduct a DNA test and a proper Islamic burial, surely they had time to take photographs. The longer it takes for those photographs to appear, the more suspicious it seems. Fnordware ( talk) 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This source says the burial happened on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson in the North Arabian Sea at 2 a.m. Washington time.
-- Petri Krohn ( talk) 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Peace,
Dave
You can help!
00:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Taken literally "Conspiracy" "Theory" - is not a POV problem. It is a statement of fact - that some believe (have a theory) that the government has conspired to lie to the world. Therefore, calling something a "conspiracy theory" is entirely appropriate when it involves such an idea. And if/when a theory is proven, we change the name to "conspiracy". So no, labeling something a "conspiracy theory" is not a POV problem - it's just a statement of fact. Rklawton ( talk) 03:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
We need to make sure the SEALs are not also called "soldiers" on this page. Soldiers are only in the Army just as Sailors are in the Navy, airmen in the USAF, etc. TexianPolitico ( talk) 12:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please add a link or ref for the following: The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip condemned the killing of a "Muslim and Arab warrior". or remove it. I could not find any mainstream source of this statement.
Thanks
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: "Support for the fork is almost unanimous" - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden --> Death of Osama bin Laden
This is an unnecessary content fork. It is a part of the "Aftermath" and should be in that section, rather than its own page. Most quotes will be nearly identical, and can be summed up without being included at length. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
POLITICO is now reporting that some conspiracy theorists are spreading rumors that bin Laden's capture and/or death was faked. Cindy Sheehan is one of these, as is Alex Jones. The source is here: [26] 173.165.239.237 ( talk) 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Should 194.254.137.114 be blocked as a troll? Rklawton ( talk) 19:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
It's typical of conspiracy theorists, when they don't understand something or don't have all the facts, to argue that the problem lies elsewhere. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Sheehan and Jones are in no position to know any inside facts, so while they may be raising interesting questions that need to be answered, any claims they might make are based on nothing, and hence are irrelevant. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
And so it begins. Idiocy ascendant. Because of this drivel, there will eventually be an article titled something like "Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories". -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
It's quite possible that this "deather" conspiracy theory will take off much like the "birther" one did. Until it proves its lasting and pervasive nature, though, let's leave it be. – Muboshgu ( talk) 14:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Could there be a section with the legal qualification of this event, such as wilful or premeditated murder? (Any sources or links thereto?) 178.41.75.206 ( talk) 22:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
unsigned comment added by Djkernen ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
We also have the Pakistan foreign ministry and Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights questioning the legality of the operation.More people here questioning it as well Legal issues, Best to have a section with the views of those for and those against. Owain the 1st ( talk) 14:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I have added a legality section with views from various lawyers, human rights organisations and the Americans, Pakistanis.etc. Owain the 1st ( talk) 16:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Please correct the courier man real name as Sheikh Abu Ahmed. We can also consider adding details how this courier man was located. For more details, please see, Phone call by Kuwaiti courier led to bin Laden Jalal0 ( talk) 04:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Please note: the proper English expression is "courier" not "courier man". Tvoz/ talk 07:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not the courier's real name. The pseudonym given is "Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti". "al-Kuwaiti" just means "a man from Kuwait". So "Sheikh Abu Ahmed, a man from Kuwait" is the same name as the pseudonym. The name given in the Wikileaks files of Faraj al-Libi is "Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan". This is the real name also given in a CBS article. Unfortunately the referenced article gets it wrong and should be deleted as incorrect and confusing. However, this is basically "original research" even though it is obvious. What is the procedure for getting rid of an incorrect reference from a reliable source? -- Mujokan ( talk) 14:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It's all still pretty confusing. In the section Identity of the courier we learn that:
Both are sourced from reliable sources, but it seems to me that (assuming there is one specific courier whose trail led to the discovery) they can't be both correct. An earlier statement that there were conflicting news reports was removed. I don't see reliable sources stating that these two monikers (Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan and Sheikh Abu Ahmed, aka Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti) refer to the same person; they either use one name or the other. For all I know, the suggestion that they are different names for one person is an inference drawn by a Wikipedia editor. In fact, I see two (non-RS) sources that also signal the existence of conflicting reports: Another Version of the Osama Bin Laden Courier Story; In aftermath of bin Laden raid, new intelligence, shifting accounts. -- Lambiam 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I cut out a reference saying the courier's real name is Sheikh Abu Ahmed and that he is a Pakistani. As can be seen from the appellation "al-Kuwaiti", he was originally from Kuwait. I am happy for this dispute to go to arbitration -- namely, whether the real name of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti is Sheikh Abu Ahmed. It is obvious to me and I think to most people that the name "Abu Ahmed" is the same in both cases, that Sheikh is merely an honorific and that al-Kuwaiti is a designation of origin in exactly the same way as al-Libi means "the Libyan". It is silly to think it would take years for the CIA and DOD to realize that Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti was the same person as Sheikh Abu Ahmed. If people want to edit this section, please expand the paragraph that talks about the confusion over the name rather than having two flatly contradictory references as to the "real name" of the courier. If it turns into an edit war, let's just have a discussion and come to one definitive conclusion. -- Mujokan ( talk) 00:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
User Art and Muscle has reverted my original edit several times, and insists on putting a contradictory reference to the real name of the courier in the middle of a sentence, where in my opinion it is likely to generate confusion. This is particularly the case as there is a later paragraph on the contradiction in names found in different sources. I had already mentioned this problem on his or her talk page and put in an edit summary referring Art and Muscle to this section of this talk page. I would appreciate it if others could come up with a way to deal with the contradiction in names without simply having two different names given as the real name of the courier, with no explanation. I won't revert his or her edits again, but I think it is clear that there must be a better solution to this problem. -- Mujokan ( talk) 01:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear about the issue. If the real name of the courier were "Sheikh Abu Ahmed", this would be the equivalent of saying that it took the US Department of Defense two years to find out that a man known as "John Smith from New York" had the real name "Mr. John Smith". If one newspaper said this, and another said that they discovered his real name was "Mike Jones", common sense would incline you to think the latter was correct. On top of this, there are very good sources, including a classified Department of Defense file, giving his real name as "Mike Jones". Now, eventually the real name will be properly established, so this is not such a big deal. However, I don't think it's a good idea to keep the current status quo saying "The courier Mike Jones, who used the pseudonym "John Smith from New York", and whose real name is Mr. John Smith, a native of Texas..." My edits have been reverted several times without discussion, so if others want to get involved that would be great. A solution would be to expand the current paragraph saying "There is confusion over whether the real name of John Smith from New York is Mike Jones or Mr. John Smith".-- Mujokan ( talk) 01:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I took it upon myself to cut this sentence "In 2007, US officials discovered the courier's real name, Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan, and, in 2009, that he lived in Abbottābad, Pakistan" from the "Locating Osama Bin Laden" section because it was not helpful and confusing, was not supported by its first citation, the second a CBS News video cast I didn't sit through, and appears to be a misundestanding of a Wikileaks item mentioned in some newspapers, for example here.
However he and the Wikileaks item does seem notable for the article, especially because of the fascinating suggestion the US brought the raid forward for fear of the Wikileaks item compromising its security. FightingMac ( talk) 09:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This NYT article sheds a lot of light on how the courier's identity was determined. Brmull ( talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Information about Operation Geronimo is expanding at a astonishing rate. In order to capture all verified information, I suggest we fork the raid information to Operation Geronimo.
Do you agree or disagree?
Would help out our newbie editors if we were not using the non normal references format. Not the best idea to introduce the most complicated referencing type at this time in a new and very active article. Moxy ( talk)......................
I think there is a bit of confusion about the types of choppers involved in the operation : the assault team was inserted via US Army MH-60 Blackhawks and not via HH-60 Pavehawks, the latter being used by the USAF in case a search and rescue operation is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.128.253 ( talk) 08:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Was it also computer generated as with Odyssey Dawn? Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 10:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I created two subsections for the locating of bin Laden, one regarding the identity of the courier and one regarding the location of the compound. I gave the timeline as best I can make it out from reading accounts on the web. I tried to give references for everything.
I think this split makes the article easier to read and understand. I added one piece which may well count as original research, though I did reference two Wikipedia articles to make my case. This is that Sheikh Abu Ahmed from Kuwait and Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti are the same name. This seems obvious to me, but it may not fit Wikipedia policy.
Hope this is OK. -- Mujokan ( talk) 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems like I screwed up the reference syntax though it looked OK on the preview. Will try to fix it now. -- Mujokan ( talk) 15:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rename article to Operation Geronimo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.146.10 ( talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
by that logic operation red dawn should be renamed something like the capture of sadam hussien 82.40.4.248 ( talk) 17:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to create a timeline of the actions that took place. Not only the raid of the compound but also the address made by Obama to the american people, the burial of bin Laden and so on. Also there are times in the Exif-Datas of the White House images, which perhaps also could be "translated" into an timeline which only uses one time zone. Good idea? -- Pilettes ( talk) 19:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with these sentiments, but I don't think it belongs in the lead sentence, or even the lead section. It is not clear what the time is referring to - the beginning of the raid? the end of the raid? the time of bin Laden's death? Also, it slows down the flow of the introductory sentence and is too much detail for that placement. Move it to the body of the article, but clarify what exactly that time represents. Tvoz/ talk 22:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a table can be made like:
Action | Pakitani time | UTC |
---|---|---|
... | May ---, --:-- | May --- --:-- |
Obama is giving green light for the raid | May ---, --:-- | May --- --:-- |
Choppers leaving base | May ---, --:-- | May --- --:-- |
Choppers arriving at compound | May ---, --:-- | May --- --:-- |
... | May ---, --:-- | May --- --:-- |
Bin Laden is buried at USS Vinston | May ---, --:-- | May --- --:-- |
... | May ---, --:-- | May --- --:-- |
I mean, there are facts availabe (even if it is only an esteem) that can be displayed in a table. Of course there there will be coming more and more facts to light, but I think the matrix is availabe (and the facts that keep coming can easily be inserted and specified in the table -- Pilettes ( talk) 09:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC).
Does this section look fine:
==Domestic political effects in the United States==
In the United States, commentators and analysts have discussed the possible political effects of bin Laden's death. Statistician Nate Silver of the New York Times predicted that significant near-term improvement in President Obama's approval rating, but cautioned against overestimating the bin Laden death's long-term impact on Obama's prospects for reelection in the 2012 presidential election. [6] Later, Silver cautioned against underestimating the electoral implications of bin Laden's death. [7] A Washington Post/ Pew Research Center poll taken shortly after the event showed that 56 percent of Americans say they approve of Obama's performance in office overall, the highest rating for Obama since 2009 and nine percentage points higher than an ABC News/Washington Post poll found the previous month. [8]
The successful operation also seemed to burnish the reputation of the CIA and its director, Leon Panetta. [9] [10]
After the operation was announced, Obama was praised even by Republicans who have been sharply critical of him, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, former New York City mayor and presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani, and Republican real estate businessman and potential presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. [11] Michael D. Shear of the New York Times wrote that the bin Laden raid complicates the Republican message in the 2012 message, as it might undermine the assertion that Obama was weak and indisive, a charge leveled at the president during the Middle East and North Africa protests in 2010 and 2011. [12] [13]
This seems an appropriate length and covers enough ground. One user reverted on the article page and has an objection; I would appreciate it if that user could explain his or here objections here. Neutrality talk 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
If I may say, I think the resistance is to your first paragraph. Rewrite your proposal, starting with your final paragraph; give a little elucidation to the part about the CIA; and leave out self-contradictory prognostications and incomplete polls. Should effects actually happen, we can add them then. I'm willing to bet you'll have a more supportive response to that. Abrazame ( talk) 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a reliable source reporting on the conspiracy theories disputing this so called "burial at sea". [30] [31] Notable anti-war activist Cindy_sheehan is publicly questioning the official story. It is seems very strange that only hours after killing him, the US would hide the body deep in the ocean leaving absolutely no proof that it was actually Osama. The pictures of his death haven't been released. Test results can be forged and it seems amazing that the DNA testing was done so quickly. If reuters and the la times is reporting the controversy then Wikipedia should report it too.-- RaptorHunter ( talk) 00:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
GEO News is saying that bin Laden's son who was killed was named "Ibrahim." Who is "Ibrahim"? Cla68 ( talk) 01:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
ABC World News reported tonight May 3, 2011 that the name of the operation was Operation Neptune Spear, NOT Geronimo. Geronimo was just bin Laden's code name. Would those with edit access (as the article has been locked) correct the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.185.15 ( talk) 02:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hold off on adding this. According to our own article, the name Operation Neptune (aside from being a WWII operation) already appears as a 2005 event in the List of military operations in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). It seems odd to me they would reuse the name for this associated operation. We're not here to break news but to encyclopedically present what is covered in reliable sources, and I concur that Tweets are not a reliable source — in part because they are not fact-checked; they are not proofread; they are not comprehensive. Let's wait for some clarity before we confuse the issue further. Abrazame ( talk) 02:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
More sources [36] [37] Rklawton ( talk) 07:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI, there is now a page Osama bin Laden's hideout compound which ought to be a merged to this article or to Location of Osama bin Laden. I don't feel like having another contentious debate while this story is still hot, but maybe later somebody wants to make the effort. Also, there is a piece of WP:SYNTHESIS, Osama bin Laden bodyguard, and the overwrought Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden. Abductive ( reasoning) 07:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
In Conspiracy theories: "the speed of the DNA results has lead to...". The correct spelling in UK English is "led". Is "lead" correct in American English? Biscuittin ( talk) 08:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Could someone who understands math please convert "at midday on May 1" (presumably EST) in the planning graph to UTC and add that information? Thank you. jengod ( talk) 16:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Please be on the lookout for reports that provide first names for the brother and wife of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti who were apparently killed in the raid. jengod ( talk) 16:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/world/asia/04compound.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1304539227-DvxoUKcft5zqG02FxS8Rfw jengod ( talk) 20:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
There are three operation names in the article. The actual section calls it Geronimo. The lead calls it Neptune Spear. And the infobox calls it Neptune's Spear. So which one is the actual name? I am not sure since I didn't follow the story. I think the article should be consistent and uses the same one.— Chris! c/ t 17:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
What's the meaning of "carried out on foot" in the "Raid" section? The remark is in the context of the helicopter crash. But surely the body was ferried away in another helicopter? The citation is from the UK's Daily Mail, one of the UK newsapapers distinguishing itself by running the fake picture of Osama's corpse long after it had been identified as a fake here and disseminated on Twitter. I'm loathe to delete "carried out on foot" unilaterally but nevertheless suggest it ought be deleted. FightingMac ( talk) 14:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Dave
You can help!
00:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
You already noticed the vandalism? Somebody has to revert the Ubuntu stuff... -- Pilettes ( talk) 15:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed there is a new article titled "Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_death_of_Osama_bin_Laden. I propose that this article should be merged with the present article under the already existing section "Reactions". I agree in having a separate article on the the death of Bin Laden but I believe that having a separate article dedicated only to the reactions to this event is redundant. ( Lucasaraceno ( talk) 15:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC))
I maintain that a separate article for Reactions is necessary, however I agree with Muboshgu that details of the Presidential address belong on the main Death article. Therefore, I will be removing the Obama speech video and wikisource from the Reaction article. That being said, I think further detail about the gatherings throughout the US in reaction to the speech/death belong in the Reactions article. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me it would be appropriate if the article followed some sort of chronological order. Details of the raid, followed by Obama's address, followed by a Reactions section summarizing details of the Reactions article, followed by Aftermath sections. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
How or why is the exact location of the compound important in this article? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey so I am an inexperienced wiki user and can't figure out how to edit the page, however ABC is reporting that the gov't actually built a replica compound to train for this mission. Source here: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/khalid-sheikh-muhammad-capture-osama-bin-laden-courier/story?id=13506413&page=2
Please add. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.70.238 ( talk) 18:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Dave
You can help!
01:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Osama bin Laden hideout.jpg Tugrulirmak ( talk) 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/latest-on-the-osama-raid-tricked-out-choppers-live-tweets-possible-pakistani-casualties/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.77.117 ( talk) 19:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
In the summary box in the upper right, one of the times is listed as PST. Clicking the link shows the page for Pakistan Standard Time, abbreviated PKT.
There have been contradicting reports about weather the mission was to kill bin Laden or if capturing him alive was also an option. The initial reports indicated that the mission was "kill not capture." [1] But a spokesman later said bin Laden would have been taken alive if they had the opportunity. [2] Fnordware ( talk) 20:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is there NO Mention whatsoever of Pakistan in this operation?? Its been made clear by the president of the US and the secetary of state Clinton that Pakistani intelligence was vital to this operation, Ofcourse im sure the American editors here would like to downplay the Pakistani role to help nurse there battered ego post 9/11, Also why is no mentioned made in the casualty section for the downed US helicopter?
Pakistani intelligence should be added to the combat info box.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/latest-on-the-osama-raid-tricked-out-choppers-live-tweets-possible-pakistani-casualties/ S Seagal ( talk) 21:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Pakistan should be added to the combat info box because they arrested the rest of the people including two of his wife and the others present: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/bin-ladens-wives-children-arrested-in-raid--1-son-killed/2011/05/02/AFwSTuZF_blog.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by S Seagal ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Proof Pakistan arrested people at the house:
http://english.sina.com/world/p/2011/0502/371338.html http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-05/02/c_13854992.htm
Since Pakistani forces made arrests at the house they should be included S Seagal ( talk) 21:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/in/photostream
- - - P050111PS-0210
- - President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with members of the national security team, receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House, May 1, 2011. Please note: a classified document seen in this photograph has been obscured. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
- - This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.
I notice someone added a {{POV-title}} header to the article. I wonder if they'd be good enough to explain their reasoning for adding it. The article reads as reasonably well-rounded (for one that's only a couple of days old), balanced, and comprehensive as to the extant information. And there's certainly nothing non- neutral about the article title, is there? His name was Osama bin Laden and he died, and the article describes the circumstances of his death. Someone want to try and clarify this, please? Anyone? Anyone at all? Bueller? Bueller? -- Alan the Roving Ambassador ( talk) 22:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with you, there was some madness when the article started this morning, and then it got locked and people came here to contribute and its turned out okay - that confused me too Mwheatley1990 ( talk) 22:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If someone has time, writing skillz and the power to temporarily lock the item, I think the now-five-graf-long lede of this article could use some more concise phrasing... jengod ( talk) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't consider the title "Death of Osama bin Laden" to be expressive of a neutral point of view. By using the passive voice, it de-emphasizes the fact that he didn't simply die, he was in fact killed. To talk about his "death" rather than his killing is to suggest that nobody actually actively killed him. A much more appropriate title might be "Assassination of Osama bin Laden", in line with other articles about the killing of influential figures. Owen ( talk) 22:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
A sentence needs a verb to be
passive voice. "Death of Osama bin Laden" does not have a verb in it.
Troodon311 (
talk)
22:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sohaib Athar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sohaib Athar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait. did he die on May first or second?
I think it would be best if we could balance out the pro-Geronimo reactions at the end of the lede, either by quoting a negative reaction or by providing the official reaction of the Pakistani government. There are two opposing quotes from Pakistan here. Adding them in would sound more like Wiki and less like CNN. I would do it myself but would want to hear discussion 1st.
Thanks
Dave
You can help!
02:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It now seems likely that the woman who was killed was the courier's wife rather than Bin Laden's wife: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BIN_LADEN?SITE=AZMES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT.-- Lastexpofan ( talk) 01:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I mean, I don't know exactly when he was killed, but judging from the local time here (EST), I'm guessing he was killed in the early morning, so shouldn't it be the 2nd instead of the 1st? Bmecoli ( talk) 04:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC) correct! thank you for pointing that out.
If we treated all deaths as UTC rather than local time we could end up changing a lot of people's death dates, and in some cases it might not be easy to establish the exact time of death. Bin Laden is of greater global significance than most, but it would be difficult to know where to draw the line e.g. the death of President Kennedy? PatGallacher ( talk) 21:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This image has metadata saying it was taken at 2011:05:01 16:05:04. I don't know what time zone that is supposed to be. -- Ysangkok ( talk) 08:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The 'net sez 34°08′46″N 73°13′01″E / 34.14611°N 73.21694°E is the location of the compound. Here's a picture on Flickr of that building: [3] Abductive ( reasoning) 06:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
~~~~
.
Abductive (
reasoning)
06:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
203.31.40.68 ( talk) 07:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Based on the present text in the main page "Karachi's Geo News described a helicopter crash and "heavy firing" on the evening of May 1 "near the PMA (Pakistan Military Academy) Kakul Road"" It seems possible that the actual compound location is not as indicated but closer to the PMA.
203.31.40.68 ( talk) 08:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Al Jazzera reports the compound was within a few hundred metres of the PMA
[cricobr talking] At the moment there appear to be two places on Wikimapia which claim to be the compound: the more extravagant compound which which is currently identified in the article: 34°11′14″N 73°14′32″E / 34.18722°N 73.24222°E, and the simpler, but also large, and more isolated compound at: 34°10′09″N 73°14′33″E / 34.169275°N 73.242588°E. Just now I have found this image from the New York Times front page: [4] which I believe fits closer to the second of the two compounds. I believe the photo shows the compound as seen from the north. The roof lines and the protected terrace at the back fit with the satellite image. Notice also the steep hills behind the house; these hills fit with the steep hills which rise to the south of the house as seen on: [5] (map centred on the second compound). There is also an electricity pylon in the photo which may help in identification, though it does not seem to be identifiable on the satellite images. I propose that the location coordinate be altered to the second coord, as the more isolated, less ostentatious, house is the more probable hiding place, and fits better with the NYT photo.
Cricobr ( talk) 15:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
[cricobr talking] About 1.5 kms almost directly south of the second compound mentioned above is an electricity substation: [6]
Running north from that substation appears to be a line of pylons at approximately 300m intervals (the shadows at the following locations are virtually identical):
If we are to trust the NYT photo the compound is almost certainly the second compound cited above. I will now change the coord in the article.
Cricobr ( talk) 15:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The article currently talks about the compund being on an "imposing hilltop", but it's difficult to reconcile that with photos and aerials etc of the compound which seems to be increasingly accepted as the right one, which appears to be in flat valley bottom. ( http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/02/world/asia/abbottabad-map-of-where-osama-bin-laden-was-killed.html) 66.134.170.155 ( talk) 17:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
"Mansion" is a misleading phrase to discuss the building in which the Bin Ladin raid occurred. "Compound" is a neutral word. As it was a residence that was heavily fortified "fortified house" is accurate. "Mansion" is filled with suppositions, which have no relevance, or accurate citation. The BBC story used as a citation, refers to it repeatedly as a "compound," the use of "Havili" is a local generalization of the residences in that district and have no direct relationship to the "compound" in question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.171.238 ( talk) 23:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be at either:
125.162.150.88 ( talk) 08:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
"Despite overrunning the Taliban and al-Qaeda positions they failed to capture or kill him." Thanks Captain Obvious. Wouldn't have known that if it wasn't in here... <sarcasm> tag just in case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.113.201.240 ( talk) 18:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Please change this citation (currently #31) to Osama Death from Obama Death.
Accuracy of specific details is questionable in this (and most) blogs. The USAF has not had MH-53 Pave Lows in its inventory (in any component) for three years. The only CSAR helicopter is the MH-60. The CV-22 replaced the MH-53 in the CSAR role.-- Reedmalloy ( talk) 18:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Main text para 2 - the house was "built in 2005" according to Reuters - the BBC right now [12] have local residents saying it was built "about 10 years ago" - interesting because of course it would mean OBL was there for a long time. Also note in the BBC article that residents talk about "armour plated cars entering and leaving regularly" - now who could possibly drive in armour plated cars around an army town other than government officials, ISI, etc? Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 18:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Should we used {{ operational plan}} or {{ infobox military conflict}}? User:Themane2 kept on forcing the use {{ infobox military conflict}}. I was told by several editors earlier that {{ operational plan}} is better because this was not exactly a battle and there weren't clear "commanders" in this operation. Any thoughts?— Chris! c/ t 02:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
State department has since clarified that neither UBL, nor any other household occupant, used a woman/wife as a human shield. This seems like clear misinformation meant to tarnish a reputation, and should be removed in line with NPOV. 98.237.115.154 ( talk) 03:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It's barely one day into this article and it looks really smooth. Thanks to every contributor for making Wikipedia look so good. — AjaxSmack 03:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Why does this article use "Abbottābad" when the article is at Abbottabad? "Abbottābad" isn't even listed as an alternate spelling in the Abbottābad article. -- JaGa talk 06:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Parts of this article are getting so detailed it might be worth considering a fork to a separate for some of the material, i.e. details on the hunt and the raid. jengod ( talk) 06:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Why the SEALs were given vs other Special Forces? Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 08:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, 'Special Forces' is a particular type of Army personnel. Special Operations Forces (or SOF) is the more correct term. And why the SEALs? Heck, why not?
Closed there is already a move discussion open. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Death of Osama bin Laden → Death of Osama bin Laden/edits 1 –
I would like to suggest adding the coordinates of the bin Laden compound to Google Earth, so that this article appears in that application.
I have seen how to do this at
this wikihow article but don't know whether this is a common practice, and also don't have the experience to do this myself.
DylanTusler (
talk)
11:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Socrates2008 ( Talk) 12:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states that bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed. It cites an article from the guardian as support for this statement. The article contains no information that supports this proposition. As a result, particularly because the statement is somewhat inflammatory, proper sourcing should be found or that sentence should be deleted entirely.
Additionally, other accounts, including the official account, state that bin Laden "resisted" the SEALs. What this means is unclear, and so it is possible that he could have been armed.
Either way, this should be dealt with.
98.218.224.53 ( talk) 15:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I see we currently state that the helicopter was lost as a result of a stall. The Guardian has it that it was fired on by RPG before the crash. It seems there is some doubt over the cause; could the article reflect this? -- John ( talk) 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Can somebody screen the article for duplicate refs? -- Tyw7 ( ☎ Contact me! • Contributions) → To be or not to be? 18:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I am seeing a mysterious error message: ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named secretteam; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text
Me and User:Geniice have checked the page but couldn't see any glaring errors. If anybody can fix it, please do! Also do tell how this is fixed as this error have eluded me for minutes! -- Tyw7 ( ☎ Contact me! • Contributions) → Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The raid was carried out by 20 to 25 helicopter-borne United States Navy SEALs from the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU) under the command of the Joint Special Operations Command, led by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). According to The New York Times, "79 commandos and a dog were involved."[64] Additional personnel on the mission included "tactical signals, intelligence collectors, and navigators using highly classified hyperspectral imagers."[32]
mentions 20-25
but the below sentence says 4
The SEALs flew from Afghanistan to Tarbela Ghazi Airbase in northwest Pakistan.[65] The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, a U.S. Army airborne special operations unit nicknamed the "Night Stalkers," provided four modified Black Hawk helicopters, two of which were intended to be backups.[56][60][32][66] The raid was scheduled for a time with little moon luminosity so the helicopters could enter Pakistan "low to the ground and undetected."[67]
-- Tyw7 ( ☎ Contact me! • Contributions) → For the people, of the people, by the people 20:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph says 20 to 25 SEALs, not 20-25 helicopters. Kevin ( talk) 20:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
20-25 SEALs used, not helicopters. 20-25 helicopters would be ridiculous. Side note, did the SEALs arrive in one helicopter, or 2? I know one stalled and they put her down, but was there another dropping the SEALs off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.86.147 ( talk) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone verify if there is in fact a leaked autopsy photo, and if so post it? It would be public domain as a work by a US government employee. There have been several going around and noone seems able to verify whether they are legitimate of fake. Somedaypilot ( talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't Osama's date of death be listed as May 1 as he was actually killed that date? *duplicate message asked at Osama bin Laden -- Tyw7 ( ☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Gotta catch 'em all! 21:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This article was praised to the skies on NPR this morning. Here's a transcript. Everyone who worked on it should be proud, you pwnd twitter! ;-) And whoever knows which template to use to say "this article was mentioned in the news by ..." should probably put that up at the top of this (talk) page, too. Good on you, everyone! – OhioStandard ( talk) 21:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. This article is not titled Operation Geronimo. With all due respect to the Navy SEALs it concerns a previous attempt on Bin Laden's life, and it concerns him, a human being. So until the government releases video of his death or burial at sea, please leave a picture of this person up top. Thank you. - SusanLesch ( talk) 21:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this piece of information does belong somewhere in the article. But I'm not sure where?
NEW DELHI: It now turns out that Indian agencies had twice warned their US counterparts about the presence of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden in an urbanized and heavily populated area not very far from Islamabad – once in mid-2007 and again in early 2008 when they specifically mentioned his likely presence in a cantonment area. -Abhishikt 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
People keep adding the "military conflict" infobox for Operation Geronimo. Consensus so far on this page has been that the "military/civil operation" infobox is more appropriate. Cla68 ( talk) 22:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Operation Geronimo should be separated out of this article. A large amount of information is beginning to come out about the military operation, and it's only going to increase over the next few days. The section on the operation is already to the point where it is too much to comfortably fit into this article. Also, the fact that this article has 2 infoboxes is even more evidence that the military operation needs its own article. Rreagan007 ( talk) 00:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a note to everyone. Someone start a split discussion on Talk:Operation Geronimo. I have no idea why the discussion is there instead of here.— Chris! c/ t 03:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Please discuss your reservations on conspiracy theory here. The section which I have added is well cited from major news outlets including Reuters, Wall Street Journal, and Guardian. Jalal0 ( talk) 12:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the section which I have added.
Bin Laden Sea Burial Conspiracy |
---|
Many have questioned the wisdom behind immediate burial of Bin Laden in a ocean. Ocean burial is rare in Islamic
Fiqh, and only carried out in exceptional circumstances. The fear of Bin Laden land burial being marked is irrational as well, since the
Wahhabi/
Salafi tradition rejects burial in marked grave. Even Saudi kings are buried in unmarked graves.
[1] This has fueled fear of conspiracy theory regarding the factual death of Bin Laden.
[2]
In addition, the immediate burial at sea has also been question, the 24-hour rule has not always been applied by the US in the past. For example, the bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein – sons of the Iraqi dictator – were held for 11 days before being released for burial. [1] People in Egypt have even argued that Bin Laden died long time ago, [3] and the current death rehearsal is gain political gains, such as Obama re-election and US exit from Afghanistan. In addition, no video footage of a dead Bin Laden has been made publicly available. And the only picture released of his mutilated face has inconsistencies, there was odd pixilation and blurring and his face was darker in some areas than others. [4] And according to Reuters technical analysis, the picture is in fact fake. [4] MSNBC technical analysis gives a verdict of the photo being fake. [5] |
Comment Maybe this section should be titled "Controversy" instead of Conspiracy theory. Questioning the wisdom of some of the decisions is not a conspiracy, and the sources are sighted and represent neutrality. USchick ( talk) 13:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
There will always be controversy surrounding high profile cases, so there should be a section simply for neutrality. Another controversy is that the Pakistani government did not know about such a large building in the middle of their training area. USchick ( talk) 13:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
If it is true they buried him at sea – given the short time frame – they most likely dumped him of a helicopter. I do not know if this meets the requirements for ocean burial in Islamic Fiqh. I would guess burial at sea would require being lowered from a ship. Do we know the name of a ship? Somehow this reminds me of how the Argentine junta handled its political opponents: burial at see – while still alive. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not generally one for conspiracies, but the immediate disposing of bin Laden's body does strike me as odd. There are skeptical people quoted in reliable sources, so that skepticism is worthy of mention. [16] [17] The strangest part is that there has been no photographic proof offered. [18] When Saddam was captured, the first news reports included a photo of him. [19] If the US had the time to conduct a DNA test and a proper Islamic burial, surely they had time to take photographs. The longer it takes for those photographs to appear, the more suspicious it seems. Fnordware ( talk) 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This source says the burial happened on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Carl Vinson in the North Arabian Sea at 2 a.m. Washington time.
-- Petri Krohn ( talk) 19:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Peace,
Dave
You can help!
00:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Taken literally "Conspiracy" "Theory" - is not a POV problem. It is a statement of fact - that some believe (have a theory) that the government has conspired to lie to the world. Therefore, calling something a "conspiracy theory" is entirely appropriate when it involves such an idea. And if/when a theory is proven, we change the name to "conspiracy". So no, labeling something a "conspiracy theory" is not a POV problem - it's just a statement of fact. Rklawton ( talk) 03:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
We need to make sure the SEALs are not also called "soldiers" on this page. Soldiers are only in the Army just as Sailors are in the Navy, airmen in the USAF, etc. TexianPolitico ( talk) 12:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please add a link or ref for the following: The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip condemned the killing of a "Muslim and Arab warrior". or remove it. I could not find any mainstream source of this statement.
Thanks
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: "Support for the fork is almost unanimous" - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 20:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden --> Death of Osama bin Laden
This is an unnecessary content fork. It is a part of the "Aftermath" and should be in that section, rather than its own page. Most quotes will be nearly identical, and can be summed up without being included at length. – Muboshgu ( talk) 16:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
POLITICO is now reporting that some conspiracy theorists are spreading rumors that bin Laden's capture and/or death was faked. Cindy Sheehan is one of these, as is Alex Jones. The source is here: [26] 173.165.239.237 ( talk) 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Should 194.254.137.114 be blocked as a troll? Rklawton ( talk) 19:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
It's typical of conspiracy theorists, when they don't understand something or don't have all the facts, to argue that the problem lies elsewhere. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Sheehan and Jones are in no position to know any inside facts, so while they may be raising interesting questions that need to be answered, any claims they might make are based on nothing, and hence are irrelevant. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
And so it begins. Idiocy ascendant. Because of this drivel, there will eventually be an article titled something like "Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories". -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
It's quite possible that this "deather" conspiracy theory will take off much like the "birther" one did. Until it proves its lasting and pervasive nature, though, let's leave it be. – Muboshgu ( talk) 14:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Could there be a section with the legal qualification of this event, such as wilful or premeditated murder? (Any sources or links thereto?) 178.41.75.206 ( talk) 22:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
unsigned comment added by Djkernen ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
We also have the Pakistan foreign ministry and Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights questioning the legality of the operation.More people here questioning it as well Legal issues, Best to have a section with the views of those for and those against. Owain the 1st ( talk) 14:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I have added a legality section with views from various lawyers, human rights organisations and the Americans, Pakistanis.etc. Owain the 1st ( talk) 16:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Please correct the courier man real name as Sheikh Abu Ahmed. We can also consider adding details how this courier man was located. For more details, please see, Phone call by Kuwaiti courier led to bin Laden Jalal0 ( talk) 04:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Please note: the proper English expression is "courier" not "courier man". Tvoz/ talk 07:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not the courier's real name. The pseudonym given is "Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti". "al-Kuwaiti" just means "a man from Kuwait". So "Sheikh Abu Ahmed, a man from Kuwait" is the same name as the pseudonym. The name given in the Wikileaks files of Faraj al-Libi is "Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan". This is the real name also given in a CBS article. Unfortunately the referenced article gets it wrong and should be deleted as incorrect and confusing. However, this is basically "original research" even though it is obvious. What is the procedure for getting rid of an incorrect reference from a reliable source? -- Mujokan ( talk) 14:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
It's all still pretty confusing. In the section Identity of the courier we learn that:
Both are sourced from reliable sources, but it seems to me that (assuming there is one specific courier whose trail led to the discovery) they can't be both correct. An earlier statement that there were conflicting news reports was removed. I don't see reliable sources stating that these two monikers (Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan and Sheikh Abu Ahmed, aka Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti) refer to the same person; they either use one name or the other. For all I know, the suggestion that they are different names for one person is an inference drawn by a Wikipedia editor. In fact, I see two (non-RS) sources that also signal the existence of conflicting reports: Another Version of the Osama Bin Laden Courier Story; In aftermath of bin Laden raid, new intelligence, shifting accounts. -- Lambiam 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I cut out a reference saying the courier's real name is Sheikh Abu Ahmed and that he is a Pakistani. As can be seen from the appellation "al-Kuwaiti", he was originally from Kuwait. I am happy for this dispute to go to arbitration -- namely, whether the real name of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti is Sheikh Abu Ahmed. It is obvious to me and I think to most people that the name "Abu Ahmed" is the same in both cases, that Sheikh is merely an honorific and that al-Kuwaiti is a designation of origin in exactly the same way as al-Libi means "the Libyan". It is silly to think it would take years for the CIA and DOD to realize that Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti was the same person as Sheikh Abu Ahmed. If people want to edit this section, please expand the paragraph that talks about the confusion over the name rather than having two flatly contradictory references as to the "real name" of the courier. If it turns into an edit war, let's just have a discussion and come to one definitive conclusion. -- Mujokan ( talk) 00:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
User Art and Muscle has reverted my original edit several times, and insists on putting a contradictory reference to the real name of the courier in the middle of a sentence, where in my opinion it is likely to generate confusion. This is particularly the case as there is a later paragraph on the contradiction in names found in different sources. I had already mentioned this problem on his or her talk page and put in an edit summary referring Art and Muscle to this section of this talk page. I would appreciate it if others could come up with a way to deal with the contradiction in names without simply having two different names given as the real name of the courier, with no explanation. I won't revert his or her edits again, but I think it is clear that there must be a better solution to this problem. -- Mujokan ( talk) 01:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear about the issue. If the real name of the courier were "Sheikh Abu Ahmed", this would be the equivalent of saying that it took the US Department of Defense two years to find out that a man known as "John Smith from New York" had the real name "Mr. John Smith". If one newspaper said this, and another said that they discovered his real name was "Mike Jones", common sense would incline you to think the latter was correct. On top of this, there are very good sources, including a classified Department of Defense file, giving his real name as "Mike Jones". Now, eventually the real name will be properly established, so this is not such a big deal. However, I don't think it's a good idea to keep the current status quo saying "The courier Mike Jones, who used the pseudonym "John Smith from New York", and whose real name is Mr. John Smith, a native of Texas..." My edits have been reverted several times without discussion, so if others want to get involved that would be great. A solution would be to expand the current paragraph saying "There is confusion over whether the real name of John Smith from New York is Mike Jones or Mr. John Smith".-- Mujokan ( talk) 01:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I took it upon myself to cut this sentence "In 2007, US officials discovered the courier's real name, Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan, and, in 2009, that he lived in Abbottābad, Pakistan" from the "Locating Osama Bin Laden" section because it was not helpful and confusing, was not supported by its first citation, the second a CBS News video cast I didn't sit through, and appears to be a misundestanding of a Wikileaks item mentioned in some newspapers, for example here.
However he and the Wikileaks item does seem notable for the article, especially because of the fascinating suggestion the US brought the raid forward for fear of the Wikileaks item compromising its security. FightingMac ( talk) 09:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This NYT article sheds a lot of light on how the courier's identity was determined. Brmull ( talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Information about Operation Geronimo is expanding at a astonishing rate. In order to capture all verified information, I suggest we fork the raid information to Operation Geronimo.
Do you agree or disagree?
Would help out our newbie editors if we were not using the non normal references format. Not the best idea to introduce the most complicated referencing type at this time in a new and very active article. Moxy ( talk)......................
I think there is a bit of confusion about the types of choppers involved in the operation : the assault team was inserted via US Army MH-60 Blackhawks and not via HH-60 Pavehawks, the latter being used by the USAF in case a search and rescue operation is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.128.253 ( talk) 08:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Was it also computer generated as with Odyssey Dawn? Other dictionaries are better ( talk) 10:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I created two subsections for the locating of bin Laden, one regarding the identity of the courier and one regarding the location of the compound. I gave the timeline as best I can make it out from reading accounts on the web. I tried to give references for everything.
I think this split makes the article easier to read and understand. I added one piece which may well count as original research, though I did reference two Wikipedia articles to make my case. This is that Sheikh Abu Ahmed from Kuwait and Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti are the same name. This seems obvious to me, but it may not fit Wikipedia policy.
Hope this is OK. -- Mujokan ( talk) 15:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems like I screwed up the reference syntax though it looked OK on the preview. Will try to fix it now. -- Mujokan ( talk) 15:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rename article to Operation Geronimo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.146.10 ( talk) 15:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
by that logic operation red dawn should be renamed something like the capture of sadam hussien 82.40.4.248 ( talk) 17:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to create a timeline of the actions that took place. Not only the raid of the compound but also the address made by Obama to the american people, the burial of bin Laden and so on. Also there are times in the Exif-Datas of the White House images, which perhaps also could be "translated" into an timeline which only uses one time zone. Good idea? -- Pilettes ( talk) 19:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with these sentiments, but I don't think it belongs in the lead sentence, or even the lead section. It is not clear what the time is referring to - the beginning of the raid? the end of the raid? the time of bin Laden's death? Also, it slows down the flow of the introductory sentence and is too much detail for that placement. Move it to the body of the article, but clarify what exactly that time represents. Tvoz/ talk 22:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a table can be made like:
Action | Pakitani time | UTC |
---|---|---|
... | May ---, --:-- | May --- --:-- |
Obama is giving green light for the raid | May ---, --:-- | May --- --:-- |
Choppers leaving base | May ---, --:-- | May --- --:-- |
Choppers arriving at compound | May ---, --:-- | May --- --:-- |
... | May ---, --:-- | May --- --:-- |
Bin Laden is buried at USS Vinston | May ---, --:-- | May --- --:-- |
... | May ---, --:-- | May --- --:-- |
I mean, there are facts availabe (even if it is only an esteem) that can be displayed in a table. Of course there there will be coming more and more facts to light, but I think the matrix is availabe (and the facts that keep coming can easily be inserted and specified in the table -- Pilettes ( talk) 09:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC).
Does this section look fine:
==Domestic political effects in the United States==
In the United States, commentators and analysts have discussed the possible political effects of bin Laden's death. Statistician Nate Silver of the New York Times predicted that significant near-term improvement in President Obama's approval rating, but cautioned against overestimating the bin Laden death's long-term impact on Obama's prospects for reelection in the 2012 presidential election. [6] Later, Silver cautioned against underestimating the electoral implications of bin Laden's death. [7] A Washington Post/ Pew Research Center poll taken shortly after the event showed that 56 percent of Americans say they approve of Obama's performance in office overall, the highest rating for Obama since 2009 and nine percentage points higher than an ABC News/Washington Post poll found the previous month. [8]
The successful operation also seemed to burnish the reputation of the CIA and its director, Leon Panetta. [9] [10]
After the operation was announced, Obama was praised even by Republicans who have been sharply critical of him, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, former New York City mayor and presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani, and Republican real estate businessman and potential presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. [11] Michael D. Shear of the New York Times wrote that the bin Laden raid complicates the Republican message in the 2012 message, as it might undermine the assertion that Obama was weak and indisive, a charge leveled at the president during the Middle East and North Africa protests in 2010 and 2011. [12] [13]
This seems an appropriate length and covers enough ground. One user reverted on the article page and has an objection; I would appreciate it if that user could explain his or here objections here. Neutrality talk 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
If I may say, I think the resistance is to your first paragraph. Rewrite your proposal, starting with your final paragraph; give a little elucidation to the part about the CIA; and leave out self-contradictory prognostications and incomplete polls. Should effects actually happen, we can add them then. I'm willing to bet you'll have a more supportive response to that. Abrazame ( talk) 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a reliable source reporting on the conspiracy theories disputing this so called "burial at sea". [30] [31] Notable anti-war activist Cindy_sheehan is publicly questioning the official story. It is seems very strange that only hours after killing him, the US would hide the body deep in the ocean leaving absolutely no proof that it was actually Osama. The pictures of his death haven't been released. Test results can be forged and it seems amazing that the DNA testing was done so quickly. If reuters and the la times is reporting the controversy then Wikipedia should report it too.-- RaptorHunter ( talk) 00:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
GEO News is saying that bin Laden's son who was killed was named "Ibrahim." Who is "Ibrahim"? Cla68 ( talk) 01:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
ABC World News reported tonight May 3, 2011 that the name of the operation was Operation Neptune Spear, NOT Geronimo. Geronimo was just bin Laden's code name. Would those with edit access (as the article has been locked) correct the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.185.15 ( talk) 02:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Hold off on adding this. According to our own article, the name Operation Neptune (aside from being a WWII operation) already appears as a 2005 event in the List of military operations in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present). It seems odd to me they would reuse the name for this associated operation. We're not here to break news but to encyclopedically present what is covered in reliable sources, and I concur that Tweets are not a reliable source — in part because they are not fact-checked; they are not proofread; they are not comprehensive. Let's wait for some clarity before we confuse the issue further. Abrazame ( talk) 02:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
More sources [36] [37] Rklawton ( talk) 07:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI, there is now a page Osama bin Laden's hideout compound which ought to be a merged to this article or to Location of Osama bin Laden. I don't feel like having another contentious debate while this story is still hot, but maybe later somebody wants to make the effort. Also, there is a piece of WP:SYNTHESIS, Osama bin Laden bodyguard, and the overwrought Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden. Abductive ( reasoning) 07:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
In Conspiracy theories: "the speed of the DNA results has lead to...". The correct spelling in UK English is "led". Is "lead" correct in American English? Biscuittin ( talk) 08:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Could someone who understands math please convert "at midday on May 1" (presumably EST) in the planning graph to UTC and add that information? Thank you. jengod ( talk) 16:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Please be on the lookout for reports that provide first names for the brother and wife of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti who were apparently killed in the raid. jengod ( talk) 16:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/world/asia/04compound.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1304539227-DvxoUKcft5zqG02FxS8Rfw jengod ( talk) 20:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
There are three operation names in the article. The actual section calls it Geronimo. The lead calls it Neptune Spear. And the infobox calls it Neptune's Spear. So which one is the actual name? I am not sure since I didn't follow the story. I think the article should be consistent and uses the same one.— Chris! c/ t 17:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)